University-led reviews of learning and teaching

University-led reviews of learning and teaching (URLTs) are a key part of the University’s approach to quality assurance and enhancement. They provide strategic oversight of the quality and standards of provision, and the wider student experience across Schools and Departments.

Conducted on a six-year cycle, URLTs offer a comprehensive, evidence-informed evaluation of provision. Drawing on institutional data, a reflective analysis, and student feedback, they assess the effectiveness of learning and teaching, identify strengths and highlight areas for enhancement.

Each review results in an evaluative report and an agreed action plan to support ongoing improvement and longer-term development. Outcomes are reported to the Academic Monitoring Group (AMG) and inform the University’s wider approach to quality enhancement.

Purpose of URLTs

URLTs aim to:

Assure the quality and standards of learning and teaching provision
Support critical reflection on policy and practice
Identify areas for development and ensure they are addressed
Highlight and share good practice within and beyond the University

Scope of URLTs

URLTs cover:

Undergraduate (UG) and taught postgraduate (PGT) programmes
Research postgraduate (PGR) supervision, review, and skills development
Contributions to programmes delivered outwith the School/Department (e.g. MA in Combined Studies)
Collaborative and transnational provision (e.g. joint degrees and joint PhDs)
Work-based learning and placements
Online and distance-learning provision
Smaller credit-bearing provision
Non-credit bearing provision

Review cycle

Schools and Departments are reviewed on a six-year cycle. The schedule of reviews is available at review schedule 2020-2032 (Word).

Schools and Departments with programmes accredited by professional, statutory, and regulatory bodies (PSRBs) are encouraged to align PSRB activity with URLTs where appropriate. This may include the use of shared documentation or coordinated processes that meet both URLT and external accreditation.

Key stages of the review

The School or Department submits a Reflective Analysis (RA) (15-20 pages) with an Advanced Information Set (AIS) six weeks in advance of the review
The School President submits a Student Voice document six weeks in advance of the review
The review panel considers the documentation and identifies key themes, including areas of good practice and areas for further exploration; these are shared with the School or Department approximately one week before the review
The review panel meets with staff and students over one and a half days
Following the review, the panel produces an evaluative report, including commendations and recommendations, which is shared with the School or Department within six weeks
The School or Department develops an action plan in response to the recommendations; is submitted to the Academic Monitoring Group (AMG) for approval
Approximately one year after the review, the School or Department produces a Year-on update to AMG for approval

Access to review documentation

University staff can access review documentation via the Education SharePoint.

The Director of Teaching (DoT) leads preparation for the review, coordinates documentation, and acts as the main liaison with the Quality team.

In advance of the review

Guidance and templates to support these activities are provided in the section below.
- Attend an initial planning meeting with the Chair and Quality team. Key role holders, such as the Head of School or Department and Office Manager are also welcome
- Nominate two external subject specialists and an internal reviewer
- Lead the preparation of the Reflective Analysis (RA), in consultation with colleagues and students
- Coordinate the Advanced Information Set (AIS)
- Book appropriate rooms for the review - one room as the main base for the review panel and one for the parallel meetings with students on the first day of the review only. The main base should comfortably accommodate up to 16 people
- Notify students about the review, including opportunities to participate and provide briefing information to those attending
- Develop the review programme in consultation with the Quality team. The School is responsible for identifying staff and students, and the Quality team will issue invitations
- Invite the School President to comment on the Reflective Analysis before submission
During the review
- Provide a 10-minute presentation or introduction at the first meeting of the review. This may be delivered by the Head of School, if preferred
- Include a brief overview of the School or Department (e.g. student and staff numbers, management structure, current status of School or Department and future plans or strategy) and what the School or Department would like to gain from the review.
- Attend relevant meetings including the final meeting. It is not necessary for the DoT to attend all meetings
After the review
- Review the draft report and provide factual corrections
- Develop an action plan in response to recommendations
- Meet with the School President to discuss the report and proposed actions
- Submit the action plan to the Academic Monitoring Group (AMG)
- Once approved by AMG, share outcomes with staff and students
- Submit a one-year update to the AMG for approval
The School President plays a key role in representing the student voice throughout the review process.

In advance of the review
- Gather feedback from students across all levels of study to produce a Student Voice document
- Draw on both current and previous feedback (e.g. SSCC minutes, class representative handover notes, School President reports)
- Ensure the Student Voice reflects areas of good practice and areas for development
- Provide input to the Reflective Analysis (RA), where appropriate
During the review
- Participate in the Honours student meeting (typically)
- Support open and representative discussion of the student experience
After the review
- Meet with the Director of Teaching to discuss the evaluative report and proposed actions
- Provide input on the School or Department’s response to recommendations and the action plan
Student Voice document

The Student Voice document is an important part of the review and ensures that student perspectives are reflected in discussions. With the School President’s permission, it is shared with the Director of Teaching in advance of the review.

Detailed guidance and a sample Student Voice document are provided in the section below.
The review panel acts as a group of ‘critical friends’ bringing a range of experience and perspectives to the review process. The panel typically comprises:
- Senior member of the Principal’s Office (Chair): The Chair sets the tone for the review, facilitates discussions, ensures meetings remain focused and has final sign-off of the evaluative report.
- External subject experts: Two external subject experts – one from the Scottish sector and one from elsewhere in the UK - focus on the curriculum, learning and teaching provision, and the management of academic standards.
- Internal staff member: A senior academic from a cognate area contributes their experience and perspective.
- School President: The School President from a cognate area focuses on the student experience, drawing on awareness of current issues and good practice.
- PGR representative: A postgraduate research student from a cognate area represents the PGR community and contributes insight into current student issues and the research student experience.
- Academic Policy Officer (Quality): As review coordinator, the Academic Policy Officer attends the review, takes notes, and drafts the evaluative report, drawing on the views of the review team.
External subject experts and the internal staff member are selected from nominees put forward by the School or Department.

The School President is recruited by the Students’ Association, and the PGR representative is appointed by the Quality team from current students undertaking (or who have recently completed) the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice.

Role of reviewers
Timeline (approximate)
- Six weeks prior to the review
  Review panel will be provided with documentation submitted by the School or Department
- Four weeks prior to the review
  Review panel submits areas of good practice and areas for exploration from their reading of the documentation
- One week prior to the review
  Review panel attends a short online planning meeting
- Review
  Review panel meets with groups of staff and students throughout the day and a half
- One week after the review
  Review panel will be provided with a draft evaluative report containing the commendations and recommendations, for approval
- Four weeks after the review
  External reviewers will draft and submit sections 4 and 5 of the evaluative report
- Five weeks after the review
  Review panel will review and approve the full draft evaluative report
- Six weeks after the review
  The draft evaluative report is shared with the School or Department for factual accuracy checks before finalisation
- End of the process
  End of the process for the review panel
Personal data is handled in accordance with relevant data protection requirements. When planning and conducting reviews, the University will only share personal data where necessary for the purposes of the review process. Directors of Teaching are asked to take care when preparing the Reflective Analysis (RA) and Advanced Information Set (AIS) to ensure that individuals are only identified where necessary. The Quality team and the University Data Protection Officer are available to provide advice and support.

The University uses information arising from reviews, alongside other quality processes, to identify strategic themes and inform its approach to quality enhancement.

The Quality team produces an annual summary of themes and feedback from University-led reviews of learning and teaching, which is reported to the Academic Monitoring Group (AMG). Schools and Departments may be invited to share examples of good practice identified through the review process.

Review documentation is shared with University staff via the .
Guidance and templates

Detailed guidance and templates to support the:

Director of Teaching
- Nominating external and internal reviewers
- Practical arrangements for the review
- Student engagement
- Key documents and templates for:
  - Reflective Analysis
  - Advanced Information Set
  - Programme for the review
  - Action plan and Year-on Update
  - Communication to students informing them of the review
  - Briefing for students attending the review
School President
- Guidance on role of School Presidents
- Sample Student Voice

58吃瓜