Quality Handbook Section 7 - Periodic Review requirements

1.1 The University’s quality framework rests on the principle of delegated responsibility to Schools for the quality and standards of the courses that they provide. Schools are accountable to Academic Board for demonstrating that the measures that they have in place to assure quality and standards are effective.

1.2 Alongside testing the efficacy of School measures, it is also the tool by which Schools demonstrate that they can identify potential problems in advance of any negative impact on the student experience or student outcomes.

1.3 This is especially important given the growth in the University’s portfolio of provision that is considered to be higher risk. Confidence in the efficacy and rigour of our quality management processes enables NTU to enter into these areas knowing that quality and standards will be tested and upheld.

1.4 Periodic Review enables Academic Board to maintain oversight, via the Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC), of the efficacy of the University’s approach to the management of quality and standards.

1.5 Periodic Review considers taught provision, including apprenticeships and those delivered as part of School-based partnership arrangements.

1.6 Periodic Reviews take place on a five year cycle as follows:

Periodic Review Cycle 2021/2026

2022/23

Term 1: Confetti Institute of Creative Technologies

Term 2: Nottingham Business School

Term 3: Architecture, Design and the Built Environment

2023/24

Term 1: Nottingham School of Art & Design

Term 2: Science and Technology

Term 3: Nottingham Law School

2024/25

Term 1: Nottingham Law School

Term 2: Social Sciences

2025/26

Term 2: Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences

2.1 ASQC considers all outputs from Periodic Review. Summary reports are provided to Academic Board as part of the University’s Academic Assurance framework.

2.2 Any changes to the Periodic Review process are approved by ASQC and ratified by Academic Board.

3.1 The purpose of Periodic Review is to provide University oversight, through the lens of the OfS’ B conditions, of the efficacy of a School’s approach in: (a) managing the standards and quality of its courses and (b) implementing measures agreed at UET in relation to priorities for student experience and student outcomes.

3.2 There are three elements of Periodic Review:

1. A desk-based review carried out by Academic Quality colleagues in EQP prior to the review event, summarised in a series of reports;
2. A presentation by the School to the review panel;
3. Meetings with staff and students.

Desk-based review

3.3 The desk-based review provides the review panel with a summary of the efficacy of the School’s approach to its implementation of the University’s quality management framework through the lens of the OfS’ B conditions. This is achieved by a set of reports:

1. A report on the efficacy of School-level quality management processes as indicated by review of minutes and papers of SASQC and its associated sub-committees, including student fora and collaborative review reports.
2. Reports for each of the courses selected for a deep dive review prior to the review event. These course reports reflect on course-level quality management processes and additional evidence that illustrates how University agreed priorities are ‘running to ground’ at course level.

3.4 The documentation which is considered at the desk-based review is standard documentation that currently exists. There is no requirement to produce anything solely for the purpose of the review event.

3.5 Desk-based reviewers will also have access to the School’s most recent UET Autumn Review and select Schools Insights data which captures basic profiling information on the Schools (number of departments, for example) and recent trends in student numbers.

Further information

• The criteria for selection of the deep dive courses are set out in QHS 7A.

3.6 The reports are shared with the School for sense checking before distribution to the panel. The reports inform the review event agenda and discussions on the day.

School Presentation

3.7 The purpose of the School presentation is to provide an overview of the School’s approach to the management of quality and standards for its portfolio, and the challenges associated with ensuring good outcomes for all students. It is an opportunity for the School to reflect on its Success for All action plan and other university priority areas and the School’s priorities for improving student continuation, completion and progression (as per the the Office for Students definitions).

3.8 Reference should be made to the outcomes of the most recent UET Review.

Meetings with Staff and Students

3.9 The purpose of meetings with representative staff and students is to test the efficacy of the School’s oversight through discussion with key stakeholders.

3.10 The morning of the review includes a meeting with senior staff in the School where the broad approach (as reflected in the School’s presentation) is discussed. Separate meetings with students and a meeting with staff from the deep dive courses take place in the afternoon.

5.1 The Periodic Review panel comprises six members:

1. Review Chair: a member of the NTU Senior Executive Team;
2. Review Manager: a Senior Quality and Standards Advisor from EQP;
3. External Panel Member: a senior academic member from an institution external to the University, whose knowledge and expertise is related to the School under consideration and who has experience in Higher Education quality management. The external will have had no connection with the University in the past three years;
4. Two internal panel members: experienced academic colleagues from outside the School;
5. Student Panel Member: NTSU officer or their nominee.

6.1 The School identifies a Periodic Review School Lead, who takes primary responsibility for the oversight of the process within the School.

6.2 The School is required to make their quality management documentation and records available for the EQP desk-based review.

6.3 There are no specific additional documentation requirements other than those required for normal quality management purposes.

6.4 The School is expected to identify any areas that they wish to explore with the panel at the review event.

6.5 The School is required to deliver a presentation to the review panel on the morning of the event day.

6.6 The School is responsible for ensuring that appropriate students and staff are invited to the meetings on the review event day.

6.7 The selection of students and staff will be made jointly by the School Lead and the Academic Quality (EQP) Review Manager.

7.1 A draft report is produced by the Review Manager with input and agreement from the panel. This draft is shared with the School within 15 working days (subject to the Review Manager’s working pattern and University closure days) of the Periodic Review event taking place.

7.2 The report summarises the main observations made by the panel and sets out any required actions. This may include a recommended timeframe for these actions.

7.3 The School completes the report with a) their reflections on having been through the process and what is likely to change as a result and, b) how, and by when, they plan to meet any required actions.

7.4 The School is expected to report on any required actions to the Review Chair and Review Manager at a mutually agreed date.

7.5 The review report, which will include any further outcomes as agreed at the follow-up meeting, is received by ASQC.

7.6 The School will report on the progress of required actions at ASQC approximately 12 months after the final review report was initially received by ASQC.