Click here to generate a text only version of this page
Click here to go to the Birkbeck, University of London home page
Click here for help with using the Birkbeck web site
Quality Enhancement and Validation
Printer icon Printable version 

REVIEW REPORT

7.1 The report should be approved by the Panel members prior to circulation to the Department/programme team for comments on factual inaccuracies only.  The report of a review meeting is an interpretative account of the discussions, not a set of minutes. 

7.2 Staff and students from the Department/programme(s) under review should not be quoted by name.  The report should present a continuous prose structured around the agenda followed in the meeting.  The standard format for the report may be guided by the following which is not intended to be an exhaustive list:

• Introductory section: this section should detail the type of review undertaken (full internal review or interdisciplinary/individual programme review), the Panel members including the external subject specialist and the range of provision reviewed.

• General comments:  an overview of the main characteristics of the Department/programmes covered by the review should be given here and general comments on the review process including the objectives and conduct of the review and the evidence base.

• Meeting with undergraduate, postgraduate and research students (as applicable):  this section should provide a summary of the meeting with students.

• Conclusions on innovation and good practice: examples of innovative and good practice taking place within the Department/programme(s) under review should be highlighted here. 

• Comments on practice at Department/programme level:  this section should detail the Panel's overall conclusions in line with the objectives of internal review (see above, 2.2).  This should also include: the Panel’s conclusions on whether the programme(s) remain current and valid in the light of developing knowledge in the discipline, practice in its application and developments in learning and teaching; the Panel’s confidence in the academic standards set and achieved for the programmes and in the quality of learning opportunities that support students in achieving the learning outcomes of the awards; the Panel's recommendations for action to remedy any identified shortcomings, and for further enhancement of quality and standards under the aspects of review contained within the agenda.  This section should also include details of the example of enhancement presented by the Department/programme team to the panel.

back to top

Quality Enhancement and Validation (Registry Services), Birkbeck, University of London, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HX.