Academic Quality Framework Chapter 6 Periodic Review

Last modified on October 3rd, 2023 at 2:22 pm

AQF6: Periodic Review

Periodic Review Introduction

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 (typically the past five years).
Periodic reviews of subject areas, programmes and provider 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.
Periodic reviews of programmes within a subject area (Periodic Programme Review (PPR), also known as Programme Re-approval) 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.
PPR allows for a broad and holistic consideration of programmes 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 external review, and includes the identification of good practice and strategies for enhancement.
PPR 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.
The University’s procedure for PPR aligns with the relevant themes of the UK Quality Code: Monitoring and Evaluation:

“The provider reviews its core practices for standards regularly and uses the outcomes to drive improvement and enhancement.”

Normally, PPR of taught programmes are undertaken by the University every five years from the date of programme approval.
The University’s internal procedures are agreed by Academic Board and procedural support for PPR is provided by the Quality Team.
Detailed criteria guide the PPR procedure. These may include a review of strategic fit and viability, management of quality and standards, assessment, staffing, and learning resources. Relevant staff and PPR Panel Members are provided with documentation specifying procedural requirements and guidance to support development.
For undergraduate combined programmes, minor courses will be reviewed under the major subject where the specialist knowledge is available for the review.

Periodic Programme Review Process Stages

The stages that constitute PPR procedures are outlined in the sections detailing the PPR procedures below.
PPR documentation development involves consultation with relevant stakeholders and internal peer review through the University’s committee structure and Internal Programme Periodic Review (IPPR) events before submission to the Periodic Review event.
PPR events are 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 PPR.

Periodic Programme Review Process

It is appropriate for PPRs to include consideration of new and changed programmes 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.
New courses can be added to programmes during the PPR procedure but if the inclusion of multiple new courses creates a significant change to the programme aims and learning outcomes of the programme, 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.
An IPPR event is normally held at least three months prior to the PPR event, which provides developmental experience to attendees and panelists, enabling staff to act on recommendations resulting from the IPPR event. The IPPR event will typically be an internal event where the PPR documentation is peer reviewed. It is advisable that two members of faculty from different Faculties are invited to attend the IPPR event to act as peer reviewers, share good practice and represent interdisciplinary programmes.
PPR documentation should normally be submitted at least four weeks prior to each PPR event, to provide adequate time for panelists to review the documentation and identify lines of enquiry.

Objectives of Periodic Programme Review

PPR 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, programme and course reporting, and academic due process in the assessment and marking of student performance).
4. The quality and the student-led enhancement of the student experience and opportunity in the context of the University’s mission.
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 initiatives over the period of review.

Preparation and Timescales for Periodic Programme Reviews

The Head of Quality Assurance will normally manage the PPR procedure at the University in collaboration with the Quality Managers and Faculty Directors.
Each PPR will commence in the academic year preceding review (and no less than nine months prior to the PPR event) with a PPR scoping meeting between the following staff (as a minimum): Head of Quality Assurance, Faculty Directors, Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning, and Course Leaders of the provision within the review, and the Quality Manager(s).
At this scoping meeting:
1. The scope of the review and provision within it will be finalised.
2. The date and duration of the PPR Event will be confirmed.
3. The institutional benchmark set will be confirmed.
4. The requirement for externality at the PPR 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 will advertise the position on the Jisc service.
The Head of Quality Assurance will report to Academic Board on the progress of the PPR and the timeline agreed.
The typical timescale for PPR is shown in Appendix A

Appointment of Periodic Programme Panels

The Head of Quality Assurance will appoint and invite the Panel for the PPR Event, including internal panel members, external subject specialists, and student representation.
The initial identification of external subject specialists should be made nine months prior to the PPR Event.
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.
Nomination forms and CVs should be submitted to the Head of Quality Assurance for approval no later than three months prior to the PPR Event.
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.
Table 1 shows the typical membership of a PPR Event, the criteria of appointment of each Panel Member and their role for this event.

Table 1 Periodic Programme Review Event Membership

PPR Panellist	Criteria for Appointment	Role
Chair	Normally a member of faculty who sits on Academic Board not involved with the submission, normally a Faculty Director.	The Chair will lead the Panel and ensure that the requirements of the review process are achieved effectively. The Chair approves the responses to any conditions from the event.
One or two (depending on subject breadth) External Panel Member(s)	The External Panel Member(s) should be a specialist in the field of the subject provision under review. External Panel Members will be selected on the basis of their coverage of subjects under review at an appropriate level of seniority. They will be independent of the University, i.e., not have been engaged in teaching, research, or scholarly activity relating to the programme(s) under review such as recently serving as External Examiner for 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 external panel nominee is associated. Where a review includes a range of subjects deemed sufficiently broad to require additional external academic input (as indicated, for example, by the range of subject benchmarks to which the provision responds), this will be specified on the Self-Evaluation Document.	The role of the External Panel Member(s) is to draw upon their subject specialism and professional experience to provide an objective and independent judgment of the quality, standards and coherence of the provision under review. It is expected that External Panel Members will undertake the role of ‘critical friend’ and constructively challenge viewpoints or assumptions that are held by the Faculty or institution.
One or two associate professors, internal representatives	The associate professors should be from outside the Faculty putting the programme under review, and not have been involved in the IPPR event.	To give an internal but independent view on general teaching and learning issues, the learning experience and environment and general resource issues.
A Student Panel Member	The Student Panel Member must have current or recent experience as a student of the University (within the previous two academic years).	The role of the Student Panel Member is to contribute to the assessment of all areas of the review, but with a particular focus on the student experience.
A Quality Team representative	The Quality Team representative should be a member of the University’s Quality Team.	To look at issues relating to continued compliance with University policies and procedures, and with relevant external reference points.
A Secretary	The Secretary is normally appointed by the Head of Quality Assurance.	The Secretary’s duties include liaising with the Head of Quality Assurance about the arrangements for the P PR procedure, communicating with panel members, drawing up a draft agenda for the PPR event and preparing the review report. The Secretary is responsible for acting as conduit between the Panel and the Faculty regarding initial observations prior to the PPR event and in the response to the outcomes of the review.

Periodic Programme Review Required Documentation

Responsibility for preparing the PPR submission documentation resides with the Faculty concerned, in liaison with the Head of Quality Assurance.
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.
PPR documentation should be produced and reviewed using track changes to identify amendments, and include the version control box to show the version number of the document.
Responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of documentation production rests with the Faculty Director of the programme(s) under review.
Documentation requires internal peer review before submission to either the IPPR or PPR event.
Table 2 shows the documentation required to be produced and submitted for PPRs. In all cases coverage should normally include the period since the previous PPR or programme approval unless otherwise stated.

Table 2 Required PPR Documentation

Required PPR Document	Document Description
Self-Evaluation Document (SED)	The SED is a critical self-evaluation of the programme(s) and its provision in the context of the University benchmarks and policies, and external benchmarks and requirements. The SED should be approximately 20 pages long and provide evidence that sufficient and effective attention is being given to the enhancement of quality and the maintenance of standards. Guidance for writing the SED is provided in the Self-Evaluation Document Guidance and Template and will essentially consist of three sections: Introduction Quality Assurance and Enhancement Forward-Looking Development Plan It may include data and information in annex form.
Internal and External Reference Points	This set of documentation should be included as an annex of your Self-Evaluation Document and should include evidence of mapping to appropriate internal and external reference points as agreed at the PPR scoping meeting. Reference points will normally include: The University’s Strategic Plan UK Quality Code Subject Benchmark Statements (where available) Degree Apprenticeship Standards Other relevant documentation that the Faculty considers would support the PPR submission In the Self-Evaluation Document, you will be asked to indicate which reference points have been mapped to.
Programme Information	Programme information includes reports and updated documentation since the previous PP R or programme approval (whichever is the most recent) as listed below: Annual Faculty Review or Self Assessment Report Updated Programme Specification(s) and Course Descriptors for each of the programme(s) under review with amendments noted through track changes An example of a Programme Handbook finalised for provision to the first post-review cohort One Course Syllabus per level, finalised for provision to the first post-review cohort External Examiner Annual Reports from the previous three academic years, and responses to those reports Outcome Reports from any new course approval events within the programme(s) since the previous PPR or programme approval (whichever is the most recent) The previous PPR Outcome Report and PPR Confirmation Form (as applicable) PPR documentation checklist should be submitted.
Internal PPR Event Minutes, Outcomes, and Response	The minutes, outcomes, and response to the IPPR event should be provided.

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

Periodic Programme Review Events

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

Internal Periodic Programme Review Event

The IPPR event normally takes place no later than three months prior to the proposed PPR event.
The purpose of this event is to peer-review all of the documentation that is required to be submitted for the PPR 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 PPR event.
The IPPR event will normally be a single agenda Faculty meeting, with the Faculty Director acting as Chair and Course Leaders, Associate Professors and students in attendance. The Faculty is strongly advised to invite at least one member of faculty outside of the Faculty under review 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.
The Internal PPR Event will:
1. Confirm the quality of the Self-Evaluation Document and make recommendations for enhancement.
2. Confirm support for programme and course modifications, and the proposed Programme Specification and Course Descriptors.
3. Confirm that the Programme Specifications and Course Descriptors for future delivery are complete and accurate in detail.
4. 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.
The agenda for the Internal PPR Event is based on the following:
1. Welcome and introductions
2. Outline of the purpose of the IPPR Event
3. Critical appraisal of the Self-Evaluation Document
4. Critical appraisal of the Programme Specification(s)
5. Critical appraisal of the Course Descriptors
6. Review of the mapping to external benchmarks
7. Conclusion of the IPPR event, clarifying outcome and further development of submission documentation, if required
The IPPR 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.
The outcome report and responses to the IPPR event will be included in the submission documentation for the PPR event.

Periodic Programme Review Event

The PPR event normally lasts for one day, with the approval of modifications to existing programmes and courses occurring on the following day. The PPR event Panel may, however, meet the previous afternoon if the subject is large or complex.

The purpose of the PPR 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 PPR process, in line with the University’s programme and course modification processes as documented in AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification.
The PPR 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 PPR event is provided in Table 3.
Any variation to the agenda for the duration of the PPR event, other than that produced by the addition of new courses, must be agreed at the PPR scoping meeting or by the Head of Quality Assurance.
The agenda for PPR events has three components:
1. Meeting senior staff (including faculty) to clarify issues such as staffing strategies and effectiveness in the management of academic quality, student support and learning resources. Particular focus will be placed on the academic and administrative arrangements where the provision includes collaborative, distance-learning, work-related learning or mentoring agreements.
2. 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.
3. 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.
The Panel will not normally observe teaching.
The PPR 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 3 Indicative Agenda for Periodic Programme Review Events

Time	Agenda Items and Areas of Discussion	Individuals Involved
09.00	Confirmation of Agenda and Identification of lines of questioning. Confirmation of Agenda. Identification and prioritisation of key questions and matters to discuss with staff teams and students.	● PPR event Panel
10.00	Introduction and Meeting with Programme Management staff. 10-minute introductory presentation and discussion covering: Strategic issues for the subject and programmes within the internal and external strategic context. Perceived strengths and weaknesses of the subjects and programmes. Management issues related to subject, programmes and staff.	● PPR event Panel ● Faculty Director
10.30	Review of meeting with Programme Management staff. Review of discussions. Review of lines of questioning. Review of Agenda as required.	● PPR event Panel
11.00	Meeting with Programme Management staff, faculty and Academic Services. Review of Self-Evaluation and exploration of issues arising from it. Issues arising from Programme Specification(s). Student performance, retention and graduate outcomes.	● PPR event Panel ● Faculty Director ● Head of Discipline ● Course Leaders ● Representation, as relevant, from the University professional services departments
12.30	Review of meeting with Programme Management staff, faculty and Academic Services. Review of discussions. Review of lines of questioning. Review of Agenda if required.	● PPR event Panel
13.00	Lunch and meeting with students. The applicant, student and graduate experience.	● PPR event Panel ● Students ● Alumni
14.00	Review of Meeting with Students. Review of discussions. Review of lines of questioning. Review of Agenda if required.	● PPR event Panel
14.30	Meeting with Programme Management staff, faculty and Academic Services Curriculum. Teaching and learning. Resources for learners. Assurance and enhancement of provision and the student experience. Staff engagement with research and scholarly activity. External engagement in the provision and its development. Staff development and expertise.	● PPR event Panel ● Faculty Director ● Head of Discipline ● Course Leaders ● Representation, as relevant, from the University professional services departments
15.30	Review of meeting with Programme Management staff, faculty and Academic Services. Review of discussions. Review of lines of questioning. Review of Agenda if required.	● PPR event Panel
16.00	Meeting with Programme Management staff and the Faculty. Final questions and queries Opportunity for the Faculty to put forward any additional information.	● PPR event Panel ● Faculty Director ● Head of Discipline ● Course Leaders ● Representation, as relevant, from the University professional services departments ● Faculty
16.45	Conclusion. Conclusion finalised	● PPR event Panel
17.00	Provisional Feedback. Provisional feedback regarding the event provided.	● PPR event Panel ● Faculty Director ● Head of Discipline ● Course Leaders ● Representation, as relevant, from the University professional services departments

Periodic Programme Review Event Outcomes

The outcome of the PPR event will be made based on the considerations and judgments of the PPR event Panel regarding academic standards and the quality of the provision as outlined below.

Judgments on Academic Standards

The Panel will reach a single judgment 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 judgment, although normally one judgment will be made across the provision.
The judgment 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 judgment 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 timeframe and with appropriate arrangements for the management of any required suspension of provision.

Judgments on the Quality of Provision

The outcome of the PPR event will include judgments 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 and 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.
The judgment 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 effectively monitored.
4. Failing: the provision is inadequate, and a recovery plan is required, to include arrangements for the management of any suspension of provision.
The Panel may also identify commendable or failing specific areas of activity or provision within the judgments on quality of provision.
Recommendations may be made in respect of all judgments other than those of ‘failing’. These should be monitored through the normal annual monitoring and reporting procedures (AQF5 Annual Monitoring and Reporting).
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 judgment 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 Review Reporting and Responding to the Outcome

The PPR and programme 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.
The Secretary to the PPR event will draft a formal Periodic Programme Review Outcome Report (Outcome Report), normally within two weeks of the PPR 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.
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 timeframes for response and completion.
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.
In respect of judgment conditions, specified arrangements for monitoring, review and sign-off will be specified in the Outcome Report.
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.
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.
The response should be submitted to the Head of Quality Assurance to review and to forward to the Chair of the Panel for review and approval.
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.
The Head of Quality Assurance 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.
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 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.
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.
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 Executive Committee in respect of institutional matters.

Periodic Programme Review Process Tasks and Responsibilities

The normal PPR procedure, stages, tasks and their associated responsibilities are outlined in Table 4. Tasks should be undertaken in numerical order. Those listed under the same stage number take place concurrently.
The Quality Team will monitor the completion of the PPR stages.

Table 4 PPR Stages, Tasks and Responsibilities

Stage	PPR Procedure Task	Responsibility	Documents
1	Arrangement of the initial PPR scoping meeting between the Head of Quality Assurance, Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning/D, Faculty Director, Course Leader and Quality Manager, no less than nine months before the Final PPR Event.	Head of Quality Assurance	● Email correspondence and calendar invitations
2	Initial PPR scoping meeting will: ● Confirm PPR timeline and details. ● Complete External Panel Member Form.	Head of Quality Assurance	● Minutes of scoping meeting ● External Panel Member Nomination Form ● Stored centrally with Quality Team
3	Preparation and production of required PPR submission documentation in liaison with faculty, finance, learning resources, Academic Services, human resources and other departments, students, and External Examiners, as appropriate.	Faculty Director and Faculty	● SED ● Programme Specification(s) ● Course Descriptor(s) ● External Reports and Responses.
4	Submission of PPR documentation to the Head of Quality Assurance, normally no longer that four weeks before the IPR event.	Faculty Director	● Draft SED ● Draft Programme Specification(s) ● Draft Course Descriptor(s) ● External Reports and Responses.
5	Circulation of PPR documentation to the IPPR Event members and Deputy Dean & Associate Dean, Innovation & Enterprise, normally four weeks before the IPPR.	Quality Team	● Draft SED ● Draft Programme Specification(s) ● Draft Course Descriptor(s) ● External Reports and Responses.
6	IPPR Event will: ● Peer review of the PPR documentation. ● Agreement or recommendation to the Faculty and relevant staff to enhance the submission, if required.	IPPR Panel members	● Draft SED ● Draft Programme Specification(s) ● Draft Course Descriptor(s) ● External Reports and Responses.
7	Submission of revised PPR documentation to the Head of Quality Assurance normally no later than four weeks before the PPR Event.	Faculty Director	● SED Programme Specification(s) ● Course Descriptor(s) ● External Reports and Responses ● PPR Documentation Checklist
8	Circulation of PPR documentation submission to the PPR event Panel, normally four weeks before the Event.	Head of Quality Assurance	● SED ● Programme Specification(s) ● Course Descriptor(s) ● External Reports and Responses
9	PPR Panel will: ● Review PPR documentation. ● Agree the outcomes, conditions and recommendations of the PPR Event.	PPR event Secretary	● SED ● Programme Specification(s) ● Course Descriptor(s) ● External Reports and Responses.
10	PPR event Outcome Report prepared and circulated to the PPR Event Panel for confirmation within two weeks of the event.	PPR event Secretary	● PPR Outcome Report
11	Confirmation and sign-off of the PPR Outcome Report	PPR event Panel Chair	● PPR Outcome Report
12	Circulation of the confirmed PPR Outcome Report to the Head of Quality Assurance, Faculty Director (if required) along with the PPR Event Response Form for Faculty to complete by the deadline provided.	PPR event Secretary	● SIGNED PPR Outcome Report ● PPR Outcome Response Form
13	Completion of PPR Outcome Response Form and revision of PPR documentation as recommended in the PPR Outcome Report, in consultation with the Faculty.	Faculty Director	● PPR Outcome Response Form
13	Submission of the response and revised documentation to the Head of Quality.	Faculty Director	● PPR Outcome Response Form ● REVISED Programme Specification(s) and/or REVISED Course Descriptor(s) (if relevant)
14	Submission of PPR Outcome Response Form and revised documentation to the PPR Panel Chair for approval and sign-off.	Head of Quality Assurance	● PPR Outcome Response Form ● REVISED Programme Specification(s) and/or REVISED Course Descriptor(s) (if relevant).
15	Approval and sign-off of the PPR Event Outcome Response Form.	PPR Panel Chair	● SIGNED PPR Outcome Response Form
15	Circulate approved and signed PPR Outcome Response Form and revised documentation to the Head of Quality Assurance, Faculty Director (if relevant).	PPR Panel Chair	● SIGNED PPR Outcome Response Form ● APPROVED Programme Specification(s) and/or APPROVED Course Descriptor(s) (if relevant)
16	Submission of approved and signed PPR Outcome Report and PPR Outcome Response Form to Academic Board	Head of Quality Assurance	● SIGNED PPR Outcome Report ● SIGNED PPR Outcome Response Form
17	Formal Re-approval The PPR Outcome Report and PPR Outcome Response Form are considered and the provision is formally re-approved.	Academic Board	● SIGNED PPR Outcome Report ● SIGNED PPR Outcome Response Form
18	A PPR Confirmation Form is produced.	Head of Quality Assurance	● PPR Confirmation Form
19	The Periodic Programme Review Confirmation Form and re-approved Programme Specification(s) and Course Descriptors are signed off.	Chair of Academic Board	● SIGNED PPR Confirmation Form
20	The signed PPR Confirmation Form is circulated to the Faculty Director (if relevant) as confirmation of programme re-approval and the end of the PPR procedure.	Quality Team	● SIGNED PPR Confirmation Form
20	The signed and re-approved Programme Specification(s) and Course Descriptors are circulated to the Faculty Director; Marketing, Recruitment and Admissions Teams; Academic Services.	Quality Team	● APPROVED Programme Specification(s) ● APPROVED Course Descriptor(s)
21	PPR Documentation (including Programme Specification(s) and Course Descriptors) are stored as master copies in the Quality Team folders.	Quality Team	● APPROVED Programme Specification(s) ● APPROVED Course Descriptor(s) ● SIGNED PPR Outcome Report ● SIGNED PPR Outcome Response Form ● SIGNED PPR Confirmation Form
	Re-approved programme documentation is uploaded to the University’s website.	Quality Team	● APPROVED Programme Specification(s) ● APPROVED Course Descriptor(s)
	Production of marketing materials in consultation with Quality Team and Faculty Director	Director of Marketing
	Updating of the Student Information System with new course codes and assessment data with the Course Leader as appropriate.	Academic Services Coordinator	● APPROVED Course Descriptor(s)
22	Ongoing monitoring of any recommendations.	TLEC (for academic matters) ExCo (for institutional matters)

Appendix A: Typical Timescale for Periodic Programme Review

Version History

Title: AQF6 Periodic Review Approved by: Academic Board Location: Academic Handbook/Academic Quality Framework
Version number	Date approved	Date published	Owner	Proposed next review date
23.2.0	July 2023	July 2023	Head of Quality Assurance	August 2024
Version numbering system revised March 2023
1.2	November 2022	November 2022	Head of Quality Assurance	August 2023
1.1	February 2020	August 2020	Head of Quality Assurance	August 2021
1.0	June 2019	–	Head of Quality Assurance	August 2021

Referenced documents	AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification; Programme Specification; Course Descriptor; External Panel Member Nomination Form; External Panel Member Policy; Self-Examination Document Guidance and Template; Periodic Programme Review Outcome Report; Periodic Programme Review Confirmation Form; Periodic Programme Review Documentation Checklist; Periodic Programme Review Outcome Response Form; AQF5 Annual Monitoring and Reporting; External Panel Member Policy.
External Reference Point(s)	UK Quality Code Theme: Monitoring and Evaluation; QAA Subject Benchmark Statements; Degree Apprenticeship Standards.