Section 3: Internal Quality Review (IQR)

Published for 2025-26.

Contents

3.1 Introduction

  1. Internal Quality Review (IQR) is UCL’s central academic quality management and enhancement process. IQR is a risk-based programme of peer review, in which academic units of UCL which are identified as posing a significant risk to standards in one or more areas of their provision are intensively reviewed to identify areas where they can be supported to improve.
  2. The main purpose of the IQR is to focus on those areas where the department has been identified to be performing significantly below the agreed benchmark in its education and student experience activity, to investigate the factors that may be contributing to that performance, and to recommend areas for enhancement that will ensure that those departments are providing a high-quality student experience, that safeguards academic standards and delivers good outcomes for all students.
  3. The philosophy underpinning IQR is one of peer support and educational enhancement through the sharing of good practice. Through the review visit and the subsequent report and follow up, the process aims to enable colleagues in departments who are facing challenges in specific areas of their provision to learn from peers with expertise or proven good performance in those same areas.

3.2 Selection for an Internal Quality Review visit

3.2.1 Criteria for selection

  1. In time for the start of each academic session, a review of performance in key education and student experience measures, as agreed by the Quality and Standards Committee, will be conducted and based on that analysis, a list of departments will be identified as potential candidates for an IQR visit.
  2. The measures that will normally factor into the analysis are listed below. There may be a need to consider measures beyond those listed below in cases where there is evidence of a risk to academic standards or the student experience that has not been directly flagged in the normal course of review. In such cases, a recommendation will be made to the Quality and Standards Committee.
    1. Student Outcomes
    2. Student Experience (National Student Survey, Annual Programme Survey)
    3. Awarding Gaps
    4. Classification Outcomes 

3.2.2 Confirming the visit

  1. The Internal Quality Review Panel will, based on the analysis produced and the recommendations made, consider the list of departments that may qualify for an IQR visit.
  2. The Internal Quality Review Panel may also consider other factors presented to them, as outlined above, to support them in making their recommendations. This may include the distance from the last review visit, and a review of progress made as evidenced within the Department and/or Faculty Education Plan.
  3. Heads of Departments that are nominated for an IQR will be informed by the Internal Quality Review Panel Chair (or nominee) and invited to arrange an initial meeting to discuss the reasons for the nomination and to receive guidance on the process of preparing for the review visit. They will also be asked to nominate a contact within the Department who is responsible for liaising with the Review Manager on all aspects related to the operational delivery of the review.
  4. Heads of Departments that are not nominated for an IQR will be informed that they were considered by the Internal Quality Review Panel, and that their Dean will be asked to include them in the Faculty Education Plan for the year. 

3.2.3 Repeat qualification for an IQR visit

  1. As some issues can take more than one academic year to resolve, it is feasible that a department may, based on their metrics, qualify for an IQR in consecutive years, or within a short interval from their last visit.
  2. In the interest of giving departments sufficient time to embed enhancements, while maintaining assurance that progress is being made, the following decision framework will be used:
    • Year 0: Department is nominated to receive an IQR visit in Term 1 and the visit happens in Term 2 or Term 3.
    • Year 1: An annual progress conversation will take place between the Head of Department and the Director of Education (or equivalent), the Dean of Faculty and Faculty Education Team, the HEDs Faculty Partner, the Pro-Vice-Provost Education (Student Academic Experience), and the IQR Review Manager. In addition, the Department and Faculty Education Team must ensure that IQR actions are being addressed through the DEP in line with 1.7.
    • Year 2: A meeting will take place between the Head of Department and Director of Education (or equivalent), the Dean of Faculty and Faculty Education Team, the HEDs Faculty Review Partner, the Pro-Vice-Provost Education (Student Academic Experience), the Chair of the IQR Panel, one further member of the IQR Panel, and the IQR Review Manager or senior member of Academic Policy, Quality and Standards Team. This meeting will discuss the department’s progress against the action plan and, where necessary, will agree an enhanced reporting schedule and additional actions based on changes in the data since the review visit.
    • Year 3: The Department will be nominated for, and likely approved for, a new IQR visit. 

3.3 The Review Panel 

  1. The IQR Panel will constitute a review panel for each visit. As far as possible, the constitution of the team should be matched to the needs of the visit, based on the factors that contributed to the decision to conduct the review of that department.
  2. The Review Panel Leader must be a senior member of staff directly involved in delivering and/or supporting education and the holistic student experience.
  3. The maximum number of reviewers that should be appointed is eleven, but a smaller, more agile panel  may be appointed where appropriate to the needs of the visit. The Chair of the IQR Panel will confirm how many reviewers they think would be appropriate, and the relevant expertise required, with the Head of Academic Policy, Quality and Standards.
  4. As far as possible, all internal members of the review panel must come from outside of the faculty to which the department being reviewed belongs.
  5. All review panels must have at least one student reviewer, and one external reviewer who will be appointed based on either subject or issue specific knowledge.
  6. All review panel members will undertake to read all supporting documentation, participate fully in interviewing staff and students duruing the review visit, and make appropriate contributions to the preparation of the final report.

3.3.1 Role of the Review Panel  Leader

  1. To conduct the pre-meeting with the Faculty leadership team, supported by the Review Manager and at least one other internal reviewer.
  2. To chair the Review Panel’s planning meeting, in which the Leader will confirm the areas of exploration that are being assigned to each member of the team.
  3. During the review visit, to ensure that each interview session is conducted in a collegial and supportive manner, while ensuring that the relevant avenues for discussion are appropriately covered.
  4. To agree with the other members of the Panel, the main findings, and conclusions of the review visit, and to ensure that these are correctly recorded by the Manager.
  5. To approve the formal report of the IQR visit once this has been agreed between the Review Panel and the Department being reviewed.

3.3.2 Role of the Student Reviewer(s)

  1. To conduct the pre-meeting with the Lead Department Representatives and course representatives for all relevant programmes in the Department, gathering feedback and confirming student perspectives and priorities in order to then produce the Student Submission with input from the Lead Department Representatives. 

3.3.3 Role of the External Reviewer(s)

  1. External Reviewers play a vital role in assisting the team to identify key issues to be explored during the visit to the department. They can identify and make comparisons with similar provision or activity at other institutions and, where relevant, comment on the currency of the department’s programmes, or their education and student experience related practices and processes, in the context of developments in the discipline and/or the wider sector.
  2. An External Reviewer will normally be a senior member of staff involved in education or the support of education employed at another Higher Education Provider. They should either be appointed based on their knowledge of the discipline or because of their recognised capability in an area directly relevant to the reasons the Department has been nominated for review.
  3. A reviewer will be identified by and nominated to the IQR Panel by the relevant Faculty Education Team. They will have had no formal links to the Department within the previous three years and will have experience of conducting periodic review within their own institution, or external review on behalf of the QAA or another relevant professional body. 

3.3.4 Role of the Review Manager 

  1. The Review Manager is responsible for facilitating communication between the Department and the Review Panel in preparation for the visit. This includes agreeing the date of the visit, answering any questions the Department may have about the process and their preparations, and agreeing deadlines for the submission of key documents.
  2. The Review Manager is also responsible for supporting the Review Panel in their preparations for the visit, including arranging and attending preparatory meetings, preparing agenda for each interview, and agreeing attendees for each interview between the Department and the Panel Leader.
  3. The Review Manager is responsible for recording the key points of discussion and outcomes of each of the interviews, and for drawing this together to support the Review Panel in reaching their final conclusions and recommendations. Subsequently, the Review Manager is responsible for drafting and coordinating the agreement for the final report.
  4. The Review Manager is responsible for coordinating follow-up meetings.

3.4 Review Visit Preparation

3.4.1 Preliminary Meetings

Initial meeting with the Department

  1. Following confirmation of the Department’s selection for IQR, the Head of Department, the Director of Education, and the nominated contact person will be invited to meet with the relevant Academic Policy and Quality Manager, APQS, and the Review Manager. The Review Panel Leader may also join this meeting if required. The purpose of this meeting is to:
    1. Explain why the department has been selected for IQR, and the specific evidence that was used to make that decision.
    2. Ascertain whether there are additional areas the department feels it would benefit from exploring as part of the visit.
    3. Agree what information the department will provide in its Self-evaluative statement and supporting documentation.  
    4. Discuss which departmental teams the Review Panel should interview to explore the issues identified.
    5. Identify suitable dates to conduct the review visit.

Meeting with Faculty education leadership 

  1. Once the Review Panel has been appointed, the Review Panel Leader, the Review Manager , and at least one other internal reviewer will meet with the Dean, Vice Dean Education, Faculty Tutor (or equivalent) and HEDS Faculty Partner. The purpose of this meeting is to:
    1. Establish whether the Faculty has any specific areas it would like the review visit to explore.
    2. Understand the Faculty’s perspective on the areas that the Department has faced challenges with, and their actions to address them.
    3. Establish what support the Faculty has provided and continues to provide to help the Department to enhance its education and student experience.  

Meeting with the course representatives

  1. Prior to the review visit, the Student Reviewer and the Lead Department Representative will co-lead a meeting with the department’s course representatives. The purpose of the meeting is to:
    1. Facilitate a discussion of the key themes that the review visit will be exploring and understand the students’ view of the department’s efforts in addressing its challenges.
    2. Understand what, if any, changes, or enhancements the students feel would help the department to improve in the areas that are being reviewed.
    3. Enable the Student Reviewers (with input from the the Lead Department Representatives) to produce the student submission, which will be based on the themes and ideas raised during the meeting and will form part of the supporting documentation for the review visit. 

3.4.2 The Self-evaluative Statement and the Student Submission

The Self-evaluative Statement

  1. The purpose of the Self-evaluative Statement (SES) is to provide the department with an opportunity to reflect on the challenges it has faced in the areas for which it has been nominated for the review, and to outline actions and interventions taken to date to address them. This will help the Review Panel to understand the context within which the visit will take place.
  2. In producing the SES, the department should be honest about what it is finding challenging, where it wants to get to in terms of enhancement and improvement, and the support it feels it would need to get there.
  3. The SES should reflect on the data provided to the department, such as its performance against key education and student experience metrics, as well as its own locally held information, such as its enhancement plans, Student Partnership Committee minutes, and responses to external examiners’ reports. These sources of information should be provided as appendices with clear cross references within the SES.
  4. The template format for the SES will be approved by the IQR Panel and provided to each department at its preliminary meeting.

The Student Submission

  1. The purpose of the Student Submission is to complement the SES, which is produced by the staff leading education in the department, with a corresponding and co-equal reflection on the same information from the student body, as represented through the Course Representatives.
  2. The Course Representatives will support the production of the Student Submission through the preliminary meeting chaired by the Student Reviewers and the Lead Department Representatives. The Student Reviewers will then write the Student Submission, with input and final sign-off from the Lead Department Representatives.
  3. The template format for the Student Submission will be approved by the IQR Panel and provided to the Student Reviewers and Lead Department Representatives prior to their meeting with the Course Representatives.

3.5 The Review Visit

  1. The purpose of the visit is to reach, through a series of collegiate and collaborative discussions, a collective understanding between the department and the institution, through the review panel, of the key factors contributing to the challenges the department is facing, and to agree a set of realistic and useful recommendations that will enable the department to enhance its education and student experience.
  2. A review panel’s visit may last between 1-2 days, depending on the extent of business, the size of the department, and the number of interviews it has been deemed necessary to schedule.
  3. The Review Panel will agree with the Department in advance of the visit a detailed timetable of interviews to be conducted. These interviews should align with the issues covered in the SES. A sample timetable is available in the IQR Guidance provided to the departments for the IQR.
  4. At some point during the day, the following role holders should always be interviewed:
    • The Head of Department.
    • The Director of Education (or equivalent).
    • The Lead Department Representatives.
    • Programme Leaders for all relevant programmes.
    • A range of staff who teach on or support the delivery of the relevant programmes, including PGTAs, as appropriate.
    • A range of students from the relevant programmes.
    • Professional Services staff who support education in the department.

3.6 The Review Outcomes

3.6.1 Summary of Key Findings

  1. The Review Manager will draft a summary of key findings within five working days of the conclusion of the review visit. This will be circulated to the Review Panel Leader for approval and sent to the Head of Department and Dean of Faculty with a note that the fuller draft report, which will contextualise all recommendations, will follow in 25 working days (noting that timelines may be adjusted to accommodate Review Panel members leave and other committments). 

3.6.2 The IQR Report

  1. The report of the IQR visit will be drafted by the Review Manager, agreed with the Review Panel, and forwarded to the Head of Department within twenty-five working days of the last meeting of the Review Panel (noting that timelines may be adjusted to accommodate Review Panel members leave and other commitments). The Department will then be asked to comment on any factual errors.
  2. The report will set out recommendations for improvement in the following categories: ‘essential’, ‘advisable’ or ‘desirable’ and, where appropriate, identify good practice and/or make affirmations of actions already under way. Where appropriate and applicable, the report will also set out what support may be available to help the department or programme concerned to meet expectations and within what period.
  3. Actions will be contextualised so that it is clear why a recommendation is being made, and how it is intended to support the Department.

3.6.3 The Department Action Plan

  1. The department or programme concerned will, in collaboration with the Faculty Education Team and normally within four weeks of receipt of the action plan template, produce a written plan detailing the follow-up action that it will take in response to the recommendations in the IQR report. The action plan must have input and sign-off from the Faculty Education Leadership Team before it is submitted to the Review Manager. The IQR Panel Leader will review the action plan and will request any additional information or detail, as required. The final action plan will be submitted for discussion and approval to the Internal Quality Review Panel (IQR Panel) and the approved version will be shared with and discussed at the Quality and Standards Committee and reported to Education Committee.
  2. The action plan must be realistic and commit to making progress against each recommendation within an agreed timeline.
  3. The IQR report and action plan should be submitted to the next normal meeting of the Faculty Education Committee for discussion.

3.7 Implementing the Recommendations

3.7.1 Relationship with the Department and Faculty Education Plan

  1. As qualification for an IQR is indicative of a serious risk to quality and standards in one or more areas of the Department’s provision, it is expected that a Department working to implement an IQR action plan will undertake more enhancement activity in an academic year than other departments.
  2. All actions related to essential recommendations must be added to the Department Education Plan (DEP) for the duration of those actions. They must also be added to the Faculty Education Plan (FEP), as they are actions being taken to address a significant risk to standards. These actions will then be tracked via the regular report to Quality and Standards Committee, and the conversations with the HEDS Faculty Partnership teams.
  3. The Department must table the IQR action plan at each meeting of the Department Education Committee, alongside the DEP to identify when and how to incorporate the actions that will be taken to address advisable and desirable recommendations into the DEP.

3.7.2 Relationship with the IQR Panel

  1. At the start of each academic year, the IQR Panel will receive the agreed Department Education Plan and review it against the IQR Action Plan to monitor progress against the recommendations of the review panel. A summary of the annual follow up meetings and updates provided for these will also be received by the IQR Panel.
    • Where the IQR Panel is concerned that progress against a specific recommendation is insufficient, it may require the Faculty Education Team explore this further with the Department, and escalate concerns to the Quality and Standards Committee.

3.7.3 Annual Progress Conversations

  1. Once a year, each department that is working to address an IQR Action Plan will meet with their Dean of Faculty, Faculty Education Team, the Pro-Vice-Provost Education (Student Academic Experience) and the Review Manager.
  2. The purpose of the meeting is to identify where progress has been made against the action plan, what actions the department plans to focus on next, and any assistance the department may need to make progress on their outstanding actions.
  3. These meetings are not a monitoring point, as this will be conducted via the other methods listed above, but an opportunity to identify support and development needs. However, if there are concerns that progress is not sufficient, this will be noted at the annual IQR Panel review of Action Plans and DEPs, and further measures may then be requested from the Head of Department and Director of Education and the Faculty Education Team. 

Recent Changes

A guide to changes to the regulations are available from the Recent Changes page.