New taught postgraduate programme reviews (NTPRs)

NPTRs form part of the University’s approach to quality assurance and enhancement, providing focused oversight of programme quality, standards, the student experience and the academic and business sustainability of provision. They complement broader School-level review processes and support the continuous evaluation and development of new provision.

Purpose of review

NTPRs aim to:

Provide assurance of the quality and standard of the learning and teaching provision.
Promote dialogue on areas where quality could be improved and ensure these are addressed.
Provide a structured opportunity for all stakeholders to engage in a reflective review of the business dimensions of a programme and to make recommendations regarding that or similar future programmes.
Identify good practice for dissemination within the institution and beyond.

Review period

Newly introduced PGT programmes are reviewed over an initial four-year period to support ongoing evaluation and enhancement.

The schedule of reviews is available at review schedule 2025-2032 (Word).

Key stages of the review

Year 1 to year 3: Annual programme-level report

Schools or Departments submit an annual programme-level report early September
Reports are considered by the Academic Monitoring Group (AMG) in October
Reports are also shared with the Cohort, Admissions and Resources Steering Group (CARSG)
Any issues or areas raised requiring support are followed up with the School or Department

Year 4: Portfolio review

Schools or Departments submit a Year 4 programme review report and supporting evidence base four weeks in advance of the review
A review panel considers the documentation to evaluate the programme
Following the review, the panel produces an Outcome Report, including commendations and recommendations

Outcome reports are considered by AMG and CARSG, which inform decisions on the future of the programme.

The review panel brings a range of experience and perspectives to the review process. The panel typically comprises:
- Senior member of the Principal's Office (Chair): The Chair facilitates the discussion and has final sign-off of the Outcome Report
- PGT Programme Director: A colleague from another area within the University with a strong background in managing PGT provision contributes their experience and perspective. The Dean of Learning and Teaching or Provost will nominate this colleague
- PGT Student President: A student representative with an awareness of current student issues and will focus on the student experience.
- Academic Policy Officer (Quality): the review coordinator will produce a summary of the discussion and draft the Outcome Reports drawing on the review panel's views.
Before the review
- The School or Department will submit a short reflective report and supporting evidence at least four weeks in advance of the review. These should be presented as an integrated set of information.
- The report should provide an honest, critical and evidence-based reflection on the programme, highligting:
  - areas of good practice
  - areas for development
  - any challenges affecting the programme or the School or Department
- The report should reflect input from both staff and students, demonstrating a collective and inclusive approach.
After the review
- The review panel will provide an Outcome Report to the School or Department within six weeks. This will include:
  - identified good practice
  - recommendations for the School or Department and, where appropriate, the wider University
- The review will also consider the future of the programme, including whether it should:
  - continue
  - be amended
  - receive additional support or resources
  - undergo further review
  - be withdrawn
Decision-making
- Outcome Reports are first considered by the AMG and then submitted to CARSG for a final decision
- CARSG will confirm the outcome and this will be communicated to the School or Department
Where a programme continues
- The School or Department will be asked to submit an action plan responding to the review recommendations
- Action plans should:
  - set out clear actions and timescales
  - be discussed with the Learning and Teaching Committee and Staff-Student Consultative Committee (SSCC)
  - demonstrate how outcomes and actions have been communicated to staff and students
Follow-up
- A progress update is required six months after submission of the action plan
- This should:
  - report on progress against each action
  - evidence outcomes and impact
- AMG will review the update and either approve completion of the process or request further information
After the four-year review period

At the end of the four-year period, the programme moves into standard monitoring arrangements, including School or Department-level Annual Academic Monitoring and University-led reviews of learning and teaching.

Where a programme is withdrawn
- A programme withdrawal form must be submitted to the Curriculum Approval Group (CAG)
- Registry and Admissions will provide relevant contextual data to support decision-making
- Appropriate arrangements must be in place to allow current students and offer-holders to complete the programme
Relationship to other review mechanisms
- All Schools and Departments participate in a University-led review of learning and teaching (URLT) on a six-year cycle. As part of this, the Reflective Analysis considers any new PGT programmes introduced since the previous review. Relevant documentation and AMG and CARSG responses are included in the URLT Advanced Information Set.
- Information and reflection on new PGT programmes also contribute to the University’s evidence base for institutional review by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). Any commendations or recommendations relating to PGT provision are shared with relevant stakeholders to inform ongoing enhancement.
Templates are provided for:

Annual programme-level review
- Annual programme-level report
Year 4 review
- Year 4 programme review report
- Evidence base
- Outcome report
- Action plan
- Progress update

New taught postgraduate programme reviews (NTPRs)

Purpose of review

Review period

Key stages of the review

Year 1 to year 3: Annual programme-level report

Year 4: Portfolio review

Review panel

Portfolio review process

Guidance and templates