The Review Process
Written Route
The Review Process: Written Route
How your Claim is Reviewed
The APEX programme is fortunate in having an experienced, trained and established pool of assessors drawn from across the institution. APEX assessors are all Fellows of the HEA, who have demonstrated an interest in and commitment to their roles as APEX assessors. Assessors must hold the category of Fellowship they are assessing.
When submitted, two reviewers will review all submissions on a 'double-blind' basis. The reviewers review whether the application has met the requirements for Fellowship and, if they are in agreement that the application meets the standards, it will go to the verification/awards panel. Where assessors are not able to agree an outcome, the application will be distributed to the assessment team and considered at a subsequent moderation meeting. Applications are also sent to the external verifier along with a sample of applications from across the categories of Fellowship .
A moderation meeting seeks to:
Discuss and agree a consensus decision on all borderline applications with input from the External Verifier
Highlight examples of good practice
Address any procedural issues arising and identify any action required
Confirm the applications to go to the External Verifier panel
Following the moderation meeting the recommendations are considered by the APEX Programme verification/award panel. This panel will receive recommendations from assessors of submissions for D1, D2, D3 recognition, and confirm that ‘Fellowship is achieved’. Applicants are normally informed of the outcomes of the panel within 24 hours.
The verification panels meet at least three times per year. The dates will be aligned with application submission dates.
At this moderation meeting, the review team can make a specific decision:
Major Amendments: If the reviewers decide that the submission falls significantly short of meeting the required standard for Fellowship, then the participant will be provided with clear feedback and encouraged to resubmit their entire submission at the next review panel.
Major amendments would be advised if a significant number of criteria were not met. For example, there may be insufficient mapping to the UKPSF dimensions or there is a notable absence of academic literature to help develop the pedagogic rationale for the participant’s approach.
Minor Amendments: If the reviewers decide that only minor amendments are needed to demonstrate the required standard for Fellowship, the participant can be invited to either:
Resubmit the entirety of the claim with revisions
Submit a short supplementary discussion which addresses the shortcomings identified at the moderation meeting
Attend a short face-to-face meeting with two reviewers where they will have the opportunity to discuss and reflect on aspects of practice the review panel needed further clarification
Submit a short video, where the participant discusses the aspects of practice the review panel needed further clarification on
Minor amendments would be advised if an additional focus was needed around specific criteria. A common example is further development to demonstrate engagement with K5 and K6. In the case of minor amendments, revisions constitute small revisions within the overall narrative that don’t warrant a substantiate rewrite.
APEX Review Process
*APEX 4.0 - SUBMISSION AND REVIEW TIMELINE.pdfSubmission and Review Timeline
*APEX 4.1 - REVIEW PROCESS - WRITTEN ROUTE.pdfOur External Verifier
Judgements are subject to moderation and overseen by our external verifier. Following initial verification, the awards of Fellowship are confirmed at a subsequent Panel meeting.
Our external verifier is Dr Lucy Spowart from the University of Plymouth. Lucy has considerable experience of working with accredited provision, and contributed to AdvanceHE's (2020) research assessing the impact of accreditation on institutions.
Confirmation of Fellowship and Obtaining Your Fellowship Certificate
We will aim to confirm the outcome of your application as soon as possible after the panel meeting, normally within five working days. You will receive a letter from me either confirming that you have achieved Fellowship or that you application has been referred as it has not met the required standard.
We then submit your details to AdvanceHE and they will send you your Fellowship Certificate some time after; this usually arrives as an email attachment.
If you application is referred you will have the chance to re-submit your application. As part of this resubmission process you will have the opportunity to get feedback and guidance to help you work towards meeting the required standard. You then resubmit directly to APEX and a decision is made on your application at the next panel meeting or via Chair's Action.
Appeals and Complaints
A participant may believe that a failure of process (e.g. confusion about submission date or receipt of application) has led to a non-achievement judgment and there is a right to appeal on these grounds. The procedure is to formally write to the Chair of the Verification and Award Panel stating the case. It will be the responsibility of the Chair of the Panel to investigate the appeal involving the EV, as appropriate, basing procedure upon existing University processes. Appeals against professional judgment, where all assessment, moderation and verification processes have been fully adhered to, will not be upheld.
In relation to complaints about the programme implementation, participants have substantial opportunities to provide feedback on their experiences on an ongoing basis. However, if participants do have a complaint about an aspect of Programme implementation they should initially raise the matter in an informal manner directly with the person concerned. In serious cases, where the participant believes that their concerns have not been addressed satisfactorily, they may raise the matter with the Director of DCQE who may then request a report from an appropriate independent Investigating Officer.