Periodic Subject Review

Guidance Notes for Schools and Subjects

Session 2022-23

1. Introduction

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/Unit (S/S/U) to provide an evaluative analysis of past developments since the previous PSR and to focus on its future enhancement activities.

1.2 The outcome of the PSR revalidates the programmes being delivered in the S/S/U for a further period of five years.

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. General Information

2.1 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. (The Subject that provides the course co-ordinator and organises the examination is a good indicator of which school is responsible.)
  • 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 (the RA should include an explanation of the rationale behind their development and programme specifications/ course information should be provided where available).

2.2 It does not include research programmes as these are reviewed as part of the Graduate School Review process.

3. Periodic Subject Review (PSR) Process

3.1 The PSR review process provides support to School/Subject(s) in evaluating taught provision and will cover 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.

3.2 The PSR review process provides support to School/Subject(s) in evaluating taught provision and will cover the strategic approach to enhancing learning and teaching, supporting, and developing the student experience and the quality and maintenance of academic standards. The review should also identify areas of good practice.

3.3 While the PSR is done at a point in time, the process and the narrative around it should be about the journey on either side of it and to critically evaluate its learning and teaching provision and the wider student experience.

3.4 The PSR process provides the S/S/U with an opportunity to self-reflect and critically evaluate enhancement led and 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.

4. Frequency and Timing of Reviews

4.1 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 into account, where possible, issues such as joint degrees and articulation with external accreditation timetables.

4.2 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 December to March when students are available to meet with the Review Panel. APG will consult and liaise with School/Subjects over possible dates.

4.3 In advance of the review, the PSR Manager, will arrange a briefing session, which the Head of School/Subject and other relevant staff from the School/Subject(s) will be invited to. APG will continue to liaise with the School/Subject thereafter.

5. Summary of the Review Process and Follow-up


Prior to visit


Senior Quality Manager meets with Head and other relevant staff from the School/Subject to discuss arrangements for PSR.

-6 weeks

School/Subject submits the Reflective Analysis (RA) and supporting documentation to APG. (When a Review is at Subject level, the Head of School should be provided with the RA by the Subject Area.)

-4 weeks

Review of the RA and documentation by the Panel (some further information may be sought at this stage). Vice Principal & Head of College and Dean (L&T), are also sent a copy of the RA and any commentary received is forwarded to the Subject/School in advance of the review visit. 

-4 weeks

Review Manager to liaise with School/Subject to establish suitable timetable for review visit.

-1-2 weeks

Internal Panel members hold an online briefing pre-meeting and Head of School/Subject provided with a note of the main topics for discussion at the review visit (some further information may be sought at this stage).


The Review Visit


Over the day(s), the Panel meets with the Head of School/Subject(s), Dean (Learning & Teaching), students, staff, GTAs and early career staff.


At final meeting of the visit, the Convener of the Panel will give an indication of main areas likely to be included in the report to Head of School/Subject and the College/Dean (L&T). These can be discussed with colleagues.


Following Visit

+1-2 weeks

The Convener and Review Manager meet with the Head of School/Subject to discuss the draft recommendations.

+4 weeks

The Convener receives the draft report for comment with one week to respond.

+6 weeks

The Panel receive the draft report for comment with one week to respond.

+8 weeks

The draft report is provided to the Head of School/Subject and the Vice Principal & Head of College and Dean (L&T) to check for factual inaccuracies and to ensure recommendations and commendations are transparent. The draft report is submitted to ASC for scrutiny and approval.

+10 weeks

Any feedback received from the School or College is subject to approval by the Panel Convener. The report is finalised and provided to the School/Subject for wider circulation. Action on the recommendations should be initiated by the School/Subject and others named within the report highlighted.

+6mths from date of ASC meeting (ASC can request an earlier response if action deemed urgent)

Provision of a progress report on recommendations by the School/Subject and others to be provided to ASC. The School/Subject should also report on the steps taken to feedback to students on the outcomes of the review and progress made in addressing the recommendations.

+1 year

Further progress reports/updates may be requested by ASC, if deemed necessary.


6. Documentation for the Review


6.1 Reflective Analysis Submission (RA)

  • Prior to the panel visit, a Reflective Analysis (RA) is prepared, normally by the Head of School/Subject, in conjunction with other staff. The format of the RA should follow the Guidance Notes in the RA Template document (see Appendix 1).
  • The RA Template indicates page lengths for each section.
  • Support in preparing for the PSR is available from staff in Academic & Digital Development. APG will provide the Head of School/Subject(s) with a named contact from ADD who will provide assistance and advice on writing a RA. Subjects are urged to make use of this service and to contact ADD before beginning the RA or at an early stage in the drafting process to gain the best advantage from it.
  • Staff and students should be consulted on the RA. Normally, students are consulted via Staff: Student Liaison Committee (SSLC) meetings and/or focus groups and/or Moodle, to elicit input to the reflection on provision and establish whether or not it reflects their experience of the School/Subject.
  • If it is a Subject-level review, the Head of School should be given an opportunity to review the RA prior to submission to APG.
  • Once APG receives the RA, it will be forwarded to the Vice-Principal and Head of College and Dean of Learning & Teaching who are invited to provide the Panel with any additional commentary prior to the Panel visit.



6.2. Supporting Documentation

6.2.1 Documentation should be provided for all programmes and courses under review (please see 6.2.6 below).

Documentation does not need to be provided for programmes where the administrative/organisational responsibility of the course lies in another School/Subject or programmes or courses that are withdrawn or about to be withdrawn, i.e. will not run in the following session. These will not normally be covered in the review but a list of any such programmes should be provided when the School/Subject confirms its provision to APG along with a brief statement of the reason(s) behind withdrawal.

Please note that examples of student’s assessed work are not required for PSR.

APG will liaise with a named contact for the School/Subject(s) regarding documentation. A School/Subject contact for the student data should also be provided. This person and any other relevant colleagues will be added to the Student Data Teams site which will be the primary means by which colleagues in Planning Insights & Analytics provide advice on the availability of central data.

6.2.2 APG requires the documentation at least six weeks in advance of the review date. All documents should be uploaded to the Sharepoint site (APG will provide the link well in advance of the deadline). The RA and link to the Sharepoint site will be given to each member of the Review Panel four weeks in advance of the review date.  In addition to reviewing the RA, each Panel member will also be asked to comment on a selection of the documentation for their particular attention. 

6.2.3 Where the review will involve a particularly large volume of documentation, APG will work with the School/Subject to select a representative sample to be made available to the Panel. Panel members may request to see any documents not selected.

6.2.4 There is not always much time to hear from staff and so a short anonymous survey will be distributed to staff prior to the review. This provides the Panel with a sense of how staff across the Subject/School view the provision of, and support for, teaching and those involved in teaching. The majority of questions are drawn from a Universitas 21 Teaching Practices Survey that the University of Glasgow has previously participated in. The results of the survey will be shared with the PSR panel, and members of the Subject/School be advised at review meeting of any key trends or issues arising from the survey which the panel wishes to explore further. 

6.2.5 Requests for other documentation may be made in advance of, or on the day of the review, or post-review. 

6.2.6 The following is a list of the documentation required in addition to the RA.[2]

Schools/Subjects are asked to provide an evidence-based approach to their RA and should therefore provide contextual narrative in introducing any data that is presented. The core data requirements are listed below, however it is recognised that additional data may be included to reflect the particular priorities or context for the area under review: for example additional variables may be included in student numbers or performance indicators such as: EU/international demographics, growth in numbers; MD20/40; disability.

To be provided by the School/Subject:

School/Subject Profile

Details of School/Subject organisation, management and administration (including collaborative arrangements)

Organisation chart/diagram

Key post holders (eg.  Dean of L&T, Director of Quality, Quality Officer, Subject Group Leads etc)

Conveners of L&TC and other key School committees

A list of all current School staff (highlighting those with involvement in subject(s) under review)  Include academic staff; associated lecturers; research staff (if involved in teaching), hourly paid teaching staff (e.g. PGT students who act as GTAs as tutors/demonstrators) and support staff. Include full-time equivalent and highlight any vacancies
Details of the School workload model and current workload details Include responsibilities for academic staff in the context of managing workloads via the workload allocation model.
Programme Information Context
Subject information provided for students from the current session Provide samples of information given to students  about the course and programmes being taught. 
Student Data[3] Context
Student numbers (headcount and FTE) in the previous complete session, and the previous three years if available

School/Subject should contact their PIA College contact for this information.

  • student numbers by year of programme
  • career (UG/PGT Nos)
  • academic load (FT/PT)
  • gender
  • domicile
  • ethnicity
  • disability
  • course enrolments
Student Success Performance Indicators (SSPIs) and degree classification results in the previous complete session, and the previous three years
  • course results – headcount by level
  • pass rates – headcount (pass, fail, other, and % pass)
  • graduation numbers by programme
  • awards achieved – headcount by degree classification
Continuation and Progression data by programme in the previous complete session, and the previous three years

By programme and level (based on HESA data for UK full-time and first degree students only: Continuation – where student appears in one years’ HESA student records and also appears in the subsequent year; Progression is when a student appears in one years’ HESA Student Record and also appears in the following years’ HESA Record, with the year of programme incremented.

Evaluation of grade profiles and degree classifications Context

Graduate destinations – five-year trend

Positive destination and Professional destination for the Subject, comparison with Subject across the Sector
National Student Survey (NSS) results Within the RA the school should provide an overview and analysis of the results in the wider sector and UK context.  Providing a narrative on approach to building on success etc
Other surveys (such as Welcome Survey, Glasgow Life, PTES and ISB)  
Quality Enhancement & Assurance information Context
Details of Quality Assurance & Enhancement procedures in the School

Provide an overview (diagram if possible) of the committee /governance structures which demonstrate how QA processes are monitored and where they are evaluated. Also include committees/groups where student feedback is discussed as part of enhancement

Annual Monitoring Reports (last three complete years)

Summary analysis of outcomes and action taken from an overview of the three year period.

Student Course Evaluation Summary (and responses for the previous three years)

Semester 1 of the current academic year can be included as part of the three year period.

Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) reports If appropriate, include any PSRB outcomes which have taken place since the previous PSR.
Committee Information Context

Main School/Subject committee(s) dealing with L&T and assessment

  • Remit and membership
  • Minutes

Include main School/Subject level management meetings and Learning & Teaching Committee, the title of the committee should be easily identifiable in the title, ie 'LTC December 2021'

These should be provided for the current and previous two sessions

Staff Student Liaison Committee (SSLC)

  • Remit, membership
  • Minutes

These should be provided for the current and previous two sessions

Any other school/subject level Teaching, Learning and Assessment Committees

  • Remit and Membership

Employer Liaison Committee or Industry Advisory Board (or equivalent)

  • Remit and membership
  • Minutes for last two academic years
If appropriate, this can be any committee that includes engagement with the external professional environment and can include the use of Alumni.

Other minutes or other reports relating to operation or review of courses and programmes (e.g. reports of any course reviews etc. but not course approval forms)

We do not require Board of Studies/Exam Board minutes

The following information will be gathered by APG and will be uploaded directly to Share Point site[4]

School/Subject Profile
Academic staff age profile (10-year intervals) i.e. 25-34; 35-44, etc includes information on gender balance, ethnicity and disability
Subject and Programme Information
Relevant QAA subject benchmark statements  
Quality Enhancement & Assurance Information
Programme specifications[5] for all taught programmes (undergraduate and postgraduate) for which the School/Subject is responsible.
External examiners’ reports and related correspondence include the School/Subject’s response to any issues raised in those reports for the previous 3 complete sessions
Previous PSR review report together with the response of those mentioned in the recommendations  


7. Engaging Students in the PSR Process

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

7.2 Student engagement takes place before, during 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 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 short meeting with class representatives prior to the Review to gain some initial feedback. The clerk to the Panel will liaise with the School/Subject and Student Panel member in arranging this meeting.
  • Student feedback obtained via routine quality mechanisms will also inform the Panel e.g. summary and response documents for end of course questionnaires, staff: student liaison committee minutes, annual monitoring reports, other 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), APG will circulate this to the School/Subject. Please ensure that this is provided for consideration at SSLCs and for posting onto School/Subject websites and/or Moodle/Student Voice. 
  • The School/Subject will be asked to report on the steps it has taken to feedback to students on the outcomes of the review and on the actions taken in the six month progress report to ASC.

8. The Review Panel

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

  • a Vice Principal or the Clerk of Senate or the Convener of ASC (Panel Convener);
  • 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, nominated by the SRC;
  • an Academic member of Court;[6]
  • an academic from a cognate School,* normally within the same College;
  • a representative from the Academic & Digital Development Unit;
  • the review manager, an administrator usually from APG, who will also act as clerk to the Panel.

* To be nominated by the School – as follows:

8.2 The School or Subject will be asked to nominate the external examiner specialist(s). 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; the Convener will appoint external members. External members will receive a fee plus reimbursement of expenses (subject to taxation). APG is responsible for the payment of costs and for all communication with the external member(s).

8.3 Suggestions for external subject specialists should be drawn from HEIs, normally within the UK.[7] The School/Subject will be asked to indicate whether, in their view, the Panel should include one or two external members and to suggest potential external members. The School/Subject should provide three names,[8] four where two external members are requested, ranked in order of preference. A note of preferred combinations should also be included if more than one external member is to be invited. 

8.4 Supporting background information must be provided for each person, particularly in relation to their relevant, current experience in learning and teaching. A statement should also be included indicating whether or not the person has had any previous involvement with the Subject(s). Previous involvement will not normally exclude a person from acting as an external member (the information is requested mainly for the benefit of the Convener and the other Panel members). Exceptions to this are where the suggested person has been a member of staff or a student of the University in the three years prior to the review or is the current external examiner.  Where the external member has been an external examiner at this University, their nomination will only normally be considered if their appointment has ended at least three years prior to the review.  

8.5 The Dean (Learning &Teaching) of the relevant College will be asked for their recommendation for the nomination of the academic from a cognate School. This will normally be from within the College and they 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).

9. Review of Documentation

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

9.2 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 course information/Moodle pages 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.

9.3 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 week in advance of the review. The Panel will agree the areas and topics to be covered in the visit and this will be provided to the Head of School/Subject. The School/Subject should not respond in advance of the visit to the items identified; the note is for information only. However, where the Panel wishes some clarification on minor points, it may make an explicit request for a response prior to the visit.

9.4 The Panel may explore some topics in more than one meeting at the review 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. 

9.5 The relevant Vice Principal and Head of College and Dean (Learning & Teaching), are sent a copy of the Subject/School's RA to have the opportunity to review the report 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.

10. The Panel Visit

10.1 The Panel will visit and meet with individuals and groups of staff and students in the Subject(s) under review.[9] (The normal pattern of the visit is outlined in Appendix 3.)

  • 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) the Head of Learning & Teaching;
(iii) the School Quality & Enhancement Officer (QEO);
(iv) staff representatives including support and professorial staff.

  • a meeting with early career staff;
  • a meeting with hourly paid staff (e.g. GTAs, demonstrators);
  • 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.[10] Issues highlighted in this meeting may be shared with colleagues immediately after the Panel visit.

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

10.3 APG will ask the School/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) 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. APG Administrator will ensure the necessary arrangements are in place and will liaise with the named PSR contact to co-ordinate the groups.   

10.4 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 facilities should not be too ambitious and, as a rule, should 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. 

10.5 APG is responsible for the organisation of the review visit and for liaising between the School/Subject and Convener over the timetable for the visit. Please note that unless the review meeting is held remotely suitable accommodation needs to be provided within the School/Subject for the duration of the visit, it is the responsibility of the School/Subject to be reviewed to organise this. APG will organise catering.

11. The Outcome of the Review

  • 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 School/Subject's procedures for assuring the standards of awards and the quality of provision;
  • an evaluation of the School/Subject’s approach to the enhancement of the student learning experience in taught provision;
  • an evaluation of how effectively the School/Subject 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.

12. PSR Report and Follow-up

12.1 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. At an early stage following the review visit, around two weeks after the review, the Convener and the Review Manager will meet with the Head of School/Subject to outline the recommendations arising from the conclusion of the review and to discuss the best way to ensure effective actions can be taken forward.

12.2 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. 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 and Head of College and the relevant Dean of Learning & Teaching for the correction of factual inaccuracies and comments regarding the text. 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. 

12.3 The report is submitted to Academic Standards Committee (ASC), which scrutinises the report and will either endorse the report or suggest amendments. Following ASC, the recommendations are forwarded to the School/Subject and others named in the recommendations for action. ASC will report to Education Policy & Strategy Committee on any issues of educational policy that impact beyond the School. Senate, the Senior Management Group and the University Court will be advised, as necessary, of recommendations that have more serious academic or resource implications.

12.4 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 (Academic Planning & Technological Innovation). 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.

12.5 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. 

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

13. Annual University Overview of PSR

13.1 In order to ensure institutional overview of the PSR process the reports are submitted to Academic Standards Committee with onward reporting to the Education Policy & Strategy Committee and University Senate. They may also be referred to the Senior Management Group and Court, as appropriate.

13.2 Sharing Good practice

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:

  • share their teaching tips by submitting them to ‘Glasgow University’s Teaching Tips Online’ (GUSTTO), which is a bespoke resource designed for staff to share practice;
  • 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.

14. External Access to Reports

14.1 In line with the Scottish HE Sector external reporting requirements the University is required to submit an Annual Quality Report (approved by Court) to the Scottish Funding Council. The report details the University quality assurance and enhancement activities and describes in detail how the University develops and maintains academic standards.

14.2 The details of the PSR schedule and the outcome reports are key components in the report including the monitoring of 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.

14.3 In addition, full PSR reports are submitted to the QAA Scotland on an annual basis and are discuss inmore detail with the University at the Annual Quality Engagement meeting which normally takes place in semester one. The QAA have delegated responsibility from the SFC to review the reports and report any areas of concern on an annual basis. 

14.4 Full PSR reports are published on the University’s web pages and are publicly available at:

Progress reports on recommendations are also published. School/Subjects should provide links from their own websites to these reports.

Enhancement Led Institutional Review (ELIR)

14.5 PSR reports are included in the documentation for the QAA Enhancement Led Institutional Review (ELIR) which takes place every five years. These provide key evidence of the maintenance, management and enhancement of academic standards and student experience.

14.6 The University will continue to work with colleagues across the sector with a view to reviewing and enhancing these procedures in line with sector best practice.

[1] More details on the University’s Academic Quality Framework can be found at:

[2] The School/Subject(s) may also provide other data if routinely collected in regard to teaching and learning activities which have been referred to in the RA.

[3] Much of the Student Data is available centrally and guidance will be provided from Planning Insights and Analysis (PIA) on access to these sources.

[4] Any queries regarding accuracy of data should be directed to APG.

[5] Programme Specifications should now be in place for all programmes across the University and are published here. The School/Subject should ensure that the specifications are up-to-date and reflect current programmes.

[6] Formerly called Senate Assessors on Court.

[7] Suggestions for external subject specialists from outwith the UK may be made but it will be important for them to be familiar with the Scottish and or UK HE system. Consideration will also need to be given to travel and other costs.

[8] Three or four names are requested from the outset in order to avoid delays in the event that the School/Subject’s first choice(s) are unable or unwilling to participate in the review.

[9] Given social distancing guidelines and requirements associated with the Covid-19 pandemic, PSR events may be held online – this will be arranged by Academic Policy & Governance if required.

[10] Further meetings between the Panel Chair and the Dean (L&T)/Dean of Graduate Studies and/or Head of School/College may be held if the Panel considers this necessary to clarify outstanding issues.