University of Bristol
GUIDELINES FOR PERIODIC PROGRAMME REVIEW (PPR)

Periodic Programme Review (PPR) is a strategic process undertaken by each School at subject level once every five years as part of a rolling programme that looks at the quality, validity and viability of all academic provision (across taught programmes) and every aspect of the educational experience supported by the University. The process serves to revalidate programmes, subject to any recommendationsarising in the report being satisfactorily addressed

This guidance applies to all taught programmes, including those taught at partner institutions. A list of current programmes can be found in the Code of Practice for Taught Programmes.

  1. Purpose and Principles of Periodic Programme Review
  2. The PPR processisthe point at which the continuing academic standards, content, validity and relevance of all taught programmes is reviewed with due diligence including scrutiny that is external to the school. The process thus provides the school with a formal opportunity for broad thinking about the student educational experience, with the purpose of ensuringthe continuous improvement of the quality of programmes offered by the University.

1.2.The PPR process complementsSchool’s stage one/tworeviews of programmes, which continue to be atactical and annual process of self-evaluation, analysis and reflection, and transparent decision-making about actions taken and required to enhance every aspect of the student experience(see diagram 1).

1.3.The key characteristics of PPR are that it is:

1.3.1.Genuinely strategic in its focus and action planning for the future, and links to the University Education Strategy;

1.3.2.Evidence-based and founded on an analysis of a Portfolio of Information (see section 3);

1.3.3.A flexible process that is proportionate and tailored to individual Schools according to themes emerging from the Portfolio of Information, the particular areas of focus and ambitions of the School, and the context of other related review activities such as PSRB accreditation;

1.3.4.Streamlined in its alignment with stage one/tworeview of programmes, Education Action Planning (EAP), PSRB accreditation and School Review;

1.3.5.Undertaken in full partnership with students, with an emphasis on the student experience, and with the full participation of students as members of the Review Participants, providers of data and feedback, and contributors to the review activities in the School.

1.3.6.Includes scrutiny from outside of the school, with the Review Participantsmembership including an external examiner and critical friend from another institution, and a Faculty Education Director (FED) or A memberof THE University Academic Quality and Standards Committee from another faculty

1.4.The PPR will generate a report with recommendations. Revalidation of the programmeswill only be confirmed when the school satisfactorily responds to any recommendations by updating the School EAP.

1.5.Recommendations and commendations from the review will form part of the School’s EAP which will then feed into School Reviews and other external quality assurance processes.

  1. Scope
  2. Each school is required to undertake PPRfor all programmes on a five-yearly cyclical basis. Each review should be conducted at subject level (with more than one per school, where applicable), and mustcover all undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes of study within the five-year cycle.
  3. At every level, there is an expectation that students would be engaged in all aspects of the process.
  4. The PPR is designed to be flexible and proportionate to the school, adding value to existing PSRB accreditation cycles. Programmes with PSRB accreditation that involve a comprehensive visit on a regular cycleare expected to do a modified PPR either in the year before the PSRB visit which would support preparation or act as a mock visit, or in the year following a visit which would act as a follow-up and review of the action plan.
  5. Programmeswith PSRB accreditation that either does not involve a visit, or has criteria that does not cover all elements of a PPR (for example, analysis of the student experience is not covered by some PSRBs) would have a modified PPR which would be proportionate and tailored to the schoolon an individual basis to cover aspects of the PPR which had not been covered by the PSRB. Programmes with no accreditation are required to have a full PPR.
  6. The PPR process will consider:
  • the continuing academic standards of the programmes;
  • the continued validity and relevance of all programmes including the impact of incremental change;
  • the programme specifications and unit descriptors;
  • delivery methods and whether the school was using appropriate technologies to deliver its programmes;
  • the student experience;
  • continuous enhancement of the programme;
  • how programmes fit with the Bristol Skills Framework, the Institutional Principles for Assessment and Feedback and other University frameworks/policies as appropriate.
  1. Outline of the Procedure
  2. A Review Coordinator will be assigned from the AQPO to work with the School throughout the PPR process.
  3. Typically, a PPR would constitute a series of round-tablediscussions that cover the key themes arising from the Review Participant’s analysis of the portfolio of information (see section 3.5).
  4. It is expected that the PPR meetings would take at across one full day (see annex A).
  5. Review Participants
  6. The PPR meetingswould be chaired by either the Faculty Education Director (FED) or the FQT Chair (to be agreed by the faculty) and would normally include but would not be limited to:
  • Director of Teaching and Learning, or equivalent;
  • Programme Director(s);
  • Senior Tutor;
  • Head of Subject;
  • Representatives from the partner school of any Joint Honours programmes
  • Two Student Quality Reviewers, at least one from the home faculty;
  • A suitable external examiner from the school’s pool of current external examiners;
  • An external critical friend from a similar department at another institution;
  • A FED or member of AQSC from another Faculty;
  • A member of AQPO
  • Representatives from anyCollaborative Partners, where applicable;

3.4.2.Student Course Representativesand Members of the Committees of Student Academic Society/ies must be included in discussions during the PPR. Alumni may also be invited to attend meetings to add value to the discussions around forward planning and horizon scanning.

3.4.3.Other staff should be invited to join relevant discussions to further explore and enhance programme delivery methods, for example a member of the Technology Enhanced Learning and Education Development Team (TELED), Academic Staff Development orSubject Librarians.

3.4.4.Industry or employer representatives may be invited to meetings or consulted prior to the meeting. Advice from the Careers Office would be sought in order to tailor this to each school.

3.4.5.Early in the process, the Review Coordinator will liaise with the School and PPR Chair to confirm the programmes to be covered, the review participants and the general format of the review (post/pre PSRB etc.).

3.5.Portfolio of Information

3.5.1.The PPR is based on an analysis of a portfolio of information relating to the current validity and standards of programmes, principally from existing programme monitoring activities such as stage one/tworeview of programmes. It will also be an opportunity for the school to provide additional information in the form of a SWOT analysis. The portfolio of information will include:

  • PSRB accreditation executive summary of the submission, the report, and action plan (if applicable)
  • Statistical Data (Application:Offer:Intake ratios; Intake Analysis; Progression; Award; Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) data, student survey results)
  • School Education Action Plan
  • Details of existing employability agreements, as advised by the Careers Office
  • Summary of FQT visit reports (for 17/18 PPRs)
  • Programme specifications
  • Unit specifications for mandatory units
  • Report of programme changes since the last PPR (from the Unit and Programme Management System (UPMS))
  • Data from the Examinations Office
  • School’s SWOT analysis or self-evaluation document (unless covered by the PSRB submission)
  • Details of Staff involved in teaching and administering the programmes (link to staff profiles on website if possible)
  • Student submission coordinated by the University of Bristol Students’ Union (SU) for each school

3.5.2.The Review Coordinator will circulate the Portfolio of Information to the Review Participantswho are requested to consider this in the light of the University’s Education Strategy and identify any themes arising. Feedback should be sent to the Review Coordinator.

3.6.The Review Coordinator will collate the feedback from the Review Participant’s analysis of the portfolio, and liaise with the Review Chair and School to agree the particular areas of focus or themes that the school will address in the Review. The agenda for the Review will be agreed at this meeting.

3.7.Responsibilities

3.7.1.The Review Coordinator will meet with the Head of School as early as possible to confirm the remit of the PPR, relevant dates and the timing of the submission of the SWOT analysis.

3.7.2.The School must provide nominations for the externalparticipants, and confirm details of representatives from external partnerships etc. The Review Coordinator will be responsible for liaising with the Review Participants.

3.7.3.The School will be responsible for providing the space required for the review and will ensure that all relevant students (current and alumni), and school staff are available for the Review.

  1. Outcomes of the PPR

4.1.The outcomes of the PPR will be recorded in a report with recommendations. The report will be signed off by the school and Chair before being disseminated to the FQT and the UAQSC.

4.2.Recommendations will be made to the school and categorised into three levels:

  1. Immediate remedial action is required;
  2. Intermediate issue needs to be addressed before the start of the next academic year;
  3. Further planning is required in order to ensure the continued improvement of the students learning opportunities.

4.3.Revalidation of the programmes will only be confirmed when the school satisfactorily responds to any recommendations by updating their School EAP. The EAP plan would be considered by the Review Team Chair, before being reported to the UAQSC.

4.4.All PPR reports with the corresponding EAP sections will be reported to the UAQSC. Where level (i) recommendations have been made, the report and action plan will be reviewed by UAQSC within two months of the date of the report, and a further progress report considered six months hence. If the recommendations in the report fall into category (ii) and (iii) the report and action plan would be considered by the UAQSC at the final meeting of the academic year, with the progress reports being considered at the January meeting.

4.5.If a School fails to respond to category (i) actions within the allocated timeframe the Dean and PVC will be informed, programmes would not be revalidated and the School would be required to implement a teaching out plan.

4.6.The outcomes of the PPR would be shared with the students by upload to the relevant Student Staff Liaison Committee (SSLC) Blackboard site.

  1. Interaction with existing QA processes

5.1.The School EAP Processshould be conducted as normal during the year a PPR is due.

5.2The PPR action plan would form part of the documentation that is reviewed during the school review process, and would normally be planned to take place one or two year before the school review.

Approved by University Academic Quality and Standards Committee – October 2017


Potential schedule/timetable for a Periodic Programme Review

AQPO will work with the relevant School to compile a schedule of meetings. The number, length and size of meetings will vary depending on the subject, whether there has been a recent PSRB visit, if the review covers UG and PGT, the number of programmes involved etc.

Some meetings will be developmental/exploratory meetings prior to the review. For example:

  • AQPO may meet with staff to fully review details held in programme and unit specifications;
  • TELED could discuss using new areas of technology with staff;
  • The International Office may be discussing with the School new areas in which to market programmes;
  • The School may already have started discussions about a new programme.

Formal review meetings will normally take place across one full day and will includeall review participants. Meetings will normally take place with the following people (these may be combined into single meetings) but this is not an exclusive list:

  • Head of School
  • Deputy Head Teaching and Learning (or equivalent)
  • Programme Director/s
  • Unit Directors
  • Teaching staff
  • Professional Service Staff (School Manager, Student Administration Manager, Graduate Administration Manager, Student Administrators etc.)
  • Industry or employer representatives
  • Students (normally course representatives)
  • Alumni

Page 1