Revisit the original educational need, compare agreed commitments with delivery and examine the experience of learners, staff and the partner. Choose whether to repeat, redesign, pause or close the activity using evidence and capacity. Continuing the relationship does not require repeating an unsuitable format.
Return to the purpose and the actual commitment
Start the review with the purpose recorded before the activity began. Identify the learner group, intended practice and contribution each organisation agreed to provide. This helps prevent a pleasant event or a well-known partner name from replacing the original educational question. If the purpose has changed, describe that change openly rather than judging the old activity against a new objective after delivery.
Compare the scope with what happened. Note completed outputs, missed commitments and changes made along the way. Distinguish an activity that was delivered as planned but had limited learning value from one that could not be delivered with the agreed support. Those situations call for different decisions, even when both receive similar satisfaction scores.
Use several observations without overstating the evidence
Review learner work, participation, feedback and the practical effort required. A completed explanation or reflection can provide evidence relevant to the learning objective; attendance alone describes reach. Ask delivery staff and partner contributors what was useful and what created avoidable difficulty. Keep the method proportionate, with appropriate handling of personal information and voluntary feedback where relevant.
Look for missing perspectives. A survey of enthusiastic attendees may overlook learners who could not participate or teams that did not finish. Record those limits in the review. Avoid attributing later grades, placements or employment outcomes to the partnership unless the evaluation design and evidence justify that conclusion. A modest evidence base can still support a careful decision about the next activity.
Separate the relationship from the format
Consider whether the underlying need remains and whether the current format is the best way to address it. A workplace visit might be replaced by a practitioner feedback session if travel is difficult and the learning objective can still be met. A project might need clearer preparation rather than a larger cohort. Ask what change would address the observed problem and who can deliver it.
Include pause and closure as legitimate options. The partner may have changed priorities, the institution may lack supervision capacity or the activity may no longer fit the curriculum. Continuing out of politeness can create unreliable commitments. A respectful decision to stop a particular activity can preserve a useful professional relationship for a different conversation later.
Record a decision with conditions and a closure plan
End the review with a named decision owner, the chosen option and the conditions for any next step. If repeating the activity depends on a revised brief or available mentor time, record who confirms those conditions before invitations are published. Set a review point so an unresolved possibility does not remain indefinitely on the programme calendar.
If closing or pausing, address outstanding learner feedback, materials, permissions and commitments through the relevant institutional processes. Tell affected people what will happen and retain an appropriate record of the decision. Closure should be as deliberate as the initial invitation. The review is useful when it changes the next action, rather than simply producing a report that assumes continuation.
A fictional review changes the format instead of increasing the cohort
A fictional social-sciences department runs an employer-supported research presentation afternoon. Attendance and satisfaction are positive, but learner work shows that participants still struggle to distinguish observation from interpretation. Practitioners report that they spent much of the session clarifying the assignment rather than giving useful feedback.
The review identifies preparation as the main design problem. Staff choose a smaller case-discussion session next term, preceded by a synthetic evidence exercise and a clearer brief. The employer agrees only to explore dates after the revised materials are ready. The team records that the relationship remains useful while the original event format will not be repeated. Neither the survey nor the review is presented as evidence that the activity improved placement outcomes.
A checklist for your next step
- Compare delivery with the original purpose and scope.
- Review learner outputs alongside reach and feedback.
- Record whose perspective or evidence is missing.
- Consider repeat, redesign, pause and closure explicitly.
- Give the decision an owner, conditions and a next action.
Common questions
Should positive satisfaction scores guarantee continuation?
No. Satisfaction can reveal aspects of experience, but it may not show whether learners practised the intended capability or whether support was sustainable. Use it alongside relevant outputs, delivery evidence and the perspectives of people who could not participate.
How can an institution close an activity without damaging the relationship?
Explain the practical reason, complete outstanding commitments and acknowledge the contribution accurately. Separate the decision about this format from the value of the professional relationship. Avoid offering a future activity unless someone has capacity and authority to explore it.
Further reading
These primary resources provide related background. They do not validate the illustrative example or endorse AcadNexus.
AI-assisted drafting and automated technical checks. Examples are illustrative; no independent expert review or real-world outcome validation is claimed. Read our editorial policy.