1

The University of Edinburgh

Internal Periodic Review

Guidance Notes for Schools & Subject Areas

2020/21

2

The guidance contains information for Schools/Subject Areas preparing for an Internal Periodic Review In addition to this guidance, a series of briefing meetings is provided by Internal Review support (Academic Services):

• Early preparation session with Head of School and Academic Lead • Annual introductory briefing (currently March) for Schools being reviewed in the coming

academic year, and for internal members of review teams • A briefing on writing the Reflective Report

Information and advice for Schools/Subject Areas 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 Periodic Review contacts : internalreviewsupport@ed.ac.uk Gillian Mackintosh: Academic Policy Officer, Academic Services, Susan Hunter: Academic Policy Officer, Academic Services, Linda Hannah: Administrative Assistant, Academic Services,

3

Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 Summary of the stages of the review process 5 3 Early preparations 7 3.1 Agreement of semester for review visit 7 3.2 Individual early preparation sessions 7 3.3 Timing of reviews 7 3.4 Academic Lead role & School/Subject Area Admin Support person role 7 3.5 Nomination of external team members 8 3.6 Agreeing date for review visit 9 4 Student Engagement 10 4.1 Information on student involvement 10 4.2 Student engagement with subject specific remit items & Reflective Report 10 4.3 Student engagement during the review 10 4.4 Student engagement after the review 11 5 Preparatory meetings 13 5.1 Annual briefing meeting 13 5.2 Review information meeting 13 5.2.1 Academic Lead key actions prior to the meeting 13 6 The Remit 14 6.1 The University remit 14 6.2 The remit meeting 14 6.3 Academic Lead key actions prior to the meeting 15 6.4 Academic Lead key actions following the meeting 15 7 Review visit preparations 17 7.1 Drafting of review visit schedule 17 7.2 7.3

Academic Lead key actions School/Subject Area Admin Support person key actions

17 18

8 Documentation for the review 20 8.1 Reflective Report 20 8.2 Supporting documentation 20 9 The Review Visit 21 9.1 Academic Lead key actions 21 10 Review report and follow-on 22 10.1 Review report 22 10.2 Review report timeline 22 10.3 Approval of review reports 23 10.4 14 week response report 23 10.5 1 year-on report 23 10.6 10.7 10.8

Student engagement following the review External access to review reports Review feedback

24 24 24

The forms/templates referred to in this guidance can be found in the wiki page [EASE protected]

4

1. Introduction The University’s Internal Periodic Review process covers all undergraduate and postgraduate provision. Provision is reviewed based on advice from the School and College as to which programmes are best suited to be reviewed together. 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 Periodic 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

School/Subject Area 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

5

2. Summary of the stages of the review process

Early Preparations Semester 1 of the session preceding the review

Agreement of Semester for review visit – initiated by Internal Review support (Academic Services) with School ; early discussion about preparation for review, including agreeing scope of review, School to identify Academic Lead

semester 2 of the session preceding the review

Internal review team membership confirmed by Internal Review support (Academic Services)

semester 2 of the session preceding the review

Head of School nominates 2 possible external reviewers and submits the names of nominees to Assistant Principal Academic Standards & Quality Assurance (APASQA) via Internal Review support (Academic Services) for approval

semester 2 of the session preceding the review

Once approved external reviewers are formally invited by Internal Review support (Academic Services) to participate in review

semester 2 of the session preceding the review

Internal Review support (Academic Services) liaises with review team members to agree date for review visit

Once date of review agreed

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

Once date of review agreed

Review information meeting can take place from this point onwards and should take place before the remit meeting

The Remit Meeting once date of review agreed

Internal Review support (Academic Services) arranges the Remit Meeting date in conjunction with Subject Area/School

once date of review agreed

School/ Subject Area to consider items for the subject specific remit including items from students

4 months prior to review

Remit Meeting convened by APASQA

Review Visit Preparations following remit mtg

Head of School/Subject Area or nominee starts to prepare Reflective Report. The Academic Lead and School Admin Support person (review), start to collate documentation for the wiki

following remit mtg

Draft schedule prepared for review visit. Review team administrator leads in conjunction with Convener, Academic Lead and School Admin Support person (review)

6 wks prior to review visit

Internal Review support (Academic Services) uploads Reflective Report and supporting documentation to the Internal Review wiki

3 wks prior to review visit

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

Approx 2 wks prior to review visit

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

Approx 1 wk prior to review visit

Following Final Preparation meeting, review team administrator finalises the schedule, briefing notes and circulates to review team. Finalised schedule circulated to Academic Lead and School Admin Support person (review)

6

Review Visit – normally 2 days Review Report on Follow-on 2 wks after review visit

Review team administrator sends draft report to Convener and APO (Academic Services) for initial comment and amendment

3 wks after review visit

Review team administrator sends report to review team members for comment and amendment

6 wks after review visit

Review team administrator sends draft report to Academic Lead and School Admin Support person (review) for correction of factual errors

8 wks after review visit

The School/Subject Area highlight any factual errors in the draft report and return the draft report to 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 review visit

Final report submitted to Internal Review support (Academic Services) by the review team 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 to as appropriate

Following receipt of final report

Head of School/Subject Area starts to prepare response to the recommendations

14 weeks after School/Subject Area receives final report

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

1 year after receipt of final report

School/Subject Area makes year-on response to Internal Review support (Academic Services) for submission to Senate Quality Assurance Committee. Following submission to the committee the 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

For each review, Internal Review support (Academic Services) produces a detailed timetable for the stages in the review, with dates allocated to each of the stages. This is used by the Academic Lead and School Admin Support person (review) for their actions throughout the process.

7

3. Early preparations 3.1 Agreement of semester for review visit The Assistant Principal Academic Standards and Quality Assurance (APASQA) writes to the relevant Head of School (copied to Head of Subject Area) in the academic year prior to that in which the review is scheduled to take place, requesting information to assist with scheduling the review and outlining early preparations that can be started. This is normally done in October/November of the academic year prior to that of the review. 3.2 Individual early preparation sessions Around November/December of the academic year prior to that of the review, individual early preparation sessions are held for Schools/Subject Areas with the Assistant Principal Academic Standards and Quality Assurance supported by Internal Review support (Academic Services) as an introduction to the process. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the scope of the review. Consideration should also be given at this stage as to the timing of the next accreditation visit, and whether there is scope for scheduling it and the review together, and to any specific PSRB review requirements which should be taken account of in the University’s review. Reviews are held in both Semesters. With early preparation there is no automatic advantage to scheduling a review in Semester 2. Schools should bear in mind that reviews held towards the end of Semester 2 coincide with the busy period of the end of teaching. 3.3 Timing of reviews

General Reviews are normally held in October to December, or January to March

Avoid Flexible Learning Week (week 6 of Semester 2)

Avoid assessments periods because students are not available to meet with the review team Ensure that Head of School availability is confirmed before securing the review date

Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs)

Schools should consider timing of next accreditation visit and whether scope for scheduling it and the review in order to maximise core documentation that could be used. A number of options exist:

1. Alignment of review schedules 2. Reduced internal review 3. Involvement of PSRB members in review panels.

Schools/Subject Areas are invited to discuss with Internal Review support (Academic Services) ways in which unnecessary duplication of effort can be reduced and or/greater alignment between internal and external review processes can be achieved.

3.4 The Academic Lead role The Head of School or Head of Subject Area should identify a member of staff for the Academic Lead. It is essential that the appropriate person is appointed and that time is safeguarded to fulfil role requirements. It is useful for a Professional Services member of staff to support the role.

8

Internal Review support (Academic Services) provides support for these roles in the form of task checklists and briefing sessions.

Key features of role (supported by School/Subject Area Admin Support person (review))

Streamlines communication and organisation of the review

Single point of contact within the School/Subject Area for all issues concerning preparations for the review

Coordination of the overall management of the arrangements and planning for the review within the School/Subject Area, in conjunction with the review team administrator

Coordination of the School/Subject Area’s input to the remit meeting, including identification of the school-specific remit themes

Liaises with the review team administrator and convener on the review visit schedule

Responsibility for coordinating and supplying to Internal Review support (Academic Services) the supporting documentation for the review

Ensures that staff and students within the School/Subject Area are informed about the review in order to gain maximum engagement and benefit for the School

Consults within the School/Subject Area with colleagues as appropriate on the correction of any factual errors in the final report. He/she is responsible for ensuring that a complete sign off is agreed before returning to review team administrator

3.5 Nomination of external team members

The minimum review team comprises of: A convener (internal to the University) An internal member (internal to the University) Two external members (from out with 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. External team members The Head of School/Subject Area proposes two possible external reviewers for nomination to the APASQA for approval using the External Nomination form (see wiki). Supporting information must be provided for each person in relation to relevance, as well as current and previous association with the institution. External team members are appointed in the same context as external examiners, and Schools should refer to the UK Quality Code, Advice and Guidance: External Expertise

9

Please note that whilst informal enquiries can be made with the external members, nominations must be approved before a formal invitation is offered.

External members At least one external member should be an academic from within the discipline being reviewed.

Both do not need to be academics and they do not both need to

be very senior. It may be most appropriate in some reviews for the second external member to be from a PSRB or from industry

Should normally be from UK institutions, including a relevant

professional body or from industry External members will not normally be appointed if

They have been members of staff or students of the University, in the five years prior to the review or while the review is in process

They have been external examiners for the University, in the five years prior to the review or while the review is in process

They are significantly involved in recent or current substantive collaborative research activities with a member of staff closely involved in the delivery, management or assessment of the programme or courses in question

The external member fees, accommodation, travel costs and expenses are met by Academic Services budget. Details of current fee levels are available from Internal Review support (Academic Services) Overnight accommodation arrangements for the external members of the review team are made by Internal Review support (Academic Services). This will normally be for the night before the review and the night of the first day. Exceptionally, with the agreement of the APASQA and the Head of School, the external membership may be expanded and/or drawn from out with the UK. However it will be important in this case for the external member to have an understanding of the Scottish and/or UK HE system. The additional costs incurred are met by the School. 3.6 Agreeing date for the review visit Internal Review support (Academic Services) liaises with the Academic Lead and the review team to agree a date for the review. Internal Review support (Academic Services) will confirm the date of the review as appropriate.

10

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 Information to help Schools/Subject Areas explain the purpose of the review to students and to engage them in the process are on the wiki. These documents 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. A Student Representative can be invited to attend the remit meeting to speak to the student remit items. Schools and Subject Areas should consider how best to obtain input to the subject-specific remit and the Reflective Report. For example via a student staff liaison committee meeting, or an open forum meeting with students. In order to reach the wider student body, Schools/Subject Areas should consider reinforcing these communications by other means, e.g. through the relevant VLE. 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/Subject Areas 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 Where a Semester 1 review is scheduled for before the first meeting of the student staff liaison committee, Schools and Subject Areas can consider publicising the review early in the semester followed by a meeting with student representatives and other interested students to gather input to the review. Internal Review support (Academic Services) staff are available to attend these meetings, by arrangement, to answer any questions and provide any additional information about the process. The feedback from students is considered alongside other student feedback mechanisms such as the National Student Survey (NSS), Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) and Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES). This information will be included as part of the documentation required for the review and should be reflected upon in the Reflective Report. 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/Subject Area are not present during the student meetings, and no comments will be attributed to any individual students.

11

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 learning student. A template questionnaire for OL Students is on the wiki page. 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. A number of options exist for Schools/Subject Areas to set up meetings to enable OL students to participate such as Blackboard Collaborate, Skype for Business, Microsoft Teams or video conference. The timing of these meetings will need to take into account the availability of OL students who may have work commitments and time zone considerations. Blackboard Collaborate is the university supported virtual classroom/meeting tool which is available to all staff and students. All Staff and Students can create and access Blackboard Collaborate sessions directly in the Collaborate channel in MyEd. Blackboard Collaborate is also integrated in the University VLEs of Learn and Moodle. A wide range of guidance materials is available. https://www.ed.ac.uk/information-services/learning-technology/communication Skype For Business is a communications platform available to all staff and students allowing instant messaging, audio & video conferences and online meetings. Microsoft will retire Skype for Business on 31st July 2021. Microsoft Teams is available to all staff and students across campus and the use of this tool is encouraged. Microsoft Teams does chat and meetings similar to Skype but extends capabilities to include persistent chat, tailored apps configured for various role based scenarios, collaborations and more. https://www.ed.ac.uk/information-services/computing/comms-and-collab/office365/skype-for-business Video conference: videoconferencing suites located in the Central area, Kings Buildings and at Holyrood may be booked by members of staff using the v-scene management and scheduling service of janet. Advice and consultancy is also available for those wishing to procure and setup their own videoconferencing facilities https://www.ed.ac.uk/information-services/computing/comms-and-collab/videoconferencing

The timing of these meetings will need to take into account:

• the availability of OL students who have work commitments , • time zone considerations. • Allow students plenty of notice of the meeting • Ensure in advance that students can access whichever system is being used

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. The Schools/Subject Area’s response to the report should be included in student staff liaison committee meetings or other mechanisms. Comments should be invited on proposed actions.

12

The School/Subject Area should continue to invite students to feed in to progress on meeting the recommendations, through student staff liaison committees or other mechanisms as appropriate. See also Student engagement following the review in Section 10.6

13

5. Preparatory meetings 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 School/Subject Area as a basis for the remit meeting. These informal discussions may also help the School/Subject Area 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. It is also useful to note that at this point that the School/Subject Area will be asked to prepare for the remit meeting a summary report confirming that all the recommendations from the previous review have been met and where this is not the case, an outline of the circumstances/alternative actions taken. This is prepared for the purposes of the remit meeting.

5.2.1 Academic Lead key actions prior to the meeting Academic Lead should take the lead in this meeting

The meeting should take place prior to the remit meeting. It can take place as soon as the internal review team membership is confirmed. The timing of the meeting should be discussed with the review team administrator and the convener as to when is most appropriate

The Academic Lead arranges the date in discussion with Internal review support. The Academic Lead should invite any additional colleagues – see below.

Head of Subject Area/Graduate School, Academic Lead , School Admin Support person (review) role , review team administrator, and review team members internal to the University normally attend

Academic Lead should identify any additional colleagues (NB this is

not intended to be a large meeting) School Admin Support person (review) to arrange and book meeting

room in School/Subject Area and informs internal review support review team administrator Internal review support emails meeting attendees confirming date, time and location of meeting

Template agenda available on the wiki

14

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 and remit meeting agenda template can be found on the wiki 6.2 The remit meeting 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 School/Subject Area including student-generated items. These items should be discussed with College prior to the remit meeting to ensure strategic oversight. Schools/Subject Areas 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 School whose views on its provision should be sought as part of the review. These might include:

• Schools/Subject Areas who 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. Progress towards meeting the recommendations from the previous review will have been reported on annually in the Annual Programme Monitoring report and onwards to the College and University. However the School/ Subject Area should take stock of whether all recommendations have been completed, and consider any outstanding issues for inclusion in the subject-specific remit. Beyond this, the review will identify outstanding recommendations and will discuss these during the review visit.

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.

15

The School Admin Support person (review) should book the room and inform Internal Review support (Academic Services) of the location of the meeting.

Who attends The APASQA, Head of School, Head of Subject Area/Head of Graduate School (depending on scope of review), Academic Lead, School Admin Support person (review) School Director of Quality, and any other representatives from the School/Student body, College Dean/Associate Dean/Director of Quality Assurance, College Dean of Undergraduate studies, College Dean for Postgraduate Research/Taught (depending on scope of review), College Quality Officer/Administrator or equivalent role, 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 Development (IAD) role in Internal Review

There may be opportunities for the IAD to work with Schools/Subject Areas as they prepare for their reviews where it 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 will liaise with the IAD and the Academic Lead

6.3 Academic Lead key actions prior to the remit meeting Documentation to be supplied by the School for the remit meeting

• List of degree programmes and courses (via Academic Services)

• Proposals for the subject specific remit items • Summary report on completion of recommendations from

previous review to date Preparation of documentation

The Academic Lead is responsible for seeking input to the remit from the Head of School/Subject Area and the student body prior to the paper circulation deadline date. The Academic Lead should supply the review team administrator with the school -specific items for consideration at the remit meeting. The Academic Lead should supply the review team administrator with a summary report seeking confirmation from the previous review that all recommendations have been met and that any outstanding issues are identified at this point

Circulate documentation for the meeting

The review team administrator will circulate the agenda and papers at least 1 week before the meeting to the attendees

16

6.4 Academic Lead key actions following the remit meeting Final remit and note of actions

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

External bodies The Academic Lead supplies the review team administrator with the names of Schools, Institutions, PSRBs or employers to be asked for comment on the programmes under review. The review team administrator will email the relevant body inviting them to comment. Any responses will be included as part of the supporting documentation.

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

Follow up of remit items A potential outcome might be that some issues are identified to be more appropriate to be taken forward by the Institute for Academic Development (IAD) rather than as remit items for the review. It is anticipated that discussion at an early stage in the review process will help identify practice and effective steps that can be taken with the IAD, existing resources or practice relevant to the review itself.

Drafting review visit schedule

Following the remit meeting, the review team administrator, the convener, Academic Lead and the School Admin Support person (review) should start to work together to draft the review visit schedule

Drafting Reflective Report and collating supporting documentation

Following the remit meeting, the Academic Lead should coordinate the drafting of the Reflective Report and co-ordinate the preparation of documentation for review with the School Admin Support person (review). See Section 8 for further information

17

7. Review visit preparations 7.1 Drafting of review visit schedule Following the remit meeting, the review team administrator, the convener, Academic Lead and the School Admin Support person (review) will meet to draft the review visit schedule. The Academic Policy Officer, Academic Services will attend the first meeting on an advisory basis. Drafting of review visit schedule

Most reviews are held over two days, although this depends on the size and complexity of the School/Subject Area and its provision. Reviews normally start at approx. 9am on the first day and finish at approx. 5pm on the second day The schedule will be tailored for each review to match the remit and nature of the discipline The review team administrator should continue to work with the Convener and the Academic Lead to finalise the schedule and to confirm names for each of the meetings where possible. During the review visit, Schools/Subject Areas will be asked how they have engaged with students in the preparation of the Reflective Report

7.2 Academic Lead key actions Inviting meeting attendees The Academic Lead is responsible for inviting School/Subject

Area staff and students to the review meetings and alerting them to the review dates and their involvement at the earliest opportunity. Specific times for their slot will be notified at a later date.

The Head of School and the School senior management team

are normally invited to meet with the review team at the start of Day 1 and at the end of Day 2. The Academic Lead is responsible for ensuring that staff and students are suitably briefed ahead of the review visit e.g. circulating the reflective report as appropriate.

Involvement of Placement Providers/ Industrial Contacts

Where a review has placements or links with external providers as part of its programmes, the structure of the visit should include an appropriate meeting on placements or relevant questions should be included in specific meetings in the schedule. The Academic Lead is responsible for inviting any external contacts to the review meetings such as placement providers, industrial contacts.

Meeting with Students

Meetings with on campus students are normally held over a sandwich lunch on both days. It is important that students are encouraged to attend these meetings in sufficient numbers to give the review team a range of views. A separate room is often booked for this purpose so that larger numbers can be accommodated for these meetings

18

OL programmes For reviews including OL programmes consideration should be given at the earliest opportunity as to the most appropriate mechanism for engaging with students. Virtual meetings can be arranged however consideration needs to be given to the timing of these meetings to ensure that these can be arranged well in advance and at a time appropriate to the students. Another option includes circulating an anonymous questionnaire to students to gather feedback on their experience as an online learning student. It may also be useful to seek feedback from staff external to the university involved in the delivery of OL programmes. Further information about engaging with Online Learning students during the review visit can be found in Section 4.

7.3 School Admin Support person (review) key actions

Room requirements The School Admin Support person (review) arranges the meeting room/s for the review visit The main meeting room should be available from 8.30am – 5.30pm approx. and should be lockable to allow review team members to leave any papers overnight. This room will be used for the majority of the meetings therefore the School Admin Support person (review), Academic Lead and the review team administrator should discuss at an early point the likely maximum number of attendees at any one meeting to ensure that the room size is adequate The preferred room layout is boardroom style A larger meeting room is required for the student lunchtime meeting and for the final meeting of the review visit which is normally open to all members of School/Subject Area staff and students. The preferred layout for this room is lecture style. It is useful to ensure that there are adequate accessible power points in the meeting/s room to accommodate the increasing number of review team members using a laptop

Catering requirements The School/Subject Area is responsible for organising and

meeting the cost of catering for the review visit. Tea, Coffee and water should be available to the review team in their meeting room as indicated on the schedule, (jugs of tap water are sufficient) Internal review support will liaise with the School Admin Support person (review) regarding any special dietary requirements of review team members The APASQA hosts an informal dinner on the evening of the first day for the review team members only. The cost of the dinner is

19

met by Academic Services.

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 School staff or partners of the external team members to attend

20

8. Documentation for the review Following the remit meeting, the Academic Lead should coordinate the drafting of the Reflective Report and start to co-ordinate the collation of documentation for the review. 8.1 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. The responsibility lies with the Head of School to delegate the writing of the report to the appropriate member(s) of staff. The report should be signed off by the Head of School before submission. Once the Reflective Report is signed off by the Head of School, the Academic Lead should circulate the report within the School/Subject Area to the relevant members of staff who will be meeting with the review team in preparation for the visit. Internal Review support (Academic Services) can organise briefings for Schools on how to approach preparing the Reflective Report. Schools should contact Internal Review support (Academic Services) to arrange a date. Reports from previous reviews kindly provided by Schools are available by contacting Internal Review support (Academic Services). The guidance and template for the Reflective Report can be found on the wiki. Student engagement in development and drafting of the report Schools/Subject Areas are encouraged to consult with students on the Reflective Report, for example at Student Staff Liaison Committee (SSLC) meetings or an open forum meeting. This should be formally recorded in the SSLC minutes or as appropriate. During the review, Schools/Subject Areas will be asked how they have engaged with students in the preparation of the Reflective Report.

8.2 Supporting documentation The list of supporting documentation can be found on the wiki. 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 is required 6 weeks prior to the review date however this is the latest date for submission and it is helpful if documentation can be forwarded at the earliest opportunity. Once the documentation is collated it should be forwarded to internalreviewsupport@ed.ac.uk (Academic Services) for uploading onto the Internal Review wiki page.

21

9. The Review visit 9.1 Academic Lead key actions

The Academic Lead is the key contact with the review team during the review visit and should be available to ensure the smooth running during the review. The Academic Lead is normally invited to meet with the review team at the start of Day 1 and at the end of Day 2 along with the Head of School/Subject Area and School senior management team. The review team administrator will provide the Academic Lead and the School Admin Support person (review) with a contact number on which they can be reached. This is useful in case of any travel delays or review team illness immediately before the review visit

Internal review support are responsible for carrying out passport checks for the external and student review team members. This will be carried out prior to the start of the review therefore it would be useful for access to a photocopier to be arranged

It is occasionally the case during the visit that the review team requests an additional meeting with a member or group of School staff for the purpose of clarification or further discussion of an issue. Likewise, additional documentation is occasionally requested, but only where necessary. The Academic Lead will be the main contact to take forward these requests.

The final meetings of the review visit include meeting with the

School/Subject Area senior management team and an open meeting with staff and students at which the initial commendations and recommendations are presented. While they 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

22

10. Review report and follow-on 10.1 Review report The review report is structured according to the headings of the standard remit and the subject-specific remit items. The report identifies key strengths of the provision reviewed, together with commendations of good practice and recommendations for enhancement of the provision.

Review teams are made aware of strategic activity at University and College level when considering possible recommendations. This helps to align review recommendations to projects that are on-going, stops duplication of effort and could provide input to the project. 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 – (See section 10.7 External access to review reports) 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 (cc internalreviewsupport@ed.ac.uk)

3 weeks after the review Following receipt of the draft report from the Convener, the

review team administrator should make any necessary amendments and then send the draft review report to all review team members for comment and amendment (cc internalreviewsupport@ed.ac.uk) A deadline date of 3 weeks for receipt of comments should be confirmed with the review team

6 weeks after the review On receipt of any comments on the draft report, the necessary

amendments should 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/Subject Area 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 will make 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 the review The final report is completed following sign off.

23

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 reports 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 and summary reports to the Head of College, Head of School, Head of Graduate School/PG Director, liaison person, School Director of Quality, relevant College Dean for Quality, APASQA, review team, The Students’ Association and copied to all responsible for action. The report will be published on the Academic Services website once formally approved by Senate Quality Assurance Committee. Following formal approval by QAC, the School/Subject Area can dispose of any documents and communications relating to the review. Academic Services will advise School/Subject Area accordingly. Following receipt of the final report, the Subject Area or School takes forward action on the recommendations made by the review. The 14 week and Year on responses are submitted to the Senate Quality Assurance Committee to confirm that the Committee are content with progress. 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 review 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 14 week response should be completed following the guidance and template on the wiki. The School/Subject Area should forward the report to internalreviewsupport@ed.ac.uk The 14 week 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 should be completed following the guidance and template on the wiki. The School/Subject Area should forward the report to internalreviewsupport@ed.ac.uk

24

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 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. 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.

25

DOCUMENT CONTROL Impact assessment July 2015 Date of commencement May 2013 Amendment dates Updated July 2020 (version 11) Date for next review April 2021 Section responsible for policy maintenance & review

Academic Services

Related Policies, Procedures Guidelines & Regulations

Policies and procedures at http://www.ed.ac.uk/academic-services/policies-regulations