1

Annual Module and Taught Programme Review 2016/17

Guidance Notes

1. Overview The annual review process provides Schools with an opportunity to reflect on and evaluate the effectiveness of their teaching portfolio, with a view to the continual enhancement of provision for students. The adoption of a consistent approach to the process at School-level allows annual review to be carried out systematically and with the necessary rigour. Subsequently, Colleges and the University are able to detect any areas of concern and to disseminate good practice. In line with the University’s commitment in its 2016 Annual Provider Review Enhancement Plan, a revised annual review process is being implemented with effect from summer 2017. The revised process is strategic and forward-looking, aligning annual review with the process of completing School Education Plans (SEPs). Timescales have been brought forward in order to ensure that the process fits with the timing of Annual Provider Review and is better placed within the academic planning cycle. There is a greater focus on forward-looking School-wide actions that are informed, but not generated solely, by the annual review process. The starting point for the annual review process is the drafting of the School Education Plan (SEP) for the following academic year, which is drafted in June and is reviewed (and, where appropriate, updated) periodically throughout the summer in light of relevant annual review inputs as they become available (e.g. data on module and programme performance, external examiner reports, student survey results). The finalised SEP then also serves as the main output of the process. Initial completion of the SEPs in June and adjustments to the timing of annual review inputs where possible, will allow for implementation of actions to begin in the next academic year. The objectives of annual review (and, by extension, the School Education Plan) are:

To enable academic staff to reflect, individually and collectively, on the effectiveness of the programmes and modules within their remit, assessing the success of students against the learning outcomes;

To provide an effective mechanism for identifying and minimising areas of risk and to capitalise on opportunities for innovation and enhancement in relation to teaching and learning;

To provide an efficient system for reporting the outcomes of review and monitoring accountability for academic provision at different levels in the University, demonstrating the University’s commitment to improving academic quality;

To set out the School’s strategic educational direction for the year, clearly linked to and informed by issues arising from the previous year’s activity, allowing a more ‘joined up’ approach to academic planning and Compact preparation.

All communications regarding forms, data and guidance notes will be sent to the College Director of Education and College Deputy Director of Education (Quality) (or equivalents) for onward cascade. In line with the ‘Digital Campus’ initiative, forms and inputs will be available via SharePoint.

https://collaborate.bham.ac.uk/asca/Registry/annual-review

2

Any queries concerning annual review should be directed to College Academic Policy Partners (CAPPs), as follows:

Arts and Law Laura Powell l.j.powell@bham.ac.uk 48064 (Mon and Fri) or 44318 (Tue, Wed and Thur)

Engineering and Physical Sciences Andy Watkins a.w.watkins@bham.ac.uk 46719 (Mon, Tue, Fri) or 47754 (Wed and Thur)

Life and Environmental Sciences Andreas Constantinou a.constantinou@bham.ac.uk 46297 (Mon and Fri) or 46548 (Tue, Wed and Thur)

Medical and Dental Sciences Faye Bond f.a.bond@bham.ac.uk 42265 (Mon and Fri) or 45046 (Tue, Wed and Thur)

Social Sciences

Rebecca Rosewarne r.r.rosewarne@bham.ac.uk 46718 (Mon and Fri) or 46280 (Tue, Wed and Thur)

Queries on non-College-based areas of provision should be directed to Faye Bond (BIA, PGCARMS and PGCHE) and Rebecca Rosewarne (LANS, PSA).

Information on the annual review process can be found at: https://intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/as/registry/policy/quality/annualreview/index.aspx.

2. The Timing of the Annual Review Process The shift in the timing of the annual review process means that the majority of the process will be complete (at least for UG provision) by the time Council is required to provide its Annual Provider Review assurances each December. Previously, neither the UG nor PGT processes had reported to University-level committees by that point, and Council was therefore reliant on the outcomes of the previous year’s process. The revised timing of annual review will also align better with the process of developing College Compacts in the context of the wider academic planning cycle. Following consideration of both UG and PGT inputs, SEPs will be finalised in November, allowing them to inform the first Compact ‘strategy’ meeting (also held in November and focused on considering the previous year, College strengths and priorities/goals for the coming year). The timing of the final Compact meeting in June will allow progress against the KPTs and actions set out in the Compact to inform the subsequent year’s SEPs, which Schools will also start to draft in June. The diagram below maps the annual review process. Further detailed information on milestones and deadlines can be found in Appendix 2 which sets out the revised process in the form of a timeline indicating the key elements of the process to be completed in each month, the main inputs to be used, and the team or post-holder with primary responsibility for each element.

Annual Provider Review

(Assurances provided by Council in Dec)

SEP drafted

(covering UG

and PGT)

(June)

College Compact

meeting

(November)

Annual review inputs

considered, including:

Statistical data

Module reviews

Student survey results

Feedback from students

and other stakeholders

(including SSC reports,

summarised by CAPPs)

UG external examiner

reports (summarised by

CAPPs)

(June – Sept)

SEP updated

and annual

review

checklist

completed

(June –

Sept)

College Compact

meeting

(June)

SAPC meeting

(December)

Annual review inputs

considered, including:

Statistical data

PGT dissertation module

reviews

PGT external examiner

reports (summarised by

CAPPs)

(Nov)

CQAAC and CEC consideration

(Sept)

College Board consideration

(Sept)

UQAC and UEC consideration

(Oct)

SEP and

annual

review

checklist

updated

(Nov)

CQAAC and CEC consideration (updates only)

(Dec – Jan)

UQAC and UEC consideration (updates only)

(Dec – Jan)

4

3. Information Used in the Annual Review Process The primary inputs listed below are important indicators of quality and standards. Schools should ensure that they utilise all the primary inputs in completion of their SEP. These may be supplemented by secondary inputs and any other information available in the School. Primary inputs (compulsory information to be used during annual review)

Module review forms;

Module data spreadsheets;

Marks and awards confirmed at Board of Examiners meetings;

Data showing student module registrations;

Statistical data (provided via Tableau Server): UG data will be made available from June/July following summer Board of Examiners meeting. The current academic year’s data will, initially, provide a partial picture (as some students do not progress or receive their degree award until after the supplementary Board of Examiners meetings in September), and this will appear alongside the complete picture provided for previous academic years. However, the Tableau workbook will be refreshed on a regular basis, meaning that a complete picture will be available to Schools once the supplementary Board of Examiners meetings have taken place. PGT data will be made available shortly after the PGT Board of Examiners meetings, which take place in October.

Themes/strategic issues identified by Student Awards and Progress Committee (SAPC): SAPC will be asked to identify themes and strategic issues arising from University-level data which will inform the following year’s annual review process.1

External Examiners’ feedback: Information from External Examiners’ oral reports delivered at Board of Examiners’ meetings, and the annual report form which is completed by all External Examiners.

Student feedback: Information gathered through module evaluation questionnaires, Staff Student Committees (including the annual SSC report) and both internal and external student surveys (i.e. National Student Survey, Birmingham Student Survey and Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey).

Reports from accrediting or other external bodies (where applicable), industry feedback and feedback from other stakeholders;

Compact discussions;

Recommendations from Vice-Chancellor’s Integrated Review. Secondary inputs (additional information which may be of use during annual review)

Staff feedback gathered during the academic session (e.g. through committee meetings or teaching and learning fora in the School);

1 This will not be available for the annual review of 2016-17.

5

Material available to students (e.g. student handbooks or website information);

Module and programme specifications;

‘Module boxes’ (which may contain sample teaching materials), if used within a School.

4. Forms Schools should focus on identifying key issues and action when completing the module review forms and School Education Plans. Completed forms should not be overly detailed or excessively long and the specified word limits for each section should be observed. Key points about the module review form

Module leaders are asked to review their modules at the beginning of the summer (and can start the review process earlier if they wish, as certain inputs, e.g. MEQ outcomes, will be available earlier). Module review forms should provide an overview of the module’s performance using appropriate inputs from the list above.

Schools should have a mechanism in place to enable Programme Directors to discuss the completed module review forms with module leaders. Module review forms should be reviewed by Programme Directors in collaboration with Heads of Quality, and the conclusions drawn from this review should feed into (an) annual review meeting(s) (see section 5). It is expected that Programme Directors will keep their programmes under continual review, based upon routine feedback and review mechanisms (including completed module review forms), and that any themes or significant actions at programme-level will feed into the SEP.

The module review form asks for consideration of any placement issues, where applicable, including feedback from students on placements and feedback from placement providers. Schools should ensure that any issues relating to placements, or any other issues, raised via the module review are given attention at School-level and fed into the SEP as appropriate.

All undergraduate and postgraduate module review forms (with the exception of postgraduate taught dissertation modules which will need to be reviewed later) should be completed by the module leader and uploaded to SharePoint (https://collaborate.bham.ac.uk/asca/Registry/annual-review) by 14 July 2017 in order to enable monitoring of completion of the process and for ease of access. Module leaders must take into account issues of confidentiality and data protection where individuals may be identifiable.

14 July 2017 Module leaders to have completed annual module review forms (excluding PGT dissertation modules) and upload to SharePoint.

10 November 2017 Module leaders to have completed annual module review forms for PGT dissertation modules and upload to SharePoint.

Key points about the School Education Plan (SEP)

The SEP covers all undergraduate and postgraduate taught provision within a School (including collaborative provision, see section 8 for more detail, and other ‘non-standard’ provision, e.g. joint honours, transnational education (TNE), degree apprenticeships, etc.). The SEP draws together actions arising from annual review and from other process (e.g. NSS, PTES), thereby rationalising the action plans that Schools are currently asked to produce and maintain. Actions

6

are clearly linked to the School’s strategic plans and the SEP also refers to various strategic themes from the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education)’s agenda. It should be a ‘live’ document (updated as and when new information comes to light), and should be focused on specifying key actions rather than on the provision of commentary regarding matters which do not require action. The SEP is a standard online template and includes an update on the previous year’s actions in order to ‘close the loop’. Actions from the previous year may be carried forward into the current year’s SEP; Schools are encouraged to ensure that, each year, their new SEP builds on the previous one.

The consideration of module and programme viability (supported by statistical data) remains part of the annual review process, with Schools being asked to specifically consider their portfolio via SEPs. Where appropriate, Schools should give consideration to withdrawing zero and low recruiting modules and programmes in order to ensure that they are aligned with the University’s focus on the size and shape of its overall portfolio.

When identifying College- or University-level actions, colleagues are encouraged to liaise directly with Corporate Service departments or senior College staff as issues arise, seeking more timely responses and resolutions where possible.

SEPs should be completed in SharePoint (https://collaborate.bham.ac.uk/asca/Registry/annual-review) by 30 June 2017 in the first instance. Any further developments or amendments to the SEP following availability of the inputs should be made to this centrally stored definitive version in order to maintain effective version control.

1 June 2017 Schools begin draft of SEP

30 June 2017 Schools to have completed draft SEPs in SharePoint

15 September 2017 Schools to have finalised SEPs in SharePoint following release of inputs

11 December 2017 Schools to have completed updates to SEPs in SharePoint following release of further inputs

Key points about the annual review checklist

CAPPs will complete a checklist detailing how and when each of the annual review inputs has been considered. The checklist will be appended to the School Education Plan and signed off the by School Head of Quality and College Deputy Director of Education.

In order to facilitate the completion of the checklist, Schools and CAPPs will need to remain in contact throughout the process of refining the SEP.

In some cases, the inclusion of particular actions in the SEP will signify how a particular input has been used. If an input has been considered but has not given rise to specific actions, then the checklist constitutes the necessary evidence that it has been taken into account.

CAPPs will complete the annual review checklist in SharePoint (https://collaborate.bham.ac.uk/asca/Registry/annual-review) by 15 September 2017 in the first instance.

15 September 2017 CAPPs to have completed annual review checklists in SharePoint

11 December 2017 CAPPS to have completed updates to annual review checklist in SharePoint

7

5. School and College Annual Review Discussion Meetings School-level Schools should hold appropriate local meetings to develop and review the SEP in light of the inputs as they become available, with CAPPs and other key post-holders in attendance. As the annual review inputs become available, School-based colleagues should analyse them and hold appropriate local discussions about them in order to develop the SEP. These discussions may take place ‘virtually’ where appropriate/helpful. All annual review inputs should be considered within the School, and any actions arising should be incorporated into the SEP. Points to note:

The School Head of Quality is responsible for leading on the consideration of the annual review inputs and will therefore usually be responsible for arranging the analysis/discussions. As the School Head of Education is responsible for leading on the development of the SEP, they will usually be involved in a significant proportion of the analysis/discussions. Others within the School should/may be involved as appropriate, e.g. Programme Directors (or equivalent) should be involved in the analysis/discussions relating to module review forms, Exams Officers (or equivalent) may be involved in the analysis/discussions pertaining to external examiner reports, etc.

The CAPP needs to see evidence of the School’s consideration of the inputs in order to complete the annual review checklist. Usually, the CAPP should either be involved in the discussions (regardless of whether they take place face-to-face or virtually), should be given sight of notes/minutes from those discussions or, in cases where a wider discussion is not considered necessary, should be informed of the outcomes of an analysis carried out by a member of staff independently. There may also be other ways of involving the CAPP, who will be happy to discuss the process with Schools, but these are expected to be the primary mechanisms used.

Schools may wish to reserve face-to-face meetings for the more substantial inputs or those out of which several matters for discussion might arise, and use virtual discussions or independent analysis for the less substantial inputs or those which do not appear to give rise to many points for discussion. For instance, External Examiner reports may be regarded as quite a substantial input but if all of those submitted are largely positive, it would be reasonable to consider them via a virtual discussion.

Schools may determine whether to consider/discuss each input as it becomes available or whether to wait until a number of inputs are available and consider/discuss them at the same time. As long as the September deadline for submission of the SEP to the College is met, Schools may organise the annual review process in a way that is suitable for them (and taking into account the other commitments of the staff involved). Advice regarding the organisation of the annual review process is also available from the CAPPs. It is recommended, however, that each School determines an indicative schedule as early as possible in the summer.

Before the SEP is submitted to the College in September, it should be read and approved by the School’s senior management team.

College-level At College-level, the SEP will be considered by three committees: College Quality Assurance and Approval Committee (CQAAC), College Education Committee (CEC) and College Board. At CQAAC, the SEP will be accompanied by the annual review checklist.

8

It is expected that CQAAC and CEC will consider the SEP before College Board, to ensure that the version seen by College Board is the one which will be submitted to the relevant University-level committees (i.e. University Quality Assurance Committee (UQAC) and University Education Committee (UEC)).

CQAAC’s role will be to consider the operation of the quality assurance process which led to the production of the SEP and annual review checklist

CEC’s role will be to consider the strategic educational matters raised by the SEPs

College Board’s role will be to approve the SEPs for onwards transmission to UQAC and UEC. CEC will also have a role throughout the academic year, as it will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the SEPs. This means that it will need to receive updates from School Heads of Education throughout the academic year.

6. Programme and Module Amendments As a result of the review process the School may wish to make amendments to a programme or module. For both undergraduate and postgraduate taught provision, any amendments to programme and module specifications must be managed via the Programme and Module Modification Process: https://intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/as/registry/policy/programmemodule/index.aspx and approved by the relevant authorities. Guidance on the process, and on deadlines and Competition and Market Authority (CMA) requirements, is available from your CAPP.

7. Student Involvement in Annual Review Student feedback provided through MEQs, student surveys and Staff Student Committees is a key input into the annual review process and completion of the SEP. Students should be involved in discussion prior to the completion of the SEP through the Staff Student Committee (SSC), i.e. in the final SSC meetings of the academic year. Focus groups may also be used. The confirmed SEP should then be discussed with the SSC in the autumn. Student representatives will be responsible for communicating with their fellow students at both stages. Schools may also wish to consider additional methods of seeking student input into the SEP and for disseminating the confirmed version, such as setting up a Canvas page. 8. Collaborative Provision Arrangements The principles and guidelines for the annual review process also apply to programmes covered by Collaborative Provision arrangements. Validated collaborative programmes Validated provision is defined as an arrangement where the University judges a programme or module developed and delivered by another organisation as being of appropriate quality and standard to lead to one of the University’s awards or an award of credit.

Individual Collaborative Programme Review forms will be sent to relevant Collaborative Programmes Officers (CPOs) and a list of all collaborative programmes undergoing annual

9

review will be sent for information to School Heads of Quality (or equivalent), the College Deputy Director of Education (or equivalent) and the College Academic Policy Partners. CPOs should complete the Collaborative Programme Review form in conjunction with the relevant collaborative organisation. If relevant, identified issues should be included in the School Education Plan.

UoB collaborative programmes UoB collaborative programmes are defined as programmes which are partially delivered and/or supported by a collaborative organisation.2 An Annual Review of Collaborative Arrangement form for the review of collaborative elements within a programme (e.g. delivery of a module, resources or support provided by the collaborative organisation, etc.) has been developed, which focuses specifically on the operation and quality of the collaborative aspects of the partnership.

Individual forms will be sent to relevant Programme Directors and a list of all UoB collaborative programmes undergoing annual review will be sent for information to School Heads of Quality (or equivalent), the College Deputy Director of Education (or equivalent) and the CAPPs.

The completion of this form is additional to other annual review requirements, such as completion of module review forms, consideration of statistical data, student survey results and other appropriate inputs. Issues identified in this form will need to be considered as part of the School Education Plan.

15 September 2017 UG collaborative provision forms to be completed (validated forms to be submitted to CAPP and Collaborative Provision by email; non –validated forms to have been completed in SharePoint).

11 December 2017 PGT collaborative provision forms to be completed (validated forms to be submitted to CAPP and Collaborative Provision via email; non-validated forms to have been completed in SharePoint).

Consideration of collaborative provision forms It is the responsibility of Programme Directors and CPOs to ensure that the Collaborative Programme Review and Annual Review of Collaborative Arrangements forms are discussed at School-level and transmitted to the College Quality Assurance and Approval Committee before being submitted to the University Collaborative Provision Committee

9. Non-College programmes Non-College based programmes (such as those in the Birmingham International Academy, or the Liberal Arts and Natural Sciences programme) are not required to complete a School Education Plan, but will continue to complete programme review forms. The programme review form has been

2 For the purposes of annual review, some higher risk UoB collaborative programmes will be required to follow the process as stated for validated provision.

10

modified to include some aspects of the School Education Plan, but also includes some more specific prompts to analyse inputs. The non-College programme review form should be completed and uploaded to SharePoint by 15

September 2017 for UG programmes and 11 December 2017 for PGT programmes (https://collaborate.bham.ac.uk/asca/Registry/annual-review). The form should be approved by the relevant programme-level committee with responsibility for education/quality before submission to UQAC and UEC. Non-College based programmes should apply the same key principles when completing the programme review form: the review should be strategic and forward-looking with a greater focus on forward-looking actions, rather than provision of commentary relating to matters which do not require action.

15 September 2017 Non-College based programmes to have completed programme review form in SharePoint (UG programmes).

11 December 2017 Non-College based programmes to have completed programme review form in SharePoint (PGT programmes).

11

Appendix 1 - Guidance on interpretation of statistical data at School level Definitions of all statistical datasets are available in Tableau Server. In reviewing these, Schools may wish to consider the following suggestions of ways in which the data can usefully be analysed. (1) Longitudinal or ‘trend’ analysis – Schools should consider the direction of the trends (e.g. are completion rates improving or worsening over time?). Positive trends are indicators that existing policies and processes are functioning effectively, but negative trends might indicate the need for a detailed review of the area and development of an action plan. In determining whether a trend is positive or negative, the relative importance of a particular issue, and whether action is required, it will be necessary to take into account the context of the programme or School, its profile and its aims. (2) Exception reporting – any significant exceptions to general trends (e.g. a sudden leap in the number of First or Third class degrees being awarded or non-continuation rates on particular programmes) should be identified and investigated. It will be useful to consider possible reasons for the exception and any steps which might prevent its recurrence (where the exception is negative) or to encourage its continuation (where the exception is positive). (3) Comparative analysis – data at programme or School level can be compared with the same data at a higher level, e.g. College or University. For example, completion or non-continuation rates for a particular School should be assessed to see if there are significant differences from the average rates at College or University level. In addition, Schools might find it useful to compare their performance with that of other cognate disciplines within the same College in order to identify significant differences and consider whether or not they are reasonable and acceptable. (4) Review of previous actions – the statistics can be reviewed to assess the impact of specific actions previously undertaken, e.g. if a Vice-Chancellor’s Integrated Review suggested that action be taken to reduce withdrawal rates amongst PGT students, does the data show an improvement in this area and, if so, can this be reasonably attributed to the action taken? Non-continuation data Non-continuation rates are calculated by considering the number of students who start in a particular year compared with the number who are still in higher education one year later (for full-time students) or two years later (for part-time students). If a student is registered at the University and has an active instance of study, but leaves the University for anything other than successful completion or involuntary reasons (death), then that student has discontinued. This is further divided into those who have discontinued within their first 12 months of study (Non continuation to Year 2), and those who started but did not complete Year 2 (Non continuation in Year 2). The non-continuation rate is the number of discontinued students divided by the number of registered students. Non continuation is defined as when a student leaves the institution – therefore if a year of study is repeated or a programme transfer occurs this will not qualify as non-continuation. In this sense it is different to progression. Non-completion data Non-completion rates consider the number of students, in a given academic year across all years of study, who left the programme for reasons other than successful completion or involuntary reasons, as a proportion of all students who were registered on the programme during that academic year. This differs from non-continuation, which considers all students who started in a specific entry cohort year; by contrast, non-completion considers all students registered in the same academic year, across all years of study and therefore not aligned to a specific entry cohort year.

12

Appendix 2 -Timeline of the Annual Review Process

June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017

Annual review activity UG/PGT SEPs drafted for 2017/18

(Schools – HoEs)

SEPs updated following consideration of UG and (non-dissertation) PGT module data, module reviews, Tableau Server data, UG external examiner reports and SSC reports

(Schools – HoEs in liaison with HoQs)

SEPs updated following review of NSS/PTES results

(Schools – HoEs)

Completion of UG and PGT module review forms (excluding PGT dissertation modules)

(Schools – Module Leads)

N/A CQAC/CEC meetings to consider and approve SEPs (including, for CQAC only, annual review checklists)

CQACs also to approve collaborative provision forms (Colleges – DoEs/Deputies)

College Boards sign off SEPs following CQAC/CEC approval (Colleges – DoEs)

N/A UG programme review forms for collaborative provision completed

(Collaborative organisations with CPOs; or Programme Directors, depending on type of collaboration)

Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) considers UG programme review forms for collaborative provision (Registry – CP)

Inputs available

Marks and awards confirmed and discussed at summer Board of Examiners meetings

(Schools/Colleges)

UG and (non-dissertation) PGT module data available

3

Data showing student module registrations available

(Registry – Student Data Management)

N/A N/A

Summaries of SSC reports (Registry - CAPPs)

NSS/BSS/PTES results available (External Relations)

MEQ results

(Schools/Colleges)

UG external examiner reports available, followed by summaries

(Registry - CAPPs)

N/A Marks and awards confirmed at Supplementary Board of Examiners meetings

(Schools/Colleges)

UG Tableau data available (Planning Office and Registry – CAPPs)

3 Schools are expected to look at anomalous data at Board of Examiners meetings, e.g. mean module marks out of line with previous years or other modules. The module data

spreadsheets provided at this point should therefore not be providing new information but can serve as a second opportunity to check the data.

13

4 At this stage, Schools may also make changes if they are prompted by the updated UG data available after the supplementary Board of Examiners meetings in September.

5 If considered appropriate by the College Director of Education, College Board may also be asked to consider or notified of the PGT updates to SEPs.

6 Schools are expected to look at anomalous data at Board of Examiners meetings, e.g. mean module marks out of line with previous years or other modules. The module data

spreadsheets provided at this point should therefore not be providing new information but can serve as a second opportunity to check the data.

October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018

Annual review activity SEPs submitted to UQAC and UEC with brief cover note from DoE & Deputy confirming CQAC/CEC consideration (UQAC to also receive annual review checklist)

(Colleges - DoEs/Deputies)

SEPs updated following review of PGT dissertation module data and module reviews, Tableau Server data and PGT external examiner reports

4

(Schools – HoQs in liaison with HoEs

SAPC meeting – consideration of institutional UG and PGT datasets to inform next year’s annual review

(tbc)

N/A

PGT dissertation module reviews completed CQAC/CEC5 meetings to consider PGT updates to SEPs (including, for CQAC only,

annual review checklists), as well as PGT collaborative programme review forms; key changes to SEPs to be reported subsequently to UQAC/UEC (Colleges - DoEs/Deputies)

N/A PGT programme review forms for collaborative provision completed

(Collaborative organisations with CPOs; or Programme Directors, depending on type of collaboration)

N/A CPC in Jan/Feb considers PGT programme review forms for collaborative provision

(Registry – CP)

Inputs available PGT dissertation marks and awards confirmed and discussed at Board of Examiners meetings

(Schools/Colleges)

PGT dissertation module data available

6

(Registry - Student Data Management)

N/A N/A

PGT external examiner reports, followed by summaries

(Registry - CAPPs)

N/A

PGT Tableau data available

(Planning Office and Registry – CAPPs)