Detailed Guidance for the Completion of the AQ&ER1 Form
Guidance for Completing Section 1: Context and Scope
1.1 College: State the name of the College responsible for the provision under review.
Example: College of Arts & Humanities.
1.2 School/Subject (as appropriate): Identify the School and, where relevant, the specific Subject area. Example: School of Humanities – Philosophy.
1.3 Report Author (name & role): Provide the name, job title, and role of the individual completing the report. If the report has been compiled collaboratively, list the lead author.
Example: Dr Jane Smith, School Quality & Enhancement Officer.
1.4 Provision under review: Use this table to identify the units of learning (e.g., programmes, pathways, subject areas) and the individual(s) representing each area in the review process. This may include Programme Leads, Subject Leads, or other key academic staff.
1.5 Comments on new or significantly revised courses or programmes: Provide brief notes on any new programmes or major revisions introduced since the last monitoring cycle. This may include new programme approvals; substantial curriculum redesign; major changes to delivery mode or assessment; changes arising from PSR, accreditation, or external examiner feedback. Comments should be factual and concise, highlighting any implications for quality or student experience.
1.6 Collaborative Provision under review: Identify any collaborative arrangements relevant to the provision (e.g., joint programmes, validated provision, transnational education partnerships). Include: the name of the partner institution; the nature of the collaboration; any changes or issues arising during the review period. If no collaborative provision is involved, state “Not applicable.”
Guidance for Section 2: Consideration of Evidence
Use this section to draw out the most important messages from the evidence you have reviewed. Rather than restating data points or listing sources, highlight what the evidence means for the provision: the patterns, shifts, or issues that matter most.
2.1 Student Outcomes and Awarding Gaps: Identify the key trends in student outcomes, such as improvements, declines, or persistent patterns. Note whether particular groups of students are experiencing different outcomes and whether these differences are widening or narrowing. Keep the emphasis on what the evidence reveals and briefly indicate what actions are in place to respond to any concerns.
2.2 Student Voice: Draw together the most prominent themes emerging from student feedback across the various channels. Distinguish between longstanding messages that appear year after year, new issues that have surfaced this cycle, and any concerns that have been raised previously but have not yet been fully addressed.
2.3 External Perspectives: Provide a short overview of the main points raised by External Examiners, PSRBs, or other external reviewers. Highlight any recurring commendations or concerns, draw attention to new recommendations or shifts in external expectations, and identify any issues from previous years that still require action or monitoring.
Guidance for Section 3: Evaluation Against TQEF Principles
Use this section to evaluate how effectively the School’s approaches to learning, teaching and assessment align with the TQEF principles. Focus on impact – what difference the School’s approaches are making – rather than describing processes or listing activities.
3.1 Excellence in Learning, Teaching & Assessment: Provide a concise evaluation of how well the School’s approaches are contributing to high-quality learning, teaching and assessment. Focus on the extent to which these approaches are improving academic standards, strengthening curriculum design, enhancing the learning environment, or supporting innovation. Use evidence to illustrate impact where possible.
What is working well? Identify the strongest aspects of practice and explain why they are effective. Highlight examples where approaches have clearly improved learning, teaching, assessment or academic standards, drawing on evidence such as student outcomes, student feedback, or external examiner comments.
Comment on enhancements introduced and early indicators of impact: Briefly describe any changes or innovations introduced during the reporting period, why they were implemented, and what early signs suggest they are having a positive effect. For example, improved engagement, clearer assessment expectations, or stronger student performance.
Identify up to two priority issues for improvement: Select one or two areas where improvement is most needed. These should be clearly evidenced, linked to their impact on learning, teaching or standards, and realistic to address within the next academic session.
3.2 Supporting Student Success: Provide a brief evaluation of how well the School’s support structures, learning environment and student‑facing practices are enabling students to succeed. Consider how effectively the School supports transitions, skills development, employability, wellbeing and inclusion.
What is working well? Identify the approaches that are demonstrably helping students to succeed. For example, initiatives that improve engagement, strengthen belonging, support wellbeing, or enhance skills development. Use evidence where possible to show impact.
Comment on enhancements introduced and early indicators of impact: Outline any new or improved support measures introduced this year, why they were needed, and what early signs indicate they are making a difference. For example, smoother transitions, improved attendance, stronger employability outcomes or better access to support.
Identify up to two priority issues for improvement: Highlight one or two areas where further action is required to better support student success or inclusion. These should be evidence‑based, clearly linked to student experience or outcomes, and achievable within the next session.
3.3 Student Engagement & Partnership: Provide a short evaluation of how well the School engages students as partners in shaping their learning experience. Consider how effectively the School listens to, responds to, and works collaboratively with students and their representatives.
What is working well? How have students influenced decisions?: Identify the strongest aspects of student engagement and partnership, explaining how these approaches have influenced decisions or improved learning, teaching or the wider student experience. Use examples or evidence where possible.
Comment on enhancements introduced and early indicators of impact: Describe any new or strengthened partnership approaches introduced this year, why they were implemented, and what early signs suggest they are improving communication, responsiveness or student participation.
Identify up to two priority issues for improvement: Select one or two areas where student engagement or partnership could be strengthened. These should be clearly evidenced, linked to their impact on the student experience, and feasible to address in the coming year.
Guidance for Section 4: Actions and Enhancement Activity
Use this section to provide a clear, evidence‑based update on progress with actions from previous cycles and to set out any additional School‑level actions for the coming year. The emphasis should be on progress, barriers, and next steps, rather than restating the actions themselves.
4.1 Actions from Session 2025–26 AQER Process: Provide a concise update on how last year’s agreed actions have progressed.
- Summarise the progress made against each action, focusing on what has been achieved and what impact it has had so far.
- For any actions that remain incomplete, briefly explain the reasons for delay. For example, resourcing, dependencies, or changes in priorities.
- Outline the next steps required to complete the action, including any adjustments to approach or timescale.
- Keep the focus on clarity and accountability rather than detailed narrative.
4.2 School‑Level Actions: Identify any actions the School intends to take in the coming year. For each action, briefly outline:
- Rationale: Why this action is needed, based on evidence or emerging priorities.
- Nature of action: Whether it is new, ongoing, or carried forward from previous work.
- Intended impact: What improvement students should experience as a result. For example, clearer assessment expectations, improved support, enhanced learning environment, or better engagement.
These actions should be specific, achievable within the next session, and clearly linked to enhancing learning, teaching, or the student experience.
Guidance for Section 5: Matters for College or University Consideration
Use this section to highlight any issues, risks, or opportunities that cannot be resolved at School level and therefore require attention, support or decision-making from the College or the University. The aim is to ensure that important cross‑School, structural or strategic matters are visible at the appropriate level.
When completing this section, consider identifying:
- issues that require additional resource, policy clarification or strategic alignment.
- matters affecting multiple programmes or Schools that would benefit from coordinated action.
- risks that could impact quality, standards or student experience if not addressed beyond the School.
- opportunities for enhancement that would be more effective if supported at College or University level.
Keep entries concise and focused on why the matter needs escalation and what kind of support or action would be helpful.
Guidance for Section 6: School Approval Statement
Use this section to confirm that the report has been formally reviewed and approved through the School’s governance processes. The purpose is to ensure that the content has been considered by the School Learning & Teaching Committee and that the School has formally endorsed the report for submission.
6.1 Date of Learning & Teaching Committee: Record the date on which the School Learning & Teaching Committee reviewed and approved the report. This confirms that the Committee has had oversight of the content and is satisfied that it is accurate and complete.
6.2 School Learning & Teaching Committee Convener Signature: The Convener of the School Learning & Teaching Committee should sign to formally endorse the report. This signature confirms that the School accepts responsibility for the content and authorises its submission as part of the Annual Quality & Enhancement Review process.
Submission Requirements
Once completed, the form should be submitted to the College Quality & Enhancement Officer and to APG-Quality@glasgow.ac.uk.
Please note that the report cannot be accepted without:
- the School’s formal endorsement; and
- confirmation of the date on which the Learning & Teaching Committee reviewed the report.