Academic Quality Framework Chapter 6 Periodic Review

Periodic Review Introduction

1. Periodic Review focuses on how providers manage the quality of provision and maintain academic standards. It is an in-depth procedure which enables greater reflection than single annual monitoring activity and covers progress over a longer time frame.
2. Periodic reviews of subject areas, programmes and courses ensure that academic provision is subject to effective scrutiny and self-reflection with an emphasis on constructive feedback from peers such that the student learning experience and quality procedures may be enhanced and promoted as appropriate.
3. Periodic reviews of programmes and courses within a subject area (Periodic Programme and Course Review (PPCR)), is an internal periodic review procedure which enables the University to check the health of its programme provision, identify areas for development, and disseminate good practice.
4. PPCR also enables courses that are designed to be delivered for Northeastern University undergraduate programmes at Northeastern University London (Table 1) to be reviewed to check the health of its provision, identify areas for development and disseminate good practice.
5. The following courses are periodically reviewed under the Discipline where the subject knowledge is available.

Table 1

6. PPCR allows for a broad and holistic consideration of programmes and courses through a procedure of self-evaluation undertaken by faculty working in the area in question. It involves stakeholder input (including student and employer involvement) as well as peer and in the case of University programmes, external review, and includes the identification of good practice and strategies for enhancement.
7. PPCR at the University provides assurances to Academic Board that it can have confidence in the academic standards and quality of its programmes and in the structures and procedures that will maintain standards and quality over time.
8. The University’s procedure for PPR aligns with the relevant themes of the UK Quality Code: Monitoring and Evaluation:

9. Normally, PPCR of taught programmes are undertaken by the University every five years from the date of programme approval.
10. The University’s internal procedures are agreed by Academic Board, and procedural support for PPR is provided by the Quality Team.
11. Detailed criteria guide the PPR procedure. These may include a review of strategic fit and viability, management of quality and standards, and assessment, staffing, and learning resources. Relevant staff and PPR Panel Members are provided with documentation specifying procedural requirements and guidance to support development.

Periodic Programme and Course Review Process Stages

12. The stages that constitute PPCR procedures are outlined in the sections detailing the PPCR procedures below.
13. PPCR documentation development involves consultation with relevant stakeholders and internal peer review through the University’s committee structure and Internal Programme and Course Periodic Review (IPPCR) Events before submission to the Periodic Review Event.
14. A PPCR Event is held following the submission of documentation, to enable reviewers to meet with staff and students and to discuss and clarify lines of enquiry to inform the outcome of the PPCR.

Periodic Programme and Course Review Process

15. It is appropriate for PPCRs to include consideration of new and changed programmes and courses in line with requirements for the approval of new provision and/or modifications to current provision (see AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification). Such approval must be agreed at the scoping meeting.
16. New courses can be added to programmes during the PPCR procedure but if the inclusion of multiple new courses creates a significant change to the programme aims and learning outcomes of the programme or its structure, this will be considered and recorded as an ‘approval’ Event and the new programme approval procedure will apply (See AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification). This decision will be made by the Dean of Faculties, Registrar and Head of Quality Assurance.
17. An IPPCR Event is normally held at least three months prior to the PPCR Event, which provides developmental experience to attendees and panelists, enabling staff to act on recommendations resulting from the IPPCR Event. The IPPCR Event will typically be an internal event where the PPCR documentation is peer reviewed. It is advisable that one or two members of faculty from different Disciplines are invited to attend the IPPCR Event to act as peer reviewers, share good practice and represent interdisciplinary programmes.
18. An IPPCR Event can be undertaken as a desk based event for the periodic review of courses that are designed to support the needs of Northeastern undergraduate students studying at the University.
19. PPCR documentation should normally be submitted at least four weeks prior to each PPCR Event, to provide adequate time for panelists to review the documentation and identify lines of enquiry.

Objectives of Periodic Programme and Course Review

20. PPCR provides an opportunity in particular for the evaluation of:
    1. Subject standing and development, in the context of the University’s strategy and sector norms and development;
    2. Management of quality and standards in the provision offered within a programme, including the maintenance of core documentation (Programme Specifications and Course Descriptors) and the appropriate management of modification provision;
    3. Academic standards and the maintenance of structures and process design for their support (including external examination, annual monitoring, and academic due process in the assessment and marking of student performance);
    4. Enhancement of quality and academic provision, the quality of learning opportunities, the student-led enhancement of the student experience and opportunity in the context of the University’s mission, the learning environment, and student support;
    5. External engagement and benchmarking, e.g., with the UK Quality Code, subject benchmark statements, Degree Apprenticeship Standards, employers, alumni and other external reference points that support the development and enhancement of provision and the student experience;
    6. Engagement and compliance with University policy (e.g., peer observation of teaching and learning) and initiatives over the period of review.

Preparation and Timescales for Periodic Programme Reviews

21. The Head of Quality Assurance or nominee will normally manage the PPCR procedure at the University in collaboration with the Quality Managers and Faculty Directors.
22. Each PPCR will commence in the academic year preceding review (and no less than nine months prior to the PPCR Event) with a PPCR scoping meeting between the following staff (as a minimum): Head of Quality Assurance, Faculty Directors, Associate Director of Teaching and Learning, Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning, Director of Undergraduate/Postgraduate Taught and Course Leaders of the provision within the review, and the Quality Manager(s). The Quality Manager will act as a critical friend.
23. At this scoping meeting:
    1. The scope of the review and provision within it will be finalised;
    2. The date and duration of the PPCR Event will be confirmed;
    3. The institutional benchmark set will be confirmed;
    4. The requirement for externality at the PPCR Event will be established on the basis of subject and programme breadth and level;
    5. The inclusion of any new courses to the programmes under review will be added;
    6. External Panel Member Nomination Form to be completed or proposals considered. If the Faculty is unable to propose a suitable external subject specialist to act as an external panel member, the Head of Quality Assurance or nominee will advertise the position.
24. The Head of Quality Assurance will report to Academic Board on the progress of the PPCR and the timeline agreed.
25. The typical timescale for PPCR is shown in Appendix A.

Appointment of Periodic Programme and Course Panel

26. The Head of Quality Assurance (or nominee) will appoint and invite the Panel for the PPCR Event, including internal panel members, external subject specialists, and student representation.
27. The initial identification of external subject specialists should be made nine months prior to the PPCR Event.
28. The Faculty Director or the Head of Discipline of the programme subjects under review, in consultation with faculty, is responsible for nominating appropriate external subject specialists by completing the External Panel Member Nomination Form, which should be accompanied by the CV of the nominated individual.
29. Nomination forms and CVs should be submitted to the Head of Quality Assurance or nominee for approval no later than three months prior to the PPCR Event.
30. As outlined in the External Panel Member Policy, External Panel Member nominees should have sufficient specialist knowledge but not have been engaged in teaching, research or scholarly activity relating to the programme(s) under review. Neither should any of the faculty putting forward the proposal be acting as an External Examiner on a programme with which the nominee is associated.
31. Table 2 shows the typical membership of a PPCR Event, the criteria of appointment of each Panel Member and their role for this event.

Table 2 Periodic Programme and Course Review Event Membership

Periodic Programme and Course Review Required Documentation

32. Responsibility for preparing the PPCR submission documentation resides with the Faculty concerned, in liaison with the Head of Quality Assurance or nominee.
33. It is usually expected that consultation with students, relevant staff (Faculty, Student Support and Development and Human Resources as appropriate) and employers will be undertaken regarding proposed modifications which arise from the review preparation process.
34. PPCR documentation should be produced and reviewed using track changes to identify amendments, and include the version history table to show the version number of the document.
35. Responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of documentation production rests with the Faculty Director of the programme(s) under review.
36. Documentation requires internal peer review before submission to either the IPPCR or PPCR Event.
37. Table 2 shows the documentation required to be produced and submitted for PPCRs. In all cases coverage should normally include the period since the previous PPCR or programme approval unless otherwise stated.

Table 3 Required PPCR Documentation

38. Deadlines for the PPCR submission documentation are produced by the Head of Quality Assurance in liaison with the relevant Faculty Director.
39. All PPCR documentation should normally be submitted electronically to the Quality Team at least four weeks prior to each PPCR Event.
40. The PPCR documentation will be circulated to the PPCR Event Panel together with guidance material and relevant benchmarking standards. This will enable the Panel to consider submitted documentation prior to the PPCR Event and to provide them with the opportunity to put forward comments or areas for clarification to the Head of Quality Assurance.

Periodic Programme and Course Review Events

41. Two PPCR Events are normally arranged:
    1. The IPPCR Event to peer review the PPCR submission and enhance the submission prior to the PPR Event;
    2. The PPCR Event to re-approve the provision under review.

Internal Periodic Programme and Course Review Event

42. The IPPCR Event normally takes place no later than three months prior to the proposed PPCR Event.
43. The purpose of this Event is to peer review all of the documentation that is required to be submitted for the PPCR Event to assure the Faculty that it is of an adequate standard. This Event also provides faculty with the opportunity to make recommendations and enhance their submission prior to the PPCR Event.
44. The IPPCR Event will normally be a single agenda item at a Faculty Directors’ meeting, with the Faculty Director acting as Chair and Director of Undergraduate Studies/Director of Postgraduate Studies, Course Leaders, Associate Professors and students in attendance. It is strongly advised that at least one member of faculty outside of the Faculty under review is invited to the IPPCR Event to provide some externality and sharing of good practice. A Quality Team member should also be invited to attend to advise on completeness of documentation, compliance with the University’s Academic Quality Framework, policies and procedures, and to act as Secretary to the meeting.
45. The IPPCR Event will:
    1. Confirm alignment with the University Strategy and/or senior directive;
    2. Confirm the quality of the Self-Evaluation Document and make recommendations for enhancement;
    3. Confirm support for programme and course modifications and the proposed Programme Specification and Course Descriptors;
    4. Confirm that the Programme Specifications and Course Descriptors for future delivery are complete and accurate in detail;
    5. Confirm that updated internal and external reference points (FHEQ, Subject Benchmark Statements, Degree Apprenticeship Standards, programme and course mappings) have been mapped to in relation to the proposed provision.
46. The agenda for the IPPCR Event is based on the following:
    1. Welcome and introductions
    2. Outline of the purpose of the IPPCR Event
    3. Changes from the Scoping Meeting
    4. Critical appraisal of the Self-Evaluation Document
    5. Critical appraisal of the Programme Specification(s)
    6. Critical appraisal of the Course Descriptors
    7. Review of the mapping to external benchmarks
    8. Conclusion of the IPPCR Event, clarifying outcome and further development of submission documentation if required.
47. The Faculty Directors’ Meeting recommends the following outcome as a result of the IPPCR Event:
    1. Recommend the programme to the PPCR Event Panel for revalidation;
    2. The further development of the programme with conditions to be met, to be signed off by the Chair prior to recommending the programme to the PPCR Event Panel for revalidation;
    3. Suspension of the periodic review with conditions and/or recommendations.
48. The IPPCR Event will be minuted with actions clearly identified. The Faculty Director will be responsible for monitoring the actions. The minutes and completed action plan will be stored centrally with the Quality Team.
49. The outcome report and responses to the IPPCR Event will be included in the submission documentation for the PPCR Event.

Periodic Programme and Course Review Event

50. The PPCR Event normally lasts for one day, with the approval of modifications to existing programmes and courses occurring on the following day. The PPCR Event Panel may, however, meet the previous afternoon if the subject is large or complex.
51. The purpose of the PPCR Event is to:
    1. Provide assurance to the University about the quality and standards of the provision concerned;
    2. Consider the effectiveness with which University policies are being implemented, including approaches to teaching, learning and assessment;
    3. Confirm that research, advanced professional development, and scholarly activities are impacting the provision at FHEQ Levels 6 and 7;
    4. Identify good practice and particular strengths and strategies for quality enhancement.
    5. Approve modifications to existing programmes and courses that are confirmed to occur as part of the PPCR process, in line with the University’s programme and course modification processes, as documented in AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification.
52. The PPCR Event Panel will achieve this by considering and questioning the documentation submission, meeting with faculty members, students, professional staff and, where possible, alumni of the provision under review. An indicative agenda for the PPCR Event is provided in Table 4.
53. Any variation to the agenda for the duration of the PPCR Event, other than that produced by the addition of new courses, must be agreed at the PPCR scoping meeting or by the Head of Quality Assurance.
54. The agenda for PPCR Events has three components:
    1. Meeting senior staff (including faculty) to clarify issues such as staffing strategies and effectiveness in the management of:
       1. Student admission, retention, progression and attainment
       2. Academic standards of the programme and/or courses:
          • Programme design
          • Teaching learning and assessment
          • Annual monitoring
          • External Examiners
       3.  Enhancement of quality and academic provision:
          • Student experience and feedback
          • Learning environment and student support
       4. External Engagement and Benchmarking:
          • Feedback from employers
          • Employability
       5. Engagement and compliance with University policy
    2. Particular focus will be placed on the academic and administrative arrangements where the provision includes collaborative learning, distance-learning, work-related learning or mentoring agreements.
    3. Meeting faculty and other staff not employed in a managerial capacity to review staff engagement in teaching, learning and assessment, provision of academic services, resources and support.
    4. Meeting students currently on the programme under review or cognate programmes and, where possible, alumni, to obtain a student perspective on teaching quality, the nature of student support, and students’ satisfaction with their experience of the programme, the University and the wider student experience. The Panel will normally meet a representative sample of 5-10 students.
55. The Panel will not normally observe teaching.
56. The PPCR Event Panel may be offered a formal tour of the University facilities related to the provision under review. Where this is confirmed, the tour will be provided by the Quality Team.

Table 4 Indicative Agenda for Periodic Programme and/or Course Review Event

Periodic Programme Review Event Outcomes

57. The outcome of the PPCR Event will be decided based on the PPCR Event Panel’s considerations and judgement of the academic standards and quality of provision outlined below.

Judgements on Academic Standards

58. The Panel will reach a single judgement on academic standards that is based on consideration of the specified outcomes of provision (in relation to relevant external benchmarks), including the content and design of the curriculum, and the design and effective implementation of assessments as a means of testing the outcomes. Exceptionally, different areas of provision may be subject to different judgement, although normally one judgement will be made across the provision.
59. The judgement will normally be one of the following:
    1. Confidence: the re-approval provision is subject to further annual and periodic review, i.e., the Panel was satisfied with current management of academic standards and quality and the prospect of these being maintained in the future;
    2. Confidence subject to specific conditions: the Panel may identify issues with some/all provision and require the Faculty to provide progress reports on these, normally at six-monthly intervals, until the issues are completed;
    3. No confidence: this judgement should only be reached if there are fundamental and very significant weaknesses which had not been identified in the Self-Evaluation Document with appropriate plans in place to address within a suitable time frame and with appropriate arrangements for the management of any required suspension of provision.

Judgements on the Quality of Provision

60. The outcome of the PPCR Event will include judgements on the quality of provision in respect of:
    1. Academic strength and viability: the effective understanding and focus on the academic position and strategic development of the subject area and its provision; its effective use of benchmarks, staff development and external engagement; and evidence of the effective integration of its academic activities, including research and teaching;
    2. Learning opportunities and resources: the evidence that the provision, portfolio and faculty provide their students with opportunities to achieve and develop;
    3. Student focus and support: the evidence that the portfolio and the faculty are both proactive and responsive in their management and enhancement of the student experience.
61. The judgement will normally be one of the following:
    1. Commendable: the provision is approved; the majority of elements are of good quality, with identifiable areas of excellence. Some areas for improvement may be noted;
    2. Approved: the provision is approved; most elements are of good quality, with identifiable, but not significant, areas for improvement;
    3. Approved, subject to the following time-limited conditions: some identifiable and significant weaknesses that can be addressed. The nature of the weaknesses should be clearly identified, and the conditions should be time-bound so that they can be monitored effectively;
    4. Failing: the provision is inadequate, and a recovery plan is required, to include arrangements for the management of any suspension of provision.
62. The Panel may also identify specific commendable or failing areas of activity or provision within the judgements on quality of provision.
63. Recommendations may be made in respect of all judgements other than those of ‘failing’. These should be monitored through the normal annual monitoring and reporting procedures (AQF5 Annual Monitoring and Reporting).
64. In addition to the above possible outcomes, the Panel may set ‘approval conditions’ and ‘delivery conditions’ in relation to specific programmes. These will be differentiated from judgement conditions and will require a response and completion prior to the next commencement of the operation of the programme to which they pertain, using the approach to approval conditions specified in relation to the approval process.

Periodic Programme and/or Course Review Reporting and Responding to the Outcome

65. The PPCR and programme and course approval procedures enable the University to demonstrate public accountability for the standards achieved by its programmes. Peer group academic judgement and the evidence on which they are based must be substantiated and accessible through reports.
66. The Secretary to the PPCR Event will draft a formal Periodic Programme and/or Course Review Outcome Report (Outcome Report), normally within two weeks of the PPCR Event, and circulate this to the members of the Panel for confirmation. The Secretary then circulates the confirmed outcome to the Faculty Director and Head of Quality Assurance.
67. The Outcome Report will identify and confirm continued approval (or otherwise) for all provision within the review, and any approved variations to this procedure. It will also confirm the date of operation in post-review from the programme reviewed. Where the Panel requires essential action other than as approval conditions, it will report these as conditions identifying responsibilities and a timescale. Other suggested actions may be reported as recommendations and should be responded to as part of the normal annual monitoring process. Approval conditions will be identified in relations to specific programmes and have separate time frames for response and completion.
68. The Outcome Report will provide a clear indication of the discussions to explain the Panel’s conclusions and any conditions and recommendations, together with the dates by which they should be met.
69. In respect of judgement conditions, specified arrangements for monitoring, review and sign-off will be specified in the Outcome Report.
70. Where it is found that a programme requires suspension, the External Examiners for the programme will be informed of the start and end dates of the suspension and provided with a copy of the Outcome Report by the Quality Team.
71. The Faculty, in consultation with the Head of Quality Assurance, is required to respond to the Outcome Report using the Periodic Programme Review Outcome Response Form (Outcome Response Form) within an agreed timeline.
72. The response should be submitted to the Head of Quality Assurance or nominee to review and to forward to the Chair of the Panel for review and approval.
73. The Chair of the Panel must be satisfied with the responses to the Panel’s conditions and recommendations and will confirm that the response is satisfactory by signing the Outcome Response Form and returning it to the Head of Quality Assurance or nominee.
74. The Head of Quality Assurance or nominee will forward the signed response to the Faculty Director, with confirmation that this, together with the Outcome Report, will be submitted to Academic Board for final and formal re-approval of the programme as recommended by the Chair of the Panel.
75. Further to Academic Board’s approving the Outcome Report and Response, a Periodic Programme Review Confirmation Form (Confirmation Form) is produced by the Head of Quality Assurance or nominee and signed by the Chair of Academic Board. The Confirmation Form details the outcome of the PPR Event, the length of time for which the programme is approved, and the date of the next periodic review of the programme. It also serves as confirmation that the PPR procedure is concluded, and that the submitted programme documentation is approved for implementation as specified in the Outcome Report.
76. The signed Confirmation Form and approved programme documentation is then circulated to Faculty Directors and other relevant staff by the Head of Quality Assurance, as confirmation of programme re-approval and conclusion of the PPR.
77. Monitoring of any ongoing approval conditions and recommendations is overseen by the Teaching, Learning and Enhancement Committee, on behalf of Academic Board for academic matters, and by Executive Committee in respect of institutional matters.

Periodic Programme and/or Course Review Process Tasks and Responsibilities

78. The normal PPCR procedure, stages, tasks and their associated responsibilities are outlined in Table 5. Tasks should be undertaken in numerical order. Those listed under the same stage number take place concurrently.
79. The Quality Team will monitor the completion of the PPR stages.

Table 5 PPR Stages, Tasks and Responsibilities

Appendix A: Typical Timescale for Periodic Programme Review

Version History