General Board Learning and Teaching Reviews:

CoreGuidance

1.Introduction

Various types of review involving teaching institutions operate in the University of Cambridge:

  1. Learning and Teaching Reviews (LTR): this is the default review for teaching institutions, and is concerned only with those activities. Teaching institutions can expect to be reviewed approximately every six years.
  2. Programme Reviews:learning and teaching reviews may also be conducted at programme level for large interdisciplinary courses.
  3. Full Reviews: this is an in-depth review of all the institution’s activities, including learning, teaching, research and resources. It may be initiated as a result of a LTR, or may be requested by the institution, School or General Board. Full Reviews take place only in exceptional circumstances.
  4. Other Reviews: occasionally Review Committees may be convened to investigate certain areas of provision or strategic interests.

This guidance concentrates on Learning and Teaching Reviews.

2.Purpose and ethos

LTRs are one means whereby the General Board carries out its statutory responsibility for overseeing arrangements for learning and teaching. The role of the Review Committee, made up of academic peers and a student member, is to:explore whether teaching and learning activities are being carried out effectively, note where provision might be enhanced, suggest constructive courses of action, and to report to the General Board.

The Committee’s report is not intended to represent accreditation or judgement of the institution. Rather reviews are primarily intended as a reflective exercise for the enhancement of learning and teaching, and as a health check on academic standards, the quality of the student learning experienceand effective use of resources.

In addition, LTRs: provide evidence to external bodies such as the Quality Assurance Agency that the University can assure itself of the quality and standards of its educational provision, recommend whether a Full Review is necessary, and identify innovative or particularly effective practices for dissemination across the University.

3.Conduct, confidentiality and disclosure

Review Committees are expected to conduct their business in an appropriately transparent manner, but without undermining the integrity of the review. Throughout the process the institution should be given as much information as possible about the Review Committee’s thinking to enable it to respond to issues effectively.

Committee members will be invited to declare any potential conflicts of interest at the first meeting. These may be relevant later in the proceedings (e.g. when discussing resources ifa member of the Committee is in the same School as the institution under review).

If the Committee invites views from any bodies or individuals about the institution under review, the institution should be able to see those comments in the interests of transparency and fairness. This should be made clear to any such individuals or bodies.

The Review Committee’s deliberations during the review process are confidential.The report, the institution’s response, and the Education Committee minute will be combined in one PDF document accessible to Raven account holders from the Educational and Student Policy website.

4.Timing

The General Board, through its Education Committee, sets the timetable for internal reviews in negotiation with the Councils of the Schools. Since the timetable runs on a six-year cycle, the approximate timing of reviews is known well in advance. Where possible and applicable the General Board will have regard to the timing of visits by relevant Professional, Regulatory and Statutory Bodies.

The General Board will not normally agree to defer a review. Normally the only accepted arguments for deferring a review are relocation, merger with another institution or an accreditation visit (if this will require radically different preparation from that required for the LTR).

5.Terms of reference

LTRs cover all programmes at the undergraduate, taught postgraduate, and research postgraduate level (including any collaborative and/or part-time provision).

The terms of reference (ToR) are as follows:[1]

  1. Overall structure of the institution
  2. The educational aims of its programmes
  3. The knowledge and skills acquired by students during its courses
  4. Curricula and assessment
  5. Student support
  6. Learning resources
  7. Maintenance and enhancement of standards and quality
  8. Any special ToR suggested by the General Board, Council of the School, Faculty Board or institution, which does not fall within the headings above.

6.Review Committee membership

Depending on the size and complexity of the institution, the Review Committee will consist of between four and six members, at least one of whom will be external to the Universityand one will be a student. The relevant Council of the School will, after consultation with the institution, suggest names for appointment by the General Board; CUSU’s Education Officer will be invited to suggest student members who will be considered for appointment. The Committee’s Chair will be a nominee of the General Board.

The External Reviewer and the student member should be involved on the same basis as other members - attending meetings of the Committee and contributing in the same manner to discussions and formulating the report.

The Committee should not include any current or recent member of the institution under review. Due regard should be paid to any actual or potential conflict of interest when membership of the Review Committee is considered. For example, it would not be appropriate for a current or recent External Examiner associated with the institution, or a recent former member of staff, to act as an External Reviewer.

Where possible, Review Committee membership should remain constant throughout the review.

7.The review process

a.Structure

Once Review Committee membership has been approved, the Secretary will contact members and the Institution to negotiate the review timetable. This will include setting the deadline for the institution’s submission, and fixing the number of times that the Review Committee is likely to meet.

A LTR Review Committee will usually meet twice: first to discuss its agenda and areas of particular interest, and then to visit the institution. If teaching provision is particularly extensive or complex, the visit may extend over more than one day, though this is unusual and not encouraged. It may also be necessary to see students on a different day (if they are part-time or on placements). If the institution and its teaching provision are of a limited size then the process will be scaled appropriately.

Every effort should be made to complete the review within the academic year in which the Review Committee is established.

b.The institution’s submission

The institution is expected to make a written submission to address the ToR. The submission should strike an appropriate balance between description and evaluation and include: an evaluation of the institution within the national and international contexts, an indication of how the institution sees itself and its activities developing within the foreseeable future, and how it anticipates implementing such developments.

Most of the evidence should relate to learning and teaching issues, although some contextual information about research, and administration may be necessary for the Review Committee to consider aspects of these activities which impinge on teaching. Evaluation of effective use of resources relating to the provision of programmes at any level should be included. Where issues are mentioned that would benefit from initial discussion between the Review Chair, the Head of the Institution (HoI) and the Chair of the Council of the School, a meeting should be arranged by the Review Secretary.

The Committee should assure itself that enough attention is given to postgraduate issues: these are now a particular focus of external quality assurance exercises, and are of particular interest to the General Board .

More detailed guidance about the institution’s submission may be found in the Supplement for Heads of Institutions.

The review process is not intended to be paper intensive but some information is essential for the Review Committee to consider. See the Documentation to accompany the written submission for a list of the required supplementary paperwork, and other documents which the Committee may ask to see to further its understanding of issues raised in the submission.

c.The initial meeting

At its initial meeting the Committee will:

  • consider whether the submission is sufficiently informative and evaluative;
  • agree a list of issues to be pursued with the institution, and whether they should be addressed:

by the Chair and Secretary with the Head of the Institution prior to the visit; and/or

during the visit; and/or

by requesting further documentation.

  • discuss the roles of Review Committee members (e.g. whether they would like to lead particular meetings during the visit);
  • discuss the format of the visit and decide which types of staff and students it would like to see.

NB.Additional paperwork should be requested to answer a specific question, not for general interest.

d.Visit

Each review will include a visit by the Review Committee to the institution.

The introductory and summing up sessions

It is normal to start the visit with a meeting with the HoI (and other senior staff at his/her discretion),at which s/he can present the institution’s position and the Committee can start to discuss the topics of interest. The visit should conclude with a summing up session with the same person/people, during which the Chair should present the main findings of the Committee. No new recommendation or significant issue should be included in the report which has not been presented to the HoI at this meeting.

While some limited discussion of the findings is acceptable, particularly to clear up any misunderstandings, the HoI is not expected to respond to the findings during this meeting.

If the Committee is not able to formulate its recommendations at the end of the visit it will need to meet again: this is not usual.

Meeting with students

Review Committees normally ask to see a representative selection of students from all years and courses. Graduates and undergraduates may be seen separatelyif necessary. Senior members of the institution should not be present at these sessions.

It is normal to meet students over lunch, as an incentive for them to attend and so that they do not miss teaching sessions. Review Committees vary in how this meeting is conducted: somedivide to talk to subsets of the students while others hold a general discussion (sometimes chaired by the External Reviewer).

General notes

Review Committees generally ask to see certain categories of staff (the HoI, University Teaching Officers, administrator, etc), but other groups may be dictated by the topics of interest. The HoI should not be present at every meeting, as their presence could inhibit some participants from giving their views openly and frankly. Similarly observers are not permitted.

If necessary, the Review Committee may seek information about the institution from individuals or bodies within the University (e.g. the Secretary and Chair of the Council of the School). The Review Committee may choose to meet with parties external to the institution, as it sees fit.

The Review Committee may split and hold parallel meetings to fit more sessions into the day or to break down particularly large groups.

e.The report

The Review Committee will produce a report summarising its activities and findings and highlighting teaching and learning innovations and good practice, together with its recommendations and commendations. The report willinclude a recommendation, with reasons, to say whether or not a Full Review is necessary.

The process is as follows:

  1. The report will be sent to the HoI and the Secretary of the Council of the School for factual corrections.
  2. The corrected final version will be forwarded to Educational and Student Policy which will, unless an alternative process is considered necessary (in view of, for example, the nature of the recommendations or the timing of meetings), send the report to the institution and its Faculty Board (or equivalent body) for formal comment.
  3. The institution/Faculty Board’s formal response,and the report, will then be considered by the General Board’s Education Committee, which will subsequently report to the General Board.
  4. The General Board (or its Education Committee) will determine the actions to be taken in light of the report’s recommendations and the responses to it, establish a timetable for those actions and inform those concerned.
  5. The minute of the General Board’s discussion, with the report and the institution’s response, will be sent to the relevant Council of the School for information.A PDF file containing these three documents (including the membership of the review panel) will be accessible online to Raven account holders via the Educational and Student Policy website.
  6. Educational and Student Policy will provide feedback on the General Board’s discussion and agreed actions to members of the Review Committee.
  7. The Education Committee will ensure that actions agreed under (iv) are undertaken.

8.Further guidance

This guidance is supplemented by the following documents:

  • Terms of reference for General Board Learning and Teaching Reviews
  • Documentation to accompany the written submission
  • Supplement for Heads of Institutions
  • Supplement for Review Chairs
  • Supplement for External Reviewers
  • Supplement for Review Secretaries
  • Supplement for Student Members

9.Contacts

For further information about LTRs please contact Alison Burgess at Educational and Student Policy ( or 01223 332354).

The Section’s postal address is:Educational and Student Policy, 17 Mill Lane, CambridgeCB2 1RX

All guidance relating to LTRs is online at:

Last revised:3 August 2015Page 1 of 4AJB

[1] Also see the detailed Terms of Reference for General Board Learning and Teaching Reviews.