[Back to periodic review home page]
Periodic review takes place typically every 5 years and is a university level procedure designed to reapprove courses on the basis of an evaluation of the pervious five years of operation. Separate procedures exist for the periodic reviews of courses delivered at partner institutions.
Please note that within these guidelines, the term ‘department’ refers to a Department, School or Centre.
The Periodic Review normally consists of 2 stages:
Stage 1 is concerned with checking that a department’s quality assurance and enhancement mechanisms comply with QAA guidelines and the implementation of relevant University policy. It precedes the main periodic review event (Stage 2) and involves the department completing the stage 1 questionnaire.
The Stage 2 event concentrates on the review and reapproval of courses and considers any recommendations and areas of good practice from the Stage 1 report. Undergraduate and taught postgraduate courses will not normally be reviewed at the same Stage 2 event. Where undergraduate and taught postgraduate courses are being considered as part of the same Periodic Review, the Stage 2 meeting will be structured in such a way as to ensure that they are considered separately.
The event may take place over a half or full day, depending on the the size and nature of the award(s) being reviewed. The agenda, agreed by the chair of the review, is normally based upon a standard programme which may be modified as appropriate for each review event. The panel will need to be assured of the continuing rationale for the course(s) concerned and that the department has the necessary resource base for the continued successful running of the course(s). In addition the panel would expect to be assured that issues identified through annual review of courses, including the comments of students and external examiners, and issues from other sources (e.g. Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Body reports), have been addressed.
A successful periodic review will be characterised by constructive dialogue, structured around a self-evaluation document (the Reflective Document) provided by the head of the department under review. The Reflective Document is designed to 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. Additional documentation in support of the Reflective Document provides more details of the courses under review, including documents such as annual review of courses reports, external examiner reports, student survey results and course statistics. As a consequence, each periodic review will be slightly different, in order to both meet the specific needs of the department and to address any particular issues or concerns the panel might have. While the agenda is flexible, there are a number of broad themes which all periodic reviews consider.
The Chair is responsible for highlighting positive aspects of the course(s) and raising issues in a constructive manner. The Chair will normally commence the event by:
A meeting will normally be held with a group(s) of students registered (or previously registered) on the courses under review. The departmental team will not be present for this part of the review. As well as meeting students, the documentation will include summaries of NSS and SSS results and actions taken by the department in response, in order to provide a complete view of student feedback.
It is the department's responsibility to identify a selection of students to meet with the panel, and to brief students on the event.
The agenda will include one or more blocks of time in which the panel may discuss the course(s) in detail with the course team, and in which the course team will have the opportunity to respond to points raised. The panel will need to be assured of the continuing rationale for the course(s) concerned and that the course team has the necessary resource base for the continued successful running of the course(s) under review. In addition, the panel would expect to be assured that issues identified through annual review of courses, including the comments of students and external examiners, have been addressed. Guidance is provided on key themes and sample questions the panel may wish to explore.
After discussions, it is usual for the course team to depart to allow the panel members to determine their recommendations. The Chair normally commences this private meeting of the panel by summarising the issues and the course team’s responses and s/he will conclude the meeting by agreeing the outcome of the event with the panel before inviting the course team back for verbal feedback. A unanimous decision of the panel is required for the conclusion of the review event.
During the feedback session, the Chair will announce the outcome of the event and notify the course team of any conditions and/or recommendations that should be addressed or considered. A deadline will be set by which conditions and/or recommendations should be met and/or responded to. The Chair and Secretary will liaise to ensure that draft conditions and recommendations are circulated to the course team as soon as possible after the event, and the secretary will produce a detailed report to circulate to the panel and department.
New courses (i.e. courses for which a New Course Approval Form has been submitted to a Faculty Education Committee, or for which a validation has been undertaken) will be reviewed in the next periodic review after they have run for two academic years from the first intake (undergraduate courses) or one academic year (taught postgraduate courses). During a periodic review, any key issues arising from new courses in the same discipline not yet covered by the full process may be recorded in a section "Issues arising from new courses" in the documentation submitted to the Review panel.
Periodic Reviews offer the opportunity to review courses which have been suspended or which have no registered students, and to assess whether these courses should continue to be offered or discontinued. Any such courses should therefore be included in the scope of the Periodic Review, and a case made for whether they should continue to be offered, or discontinued.
Accreditation visits by a PSRB cannot replace the University’s obligation to conduct periodic review. However, periodic review schedules might be revised to align with a PSRB visit or papers prepared for accreditation might be re-used for periodic review. Alternatively, it might be possible to replace some elements of a review, if a department has participated in an external audit in the same year in which they undergo Periodic Review.
Any change would be subject to the approval of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education), and the Academic Standards and Partnerships Office should be consulted on this in the first instance.
Page last updated: 16 August 2013