Academic Policy & Governance

1.1 Periodic Subject Review (PSR) is the University of Glasgow’s Institution-led subject review process and is an integral part of the University’s Academic Quality Framework.[1] The PSR process provides a formal opportunity for a School/Subject to reflect on and ritically evaluate its provision and to benefit from a constructive dialogue with senior academics from both within and outwith the University. It is intended to be a positive and constructive activity, supporting the School and Subject in the enhancement of their provision and learning experience of their students.

1.2 Periodic Subject Review covers all taught undergraduate and postgraduate programmes undertaken by Subject or School. This includes:

• Any joint degree programmes, including joint degree programmes with other institutions where the University of Glasgow is the administering university.
• Service teaching provided for another School or College within the University i.e. where the School is responsible for the administration, organisation and or content of the courses.
• Collaborative provision where collaborative activity can be with partners both in the UK and overseas and includes student mobility arrangements.

New programmes or courses that are about to be introduced It does not include research programmes as these are reviewed as part of the Graduate School Review process.

1.3 The University is required to formally report the outcome from PSRs on an annual basis to the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) via QAA Scotland, in order to ensure the SFC has confidence in our academic standards and demonstrates the institutional commitment to enhancing the student experience.

2.1 The PSR review covers the following aspects:

• strategic approach to enhancing learning and teaching;
• enhancing and supporting the student learning experience;
• enhancement in learning and teaching;
• quality assurance and maintaining and reviewing academic standards;
• approaches to identifying and sharing good practice.

2.2 The aims of the PSR are to provide support to the Subject/School in evaluating and enhancing its taught provision through:

a) An evaluation of:

• the relevance of programme aims and intended learning outcomes for each programme to each other and to the overall aims of the Subject's provision; the effectiveness of teaching, learning and assessment methods in meeting the intended learning outcomes for each programme;
• the correlation of provision with the relevant QAA Subject Benchmark Statements, the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework and other elements of the QAA’s ‘Quality Code’;
• the currency and validity of each programme in the light of developing knowledge within the discipline, and the application of that knowledge in practice;
• the effectiveness of the measures in place to assure the quality of provision and maintain standards;
• recent and proposed enhancements to the quality of the student learning experience in taught provision;
• the effectiveness of how the Subject/School engages students in developing teaching, learning and assessment practice.

b) A discussion with the Subject/School, its staff, students and stakeholders on:

• the quality of teaching, learning and assessment, and learning resources;
• the Subject/School’s approach to the enhancement of provision, including recent developments and future plans;
• the quality of the student learning experience, and ways in which it might be enhanced;
• ways of promoting student motivation and effective learning.

2.4 The outcome of the PSR review will be a report containing:

• an evaluation of the quality of the provision under review, including a statement on the Panel’s conclusions on the currency and validity of the programmes offered;
• an evaluation of the Subject/School's procedures for assuring the standards of awards and the quality of provision;
• an evaluation of the Subject/School’s approach to the enhancement of the student learning experience in taught provision;
• an evaluation of how effectively the Subject/School engages with students in developing teaching, learning and assessment practice, including preparation for the PSR process;
• an evaluation of collaborative provision (if appropriate);
• an evaluation of student mobility and work based and placement learning;
• the identification of good practices for dissemination across the University, as appropriate;
• recommendations for action to address any identified weaknesses and to further strengthen provision and thereby further enhance the provision of teaching, learning and assessment.

2.5 A six-year rolling review schedule is approved, in consultation with the Vice Principal (Learning & Teaching). Reviews are normally undertaken at School level, but due to the interdisciplinary nature of some Schools, this is not always practical, and Heads of School are invited to advise on appropriate groupings for reviews. The schedule aims to distribute the reviewing load in any one year across Colleges and takes account, where possible, issues such as joint degrees and articulation with external accreditation timetables.

2.6 Reviews are not normally held at the beginning or end of the academic session or during examination periods. For this reason, the reviews are typically held in the period January to March when students are available to meet with the Review Panel. APG consults with School/Subjects over suitable dates.

4.1 The format of the review can be summarised as:

• the preparation and submission of a Reflective Analysis and supporting documentation by the Subject/School;
• review of the documentation by the Panel;
• an informal meeting of the Student Panel member with class representatives of the School or Subject being reviewed;
• a short survey will be distributed to staff prior to the review.[2] This provides the Panel with a sense of how staff across the Subject/School views the provision of, and support for, teaching and those involved in teaching. a Panel visit to meet with staff and students;
• production of a report by the Panel which is submitted to Academic Standards Committee;
• action on the recommendations by the Subject/School and others named within the report;
• provision of a progress report by the Subject/School and others to Academic Standards Committee at six months from the receipt of the finalised report;
• further progress reports as deemed necessary by Academic Standards Committee.

4.2 The duration of the review visit is between one and two days depending on the size and complexity of the Subject(s) and the provision. All reviews involve a private, pre-visit meeting of internal members of the Review Panel.

5.1 A Panel will undertake the review whose membership will comprise at a minimum:

• a Vice Principal or the Clerk of Senate or Convener of Academic Standards Committee;
• at least one external subject specialist from other HE institutions, normally in the UK;
• a student representative from outwith the School and normally from another College;
• an Elected Academic Staff Member on the University Court;[3]
• an academic from a cognate School, normally within the same College;
• a representative from the Academic & Digital Development (ADD);
• a member of staff from Academic Services, who will also act as Review Manager.

5.2 The size of the Panel may be increased for large subjects or where the review encompasses more than one subject.

5.3 The Convener of the Panel is a Vice Principal.[4] All other members of the Panel have equal status and are expected to take part in all aspects of the review.

5.4 The number of external subject specialists appointed to the Panel will depend upon the size of the subject(s) and/or the range of provision. The Head of the School/Subject will be asked to suggest external subject specialists for the consideration of the Convener.

5.5 The student representative is a full member of the Panel and will be selected by the Students’ Representative Council Vice-President (Education) and College Convener of the College in which the review is to take place. Selection will be from other College Conveners in the first instance, followed by other members of the Council then a sabbatical officer. Selection will take due cognisance of relevant skills, aptitudes and experience in representation. The Vice-President (Education) normally undertakes one review so that they can provide support and guidance to other students in this role. Student members will receive a fee (subject to taxation) at the same rate as the External member. APG is responsible for the payment of this cost and for all communication with the student member.

5.6  The academic from a cognate School within the College should be an experienced colleague and practising academic with significant Subject/School responsibility for teaching, possibly a member of the relevant College's Learning & Teaching Committee (or equivalent). The Dean (Learning & Teaching) of the relevant College will be asked for his/her recommendations. The Convener of the Panel will approve the recommendation prior to an invitation being issued to the person concerned. The Elected Academic Staff member on Court may occasionally be asked to fill this role where they satisfy the criteria and where the number of external members creates a large Panel. In such cases, the Convener will be consulted.

5.7 The Review Manager is also a full member of the Panel and will liaise with the Subject/School before and after the visit, take notes during the visit and draft the report of the review on behalf of the Review Panel.

+++

6.1 Conveners

In addition to the general requirements of the internal Panel members, Conveners have a specific responsibility to:

• liaise with the external subject specialist before the initial (pre-visit) meeting, to clarify any points raised in their commentary;
• chair the pre-visit meeting of the internal Panel members, and ensuring that all issues are addressed (as described in 7.3 below);
• approve the list of topics prepared by the Review Manager following the pre-visit meeting for circulation to all Panel members and to the Head of Subject/School prior to the visit;
• chair the various meetings during the visit, ensuring that each Panel member has the opportunity to contribute in the meetings with staff and students;
• allocate issues or topics to Panel Members to pursue in the various meetings of the review; agree with Panel members the manner in which each meeting should be conducted i.e. who should lead the questioning;
• manage meetings proactively to ensure that the timetable for meetings is adhered to as far as possible and, where necessary, stop any one person dominating discussion and ensure private meetings are used effectively;
• ensure that the Review Manager is aware of the key issues arising from the review, assist with the drafting of the report, including the identification of commendable features and areas of good practice;
• identify the areas to be covered by the Panel’s recommendations;
• discuss draft recommendations with the relevant Head of School/Subject before the report is finalised to ensure recommendations are realistic in terms of timescale and that they take account of all relevant factors. (There will normally be meeting between the Convener, Review Manager and Head of School/Subject within two weeks of the main review meeting.);
• approve the draft report prepared by the Review Manager prior to circulation to the other Panel members;
• finalise the report in light of any comments from the other Panel members on the draft and, subsequently, from the Head of Subject/School in regard to possible factual inaccuracies;
• where necessary, provide the Head of Subject/School with feedback once the report has been finalised on issues not included in the report e.g. if the review has highlighted any concerns that are deemed to be of a confidential nature;
• comment on the adequacy of the Subject/School’s and others’ responses to the recommendations one year after the review.

---

+++

6.2 External Subject Specialists

External subject specialists focus on subject provision and have a specific role in exploring and commenting on:

• the extent to which the Reflective Analysis is evaluative and constructively self-critical;
• the relevance of programme aims to the overall aims of the Subject/School's provision and the relevance of the intended learning outcomes for each programme to the aims of that programme;
• the effectiveness of teaching, learning and assessment practices in meeting the intended learning outcomes of courses and programmes;
• the consistency and appropriateness of the programme aims and curricula in relation to:
  • relevant QAA Subject Benchmark Statements;
  • other external reference points (e.g. Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF), Professional & Statutory Bodies (PSBs), where appropriate);
  • the currency and validity of each programme in the light of developing knowledge within the discipline and the application of that knowledge in practice. The PSR report will include an explicit statement regarding the Panel’s evaluation of programme currency and validity, guided by the External Subject Specialist(s).
• reflect on any aspects of the programmes that might be considered instances of good practice in a national or international context;
• the appropriateness of the Subject/School’s mechanisms for assuring the standards of awards;
• review documentation (off campus) in preparation for the review;
• submit a commentary on the Reflective Analysis and any issues arising from the supporting documentation for the pre-visit meeting, the purpose of which is set out under 7.5 below;
• participate in the Panel meeting with the Subject/School;
• identify areas of good practice and recommendations for action as well as contributing to and commenting on the report of the review.

The Convener, following an appropriate introduction, will invite the external subject specialist to lead the questioning at various points during the visit. The manner in which each meeting will be conducted will be established during the preceding private meeting of the Panel.

---

+++

6.3 Internal Panel Members

Given the purposes of the exercise and the background of the University members, the internal Panel members will focus on:

• the extent to which the Reflective Analysis is evaluative and constructively self-critical;
• the Subject/School’s procedures and mechanisms for obtaining and responding to feedback from staff, students, external examiners and other stakeholders on the quality of
  • teaching, learning and assessment
  • the student learning experience and
  • learning resources
• the effectiveness of teaching, learning and assessment practices in meeting the intended learning outcomes of courses and programmes;
• whether work-based learning/placement continues to meet requirements;
• opportunity for study abroad;
• inclusion and transparency of graduate attributes;
• the appropriateness of the Subject/School’s mechanisms for assuring the standards of awards;
• the Subject/School’s procedures and mechanisms for assuring and enhancing quality;
• review documentation in preparation for the review;
• submit a commentary on the Reflective Analysis and any issues arising from the supporting documentation for the pre-visit meeting;
• contribute at the pre-visit meeting in advance of the visit, the purpose of which is set out under 7.5 below;
• participate in the Panel meeting with the Subject/School;
• identify areas of good practice and recommendations for action as well as contributing to and commenting on a report of the review.

6.3.1 The Student Member

The Student member will approach the review from a student perspective and focus on the quality and enhancement of the student experience. Prior to the Review, the Student member will hold a focus group meeting with class representatives and provide feedback to the Panel at the pre-meeting.

6.3.2 The Elected Academic Staff Member on Court

The Elected Academic Staff Member on Court will act as a representative of Senate and will pay particular attention to the Subject/School’s approach to and practice in maintaining academic standards and assuring and maintaining quality.

6.3.3 The Cognate Member

The academic from a cognate School will approach the review from a teaching and College perspective.

6.3.4 Academic & Digital Development (ADD) Member

The member from ADD will pay particular attention to the Subject/School’s approaches to learning, teaching and assessment and their enhancement.

---

+++

6.4 Review Manager

The role of the Review Manager is to:

• liaise with the Subject/School over the arrangements for the review meeting;
• Prepare and circulate the external subject specialist’s and internal members’ written comments for the pre-visit meeting (see above);
• contribute comments to the pre-visit meeting;
• collate issues identified at the pre-visit meeting and circulate to all Panel members for reference in advance of the Panel visit;
• liaise with the Head of Subject/School in regard to (a) any additional information requested by the Panel at the pre-visit meeting and (b) finalising details of the groups of staff and students whom the Panel would like to meet during the visit;
• take notes at each of the meetings during the Panel visit;
• join the Convener in a post-review meeting with the Head of Subject/School to discuss the draft recommendations;
• draft the Panel’s report and send it to the Convener, for comment/approval, no later than four weeks[5] after the date of the Panel visit for return within one week;
• send the draft report, as approved by the Convener, to the other Panel members, for comment and return within two weeks;
• liaise with the Convener over any comments from the other Panel members;
• send the draft report to the Head of Subject/School, Dean of Learning & Teaching, and Vice Principal & Head of College, for the identification of any factual inaccuracies and return within two weeks – the draft report will also be submitted to the Academic Standards Committee for comment at this stage;[6]
• liaise with the Convener over comments from the Head of Subject/School, and Academic Standards Committee and finalise the report;
• send the draft report to the Vice Principal & Head of College and Dean (Learning & Teaching) to provide an opportunity for the College to comment on any conflicting issues.

---

7.1 Each Panel member scrutinises the Reflective Analysis (RA) and considers the extent to which it is reflective, evaluative, and constructively self-critical and discusses School/Subject strengths and weaknesses. It will also consider how staff and students have contributed to its development.

7.2 Each Panel member is assigned an area of documentation to review. 

• Internal Panel members focus on the robustness of the School’s procedures and mechanisms for assuring quality and its plans for enhancement, particularly plans related to the University’s Learning & Teaching Strategy and College Learning & Teaching Plans.
• External subject specialists will have a key role in programme review aspects, in particular: (a) reviewing the programmes in the light of relevant national subject benchmark statements and other external reference points, including the requirements of any relevant Professional, Statutory & Regulatory Bodies, where relevant; and (b) the appropriateness of the School/Subject’s mechanisms for assuring the standards of awards.
• The student member focus is on student related matters, in particular: (a) the usefulness of student handbooks and other key information; (b) the opportunities for students to engage in curriculum, teaching, learning and assessment development and innovation; and (c) the effectiveness of mechanisms for obtaining and responding to student feedback.

7.3 Each Panel member provides the Review Manager a report on topics for exploration in advance of the review date for consideration at a pre-visit meeting, which is normally held approximately one to two weeks in advance of the review. The Panel will agree the areas and topics to be covered in the visit (see below).

7.4 Following the pre-review meeting, the Head of Subject and Head of School will be provided with a note of the main areas the Panel wishes to explore during the visit. The Panel may explore some topics in more than one meeting and will not be restricted from exploring others as they arise on the day. Likewise, they may not raise all the topics listed on the day. The Subject/School do not respond in advance of the visit to the items identified, however, where the Panel wishes some clarification on minor points, it may make an explicit request for a response prior to the visit.

7.5 The relevant Vice Principal & Head of College and Dean (Learning & Teaching), are given the opportunity review the Reflective Analysis and provide commentary on factual accuracy in relation to College policy, if deemed appropriate. Any commentary received will be forwarded to the Panel and the Subject/School in advance of the review visit.

8.1 The Panel will visit and meet with individuals and groups of staff and students in the Subject(s) under review. The normal pattern of the visit is:

• several private meetings of the Review Panel over the day;
• a meeting with the Head of School and Subject(s) may be accompanied by one or two other senior members of staff who have delegated responsibility;
• separate meetings with undergraduate and postgraduate students on taught courses/programmes;
• a meeting with academic staff and others who have pivotal roles in teaching and supporting students or staff (normally without the Heads of School/Subject). This should include:

(i) Course or Programme or Year Co-ordinators;
(ii) Head of Learning & Teaching;
(iii) School Quality & Enhancement Officer (QEO);
(iv) staff representatives including support and professorial staff.

It may also include members of relevant Learning & Teaching Committee or equivalent; the Examinations Officer; the School Disabilities Co-ordinator; the Employment contact, the Convener(s) of the staff: student liaison committee; individuals with responsibility for schools liaison, student recruitment and careers advice; University Teachers, Secretarial, Technical or Administrative staff who have specific responsibilities in support of teaching, learning and assessment; etc, or equivalents; and up to three additional members of academic staff involved with teaching who might not otherwise meet with the Review Panel or to achieve a more representative gender balance;

• a meeting with hourly paid staff (e.g. GTAs, demonstrators, etc.);
• a meeting with early career staff;
• a meeting with the Head of School/Subject and the relevant Dean of Learning & Teaching (or Dean of Graduate Studies if appropriate) to discuss matters that have arisen during the course of the day and to highlight main areas likely to be included in the report. The relevant Vice-Principal and Head of College will also receive an open invitation to this meeting.[7] Issues highlighted in this meeting may be shared with colleagues immediately after the Panel visit.

Appendix 2 provides more detail on the normal pattern of meetings and the nature of the discussions in those meetings.

8.2 Private meetings of the Review Panel will be held at various points in the day.

8.3 The meetings with students are held before meetings with Subject/School staff in order to allow students’ views to be discussed with staff. Panels will not formally review students’ work or observe teaching.

8.4 Academic Services will ask the Subject to assist in approaching students to participate in the review and meet with the Panel on the day. Efforts should be made to ensure that the students who attend the meetings include representatives of as many different sections of the student body as possible, e.g. each level of study, mode of study (part-time, full-time, distance learning), ethnicity, home and international, GOALS entrant, disabilities, etc. To facilitate discussion with the students, the meetings will normally be conducted by splitting the students into smaller groups (maintaining a representative selection as far as possible) led by one or more Panel members. The Academic Services Administrator will ensure the necessary arrangements are in place and will liaise with the named PSR contact to co-ordinate the groups.

8.5 Meetings with hourly paid staff and early career staff may be held concurrently, each with a subset of the Panel. The Convener will lead the meeting with hourly paid staff and the Elected Academic Staff member on Court will lead the meeting with early career staff. 

8.6 The Panel may request other meetings. The Panel may also undertake a tour of School/Subject(s) accommodation and facilities. These matters will be decided following consultation with the Heads of School/Subject and Convener of the Review Panel. Any tour of Subject facilities should not be too ambitious and, as a rule, not exceed 30 minutes. It should be limited to showing specific areas referred to in the RA, contrasts between the different standards of facilities or providing an opportunity to view student learning and teaching work. Consideration may be given to conducting a tour on the day before the review visit if the external member(s) plans to arrive early. 

8.7 Academic Services is responsible for the organisation of the review visit and for liaising between the School/Subject and Convener over the timetable for the visit. It will liaise with named PSR contact regarding suitable accommodation for the review and will organise catering.

9.1 Engagement with and the participation of students are vital components of the PSR process. 

9.2 Student engagement takes place prior to the review, during the review and following the review. There is also indirect engagement with students’ views and feedback through the documentation submitted for the review.

Prior to the review

• The School/Subject should inform students about the review at an early opportunity e.g. at the first SSLC meeting in the academic session in which the review will be held and later reinforced by communication with all students e.g. Moodle and/or Student Voice. An information sheet for students is also available through the APG website.
• RA author(s) should endeavour to liaise with the wider student body on an early draft and later to seek endorsement prior to submission. To reach beyond student representatives, the School/Subject should consider posting a draft on Moodle and/or Student Voice so that all students (undergraduate and postgraduate) have the opportunity to comment. Obtain student feedback and ensure that the student experience is evaluated and captured meaningfully in the development of the RA.
• The Student Panel member will arrange a focus group with class representatives prior to the Review to enable the students to provide feedback in a more informal environment.
• Student feedback obtained via routine quality mechanisms will also inform the Panel e.g. student summary and response documents for course evaluation questionnaires, staff: student liaison committee minutes and annual monitoring reports, student surveys, etc.

Engagement during the review

• The Review Panel includes a student member. Experience has found that the inclusion of a student member provides the Panel with a greater focus on the student experience and an additional perspective on other issues from the student point of view.
• Undergraduate and taught postgraduate students will be invited to meet with the Review Panel to share their views on learning, teaching and assessment and on their engagement with developments in learning, teaching and assessment and their wider experience as students of the University. Experience has shown that students are generally willing to participate, particularly if they have had an early briefing about the review and have been engaged in the preparation for it.

Engagement with students following the review

• School/Subject to provide feedback to students after the review. Following approval of the review report by the Academic Standards Committee (ASC), the outcome Report should be provided for consideration at SSLCs and for posting onto School/Subject websites and/or Moodle/Student Voice. 
• The School/Subject should feedback to students on the outcomes of the review and on the actions taken in the six month progress report to ASC (see section 10.6).

10.1 The Review Panel will produce a report identifying the key strengths along with conclusions and recommendations for improvement or change. The recommendations contained within the report will indicate who is to take action: this may be targeted at the Subject(s), School, the College, a University Service, etc. Resource implications will only be considered where there is an adverse impact on the quality of learning and teaching. In such cases, the Panel may recommend that this is considered by the budget holder.

10.2 The Review Manager will draft the report, which will be circulated initially to the Convener and afterwards to other Panel members for comment or amendment.

10.3 A meeting will be scheduled for the Convener and Review Manager to meet with the Head of School to discuss the recommendations prior to receipt of the draft report.

10.4 Within eight weeks of the review visit, the final draft report will be made available to the Head of School/Subject, the relevant Vice Principal & Head of College and the relevant Dean of Learning & Teaching for the correction of factual inaccuracies and comments regarding the text, particularly in relation to commendations and recommendations. The draft can be discussed with colleagues but should not be widely circulated. Recipients will have two weeks to provide comments. Any suggested changes will be subject to the approval of the Convener of the Review Panel. 

10.5 The report is also submitted to Academic Standards Committee (ASC) at the point when it goes to the Head of Subject/School for comment on factual accuracy. Specific members of ASC will be asked to scrutinise the report and recommend to the Convener of ASC, either to endorse the report or suggest amendments. Following approval by ASC, the recommendations are forwarded to the School/Subject and others named in the recommendations for action. ASC will report to Education Policy and Strategy Committee (EdPSC) on any issues of educational policy that impact beyond the School. EdPSC may advise Senate, the Senior Management Group and the University Court, as necessary, of recommendations that have more serious academic or resource implications.

10.6 Should it prove necessary, the Review Panel may produce a confidential annex to the main report, which is for internal use by the Vice Principal (Learning & Teaching). This annex is produced only if there is information that the Panel considers sensitive and inappropriate for the main report e.g. information relating to individuals or interpersonal relations, etc.  It is anticipated that the need for a confidential annex will be exceptional.

10.7 Schools/Subject(s) are expected to provide a progress report in addressing the recommendations of the review, submitted to ASC approximately six months from the date ASC has approved the Report. In some cases, ASC may request a response within a shorter timescale, if deemed appropriate. Those responsible for taking action will be contacted by APG and advised of the relevant timescales. The School/Subject should also report on the steps taken to feedback to students on the outcomes of the review and on the actions taken. The Convener of the Panel will review the progress reports to ensure that the recommendations have been adequately addressed and reported, including evidence of dissemination of recommendations to students. 

10.8 ASC may request further follow-up reports in certain circumstances, e.g. where progress has been limited or delayed. ASC will be responsible for maintaining an overview of the PSRs.

10.9 In addition to reporting to ASC, School/Subjects should reflect on the impact of PSR during annual monitoring.

11.1 As part of the annual report to the Scottish Funding Council (see 13.3 below), APG produces an overview of the reviews conducted within each session and summarises any key issues or themes arising out of the review recommendations.

11.2 The above report is submitted to Academic Standards Committee with onward reporting to the Education Policy and Strategy Committee and Senate. It may also be referred to the Senior Management Group and Court, as appropriate.

11.3 Examples of good practice identified for wider dissemination are brought to the attention of the Good Practice Adviser,ADD. In the first instance, the Good Practice Adviser will contact Schools and will work with staff to develop a range of electronic and online materials in a variety of media. These will be made widely available to the University of Glasgow community.

Staff engaged in good practice will be encouraged to:

• consider offering a presentation at the annual Learning & Teaching Conference;
• contribute to regular CPD events run by ADD.

It is hoped that this will help build a community ethos of sharing and embedding good practice across the University.

12.1 Full PSR reports are published on the University’s web pages and are publicly available at: www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/apg/qea/periodicsubjectreview/. Progress reports on recommendations are also published. School/Subjects should provide links from their own websites to these reports.

12.2 PSR reports and recommendation responses are made available to the QAA for annual engagement meetings and Enhancement-led Institutional Review.

12.3 An annual report is made to the Scottish Funding Council on the progress with the schedule for and the outcomes of PSRs, together with details of Annual Monitoring, Course Evaluation, Graduate School Reviews and engagement with Professional, Statutory & Regulatory Bodies. A reflective overview, including summary of action taken and the University’s use of contextual information, including performance data and data from student surveys, both external and internal.