Periodic Review documentation
[Back to
periodic review home page]
On this page:
Approximately 2 months before the periodic review meeting
- Stage 1, including completion of the questionnaire
1 month before the periodic review
- Departments should submit their final documentation to ASPO
four weeks before the review meeting to allow time for ASPO to
organise the printing (copies can be sent via e-mail, the
University's dropbox service or on a data stick).
2 weeks before the periodic review meeting
- ASPO will send an outline agenda and supporting guidelines
with the Periodic Review documentation to the panel and to the
departmental team two weeks in advance of the Periodic Review
meeting.
The Stage 1 questionnaire and supporting information should be completed by
the Department and returned by e-mail to the Secretary of the review with a copy to ASPO.
For advice on completing the Stage 1 questionnaire, please contact ASPO or the
Secretary to the review.
Following consultation with the department and ASPO, the Secretary to the
review will complete a Stage 1 report highlighting key areas of good practice
and possible areas for improvement, which will be included in the Stage 2
documentation for consideration by the panel. Stage 1 should therefore be
completed in time for inclusion with the final Stage 2 documentation.
The most important document for the Stage 2 event is the Reflective Document
provided by the department under review. This should take the form of a
critical commentary cross-referenced to any other documentation provided and
should identify those issues the department would find it helpful to explore in
greater depth. Departments might find it useful to refer to the guidance
provided to panel members, including details of the areas covered during a
review when preparing for the event and producing documentation.
The Reflective Document is accompanied by additional documentation, details
of which are provided below.
The structure of the Reflective Document should correspond to the broad
agenda themes for periodic review and should include the following information:
-
Overview of the scope of the review
- A list of courses to which the review report
applies. For PGR provision, include the list of
approved research degree titles, with a comment
on recently discontinued titles or titles added
as a result of a review of the titles on offer.
- Details of any professional/statutory or
regulatory body accreditation (including
Research Council reports for PGR).
- Details of any course that includes study
abroad, work placement or work-based learning
(including how the department has addressed the
University's requirements as detailed in the
guidelines on work-based and placement learning).
- Brief information on the use of GTAs:
- how many GTAs the department
employs;
- the role of the GTA and
normal workload (inc maximum
workload permitted);
- how the Department supports
the professional development of
its GTAs, including training
provision;
- compliance with the Code of
Practice on GTAs in particular
arrangements for training,
mentoring and monitoring.
-
A brief introduction to the department
-
Main characteristics of the courses covered by the
review
-
The main characteristics of the course(s)
covered by the review – a short (no more than
two paragraphs) comment about the distinctive
features of the provision, including what
distinguishes it from provision at other
institutions.
-
An evaluation of the course(s) under review,
including major developments since validation or
the last periodic review. The evaluation should
cross reference to previous annual review of
courses
reports in order to avoid repetition of detail.
The evaluation should include, in summary, a
reflective account of the quality of the
provision under review and an indication of how
the course team see the provision developing
over the next few years and a rationale for any
changes planned.
The evaluation should draw upon a wide range
of evidence including statistical data, feedback
from students, employers and external examiners
and any relevant PSRB reports, and should be
structured under the following headings:
-
Curricula (including evidence
of how any relevant QAA subject
benchmark statements have
influenced the course(s) under
review).
-
Learning, teaching and
assessment (to include issues
arising from work-based
learning, placement learning or
study abroad).
-
Student recruitment,
retention, progression and
achievement and graduate
destinations.
-
Student support mechanisms.
-
Learning resources (including
staffing).
-
Issues
arising from External Examiner
feedback.
-
Any
other relevant issues.
- For professional doctorate or postgraduate research degree
provision, the reflective document should also cover how the
course team’s arrangements comply with the University’s
Code of Practice on Professional Doctorates and/or the
University’s
Code of Practice on Postgraduate Research Degrees.
-
A summary of the key themes for consideration at the
periodic review
- This is the department's opportunity to
clearly identify those issues the department
would find it particularly helpful to consider
as part of the periodic review. These would be
drawn from issues arising from the more detailed
evaluation of the courses and/or annual
monitoring reports.
-
The research environment (PG Research provision)
- Strategic vision: Outline the
strategic vision of the department in relation
to postgraduate research student matters,
including the major challenges and developments
planned for the next five years.
- Recruitment and Admissions:
Please comment on the recruitment and admissions
strategy and process used by the department,
including any factors which limit the
department's ability to expand recruitment
and/or any identified improvements to be made.
Please also comment on the quality of the
existing cohorts.
- Staffing:
Please comment on/describe the following:
- the number of supervisors
–including a breakdown of new
supervisors and experienced
supervisors;
- the number of students per
supervisor;
- The department’s approach to
workload allocation;
- the department’s
arrangements for complying with
the PRD Code (specifically
section 1.16, staff induction
and training);
- supervisory training
(departmental and attendance at
LDU provision);
- staff membership of
networks/groups/discussion
forums relating to research
student matters –such as Vitae
and UKCGE.
- The facilities available to research
students: Please comment on/describe
the following:
- arrangements for dedicated
office space, including the
departmental policy on
allocation and availability;
- equipment (PCs etc)
available;
- common room;
- other facilities.
- Research culture and student
experience:
- How does the Department
create a research community for
its research students – for
example, through student
induction, the research seminar
courses and integration of
students into the research
culture.
- Please provide comment
on the department’s PRES scores
for intellectual climate in the
last PRES.
- Are there any opportunities
for research students to
undertake a period of study
aboard, work placement or
work-based learning?
- Financial support for research
students: Please comment
on/describe the following:
- How the Department allocates
its University of Essex
Scholarships;
- other sources of funding,
including Research Council
studentships and/or
project-linked studentships;
- arrangements for funding is
made available to support
students to attend conferences.
- Supervisory arrangements:
Please comment on/describe the following:
- Departmental supervisory
arrangements;
- supervisory norms -
including frequency of
supervision (for full-time,
part-time and DL students) and
arrangements for joint
supervision, and standard
feedback timescales;
- arrangements for undertaking
the Training Needs Analysis
(TNA) for each student and
subsequent monitoring of the TNA;
- describe how progress is
monitored, including how the
department considers extenuating
circumstances claims and
monitors the progress of
Research Council-funded students;
- the recording of supervision
and the use of log books;
- arrangements for Supervisory
Boards and Research Student
Progress Committees, including
how the department ensures
arrangements for the SB and RSPC
comply with the Code of Practice;
- arrangements for
confirmation of status for MPhD
students;
- procedure for dealing with
problems with supervision;
- publication of progress
guidelines/milestones to
students;
- publication of departmental
criteria for confirmation of
status to students.
- Research training:
- Describe the departmental
research skills training
provided and approach to the
Training Needs Analysis.
Append any statement on research
training provision that has been
provided to the research
councils.
- Are students encouraged to
attend any skills/methodology
training from other department,
the Essex Summer School and/or
external provision?
- How does the department
monitor and review the provision
of research skills training
within the department, the
faculty and university-wide?
- Generic skills:
- Describe how the Department
supports research students to
acquire the following
transferable skills:
communication, IT,
employability.
- Are generic skills
identified as part of the TNA?
- How does the department
encourage students to seek
generic skills training from
other department, such as the
Learning and development Unit,
the REO, ISER and/or external
provision?
The following documentation should be provided to
support the Reflective Document.
Where information has been provided as part of another
item, it should only be included once (for example if external examiner reports
or actions following the previous periodic review have been included in the Annual
Review of Courses,
they do not need to be provided separately again).
-
Annual Review of Courses reports
- The last 3 years Annual
Review of Courses Reports. These support the reflective
document, providing evaluative information in relation to issues identified by
students, staff and external examiners.
-
Programme specifications, syllabus and modules maps
- These provide a broad overview of the course(s) and identify the course's
learning outcomes. They should also provide mapping to any relevant subject
benchmarks. Any proposed changes should be clearly identified for consideration
by the periodic review panel.
-
Most recent external examiner reports
- These should be submitted with the departmental
responses and relevant committee minutes.
-
Progression and retention statistics with department
commentary
- Available on the
dashboard or through the Planning Office, these statistics enable the
panel to identify any trends which might require exploration
during the meeting. For PGR, these should include a copy of the
Department's Research Degree Qualification Rates and data on research students
by degree and year of study, and should highlight good practice and enhancement
mechanisms.
-
Student survey results
- These should be submitted with the department's
response to the outcomes of both the internal student survey (SSS) and national
student surveys (NSS/PTES/PRES).
-
Student handbook
- The handbook enables the panel to assess the anticipated student experience
of their course.
-
Additional PG Research information
- Criteria for confirmation of PhD status
- Research training, including statements
on research training provision that has been provided to the
research councils, and a copy of the Training Needs Analysis
forms the department uses, and at least 2 anonymised completed
forms.
-
The department will also provide the following contextual information:
- Last internal Periodic Review report and
summary of follow-up action
- Current relevant QAA benchmark statements
- Professional, statutory, regulatory body reports and departmental responses
- Where
available, these reports may
provide the panel with lines of
enquiry. The panel should also
feel confident that any issues
identified in the report have
been addressed.
- For
PGR, please provide a copy of
the supervisory board report
form and the RSPC form the
department uses, and two
anonymised completed forms of
each type.
Page last updated:
16 August 2013
