· web viewall proposed new programmes of study and proposed modifications to existing...

Programme Approval Handbook 2018-19

Process Guide for the approval of new and modified taught academic programmes leading to University and external qualifications

Standards and Enhancement Office

PREFACE

This handbook is intended to provide detailed information about the University's requirements for the approval of new academic programmes and of modifications to existing academic programmes. It covers all types of Programme Approval activity for taught programmes leading to qualifications of the University and external bodies, including those delivered off-campus.

There are two routes to validation, as follows:

A. Route A is where a proposal is considered by the University Standing Panel, at one of its scheduled meetings on the academic calendar

B. Route B is where a proposal is considered by a specially convened Validation Panel and Event

For proposals about new or modified on campus programmes only: Route A is the standard route, normally Route B is chosen by exception.

For proposals about new or modified off campus programmes: Route A is chosen by exception, Route B is the standard route, normally.

For proposals about new or modified on campus programmes that include an off campus franchise arrangement:

Route A of Route B may be chosen, as required to manage, mitigate or monitor risk associated with the proposal

The material in this handbook is organised as follows: that which is common to Routes A and B that which is specific to Route A only that which is specific to Route B only

The appendices contain detailed information, protocols/ procedures, guidelines, templates. Mandatory Items are marked with an asterisk.

For ease of use, the Appendices to this handbook are available as individual files on the Standards and Enhancement Office webpages labelled ‘Programme Design and Approval/ Programme Approval Handbook’

Questions about the operation of the Academic Approval and/or Programme Approval process can be addressed to members of the Standards and Enhancement Office (SEO), see Appendix 2.

Academic Registrar

1

https://www.bolton.ac.uk/Quality/PDA/Programme-Approval-Process/Home.aspx

https://www.bolton.ac.uk/Quality/PDA/Programme-Approval-Process/Home.aspx

CONTENTSPage

Introduction 4

Choice of Validation Route 4

Chart 1. Programme approval process at a glance 6

Programme approval process – common steps for all proposals 10

Route A: University Standing Panel 16

Route B: Validation Panel/Event 19

APPENDICES

Also available for downloading as separate documents from SEO’s Programme Approval webpage

Page

Appendix 00: Chart 1 Programme Approval Process 22

Appendix 1: Timelines for Programme Approval/ Validation in 2018-19 24

a) Strategic Approval, Academic Approval and Programme Approval 25

b) Timelines for the University Standing Panels/ Validation Events in 2018-19 28

Appendix 2: Key contacts in the Standards and Enhancement Office and the Student Data Management team

33

Appendix 3: Arrangements for Strategic Approval and Academic Approval 34

Appendix 4: Link to Modification of Taught Programme Guidelines 35

Appendix 5: Validation criteria a) Generic approval criteria for on and off campus programmes

36

b) Specific approval criteria for collaborative partnerships (off campus and some on campus)

38

Appendix 6a: Proposal Development Record 41Appendix 6b: Guidelines for preparing a programme specification 43Appendix 6c: Guidelines for preparing a module specification 50Appendix 6d: Guidelines on the required contents of a Programme Handbook 55

Appendix 7: University Standing Panel (USP) - Route A (Steps 12-16)a) Terms of reference and membership of the University Standing Panelb) Roles and responsibilities of members of the University Standing Panelc) Generic agenda for a meeting of the University Standing Paneld) Programme Approval and Sign-Off Forme) Template for the USP Report

565659636667

2

Appendix 8: Validation Panel - Route B: (Steps 12-18)a) Terms of reference and membership of the Validation Panelb) Responsibilities of members of a Validation Panelc) Generic schedule for a Validation Eventd) Programme Approval and Sign-Off Forme) Template for the Summary Reportf) Template for the Report

69697475798082

Appendix 9: Generic Agenda for the Planning Meeting (Step 2) 85

Appendix 10: External Advisor (Step 1-2)a) Expectations and responsibilities of the role of External Advisor and/or PSRB

representative(s) b) Criteria for the appointment of an External Advisor c) Nomination form for the appointment of an External Advisor d) Template for the Consultation Report from the External Advisor and/or PSRB

representative(s)e) Payment of fees and expenses to an External Advisor

89

919395

97Appendix 11: Internal Advisor (Step2)

a) Expectations and responsibilities of the role of Internal Advisor b) Report template for the Internal Advisor’s Consultation Report

98100

Appendix 12: Programme Design and Development Meeting (Step 4)a) Generic Agenda b) Outcomes

103103

Appendix 13: University requirements (Step 4)a) Curriculum Design Guide b) Guidance on how to achieve and embed the Teaching Intensive, Research Informed

(TIRI) Curriculumc) GAME supporting the Curriculum – Overviewd) Guidance on mapping GAME

104111

113113

Appendix 14: Consultation with employers, professionals and students a) Report template for consultation with employers (Step 5)b) Report template for consultation with students (Step 6)

115116118

Appendix 15: Template for School to confirm that documents are ready for External Scrutiny Meeting (Step 7

119

Appendix 16: External Scrutiny Meeting (Step 8)a) Generic Agenda b) Template for Report on Outcomes of External Scrutiny Meeting (Checklist for

modification of draft programme documents)

122123

Appendix 17: Template for School to confirm that documents are ready for University level consideration (Step 9)

124

Appendix 18: PDR Review Meeting (Step 10)a) Generic Agenda for the PDR Review Meeting 127

Appendix 19: SEO Secretary’s Report (Step 11) 128

3

Introduction

All proposed new programmes of study and proposed modifications to existing programmes are required to gain Academic Approval and Programme Approval (Appendices 2 and 3) before they begin. Where a programme either requires significant investment in resources or is intended for off campus delivery, then it is required to gain Strategic Approval before being submitted for Academic Approval (Appendix 3)

All proposed modifications to programmes that are delivered on campus, which have an off-campus version that is delivered by a partner organisation under a franchise agreement, must be made simultaneously. This is to ensure that the franchise version of a programme remains identical to the version taught on campus at the University.

Strategic Approval is the formal process by which the University’s Strategic Planning and Resources Development Committee (SPRDC) grants permission for the development of any of the following proposals:

New partner organisations New programmes with a new or existing partner organisation Significant changes to the nature and academic level of provision with an

existing partner organization (e.g. a change from research to taught programmes; a change from HE levels 4-6 to HE levels 7-8)

On Campus developments that require significant investment in learning resources including staff

Academic Approval is the formal process by which the University’s Programmes Committee gives permission for the development of any of the following proposals:

All new programmes Major modifications to an existing programme, for example changes to the

programme and/or module learning outcomes, programme title, programme structure and assessment. This includes both on campus and off campus programmes.

Programme Approval is the formal process by which the University’s Senate gives permission that a programme may be offered for study by students. The Programme Approval process includes validation that a proposed new or changed programme meets the University’s expectations of academic standards, quality and information. SEO manages the process and submits the outcome of this quality assurance process as a recommendation to the Senate, for ratification. Senate is responsible for the information about and the academic standards and quality of all programmes that lead to a University qualification.

Where relevant the validation process will consider the requirements of any relevant Professional Statutory and Regulatory Bodies and external awarding bodies/organisations. Programme Approval relies on peer review by approved University staff and student reviewers as well as external advisors (subject specialists) and reviewers. Approved programmes will normally operate in accordance with University regulations, unless otherwise stated.

The University’s approval arrangements, as outlined above, are aligned with the OfS Regulatory Framework.

4

Choice of Validation route

There are two possible routes to validation, as shown in Chart 1, below, and as follows:

1. Route A: the standard route is through an iterative process of development that ends with consideration of a Proposal Development Record (Appendix 6) at a meeting of the University Standing Panel (Appendix 7);

2. Route B: is the standard route for Off Campus programmes and by exception for on campus programmes. It uses an iterative process of development and consideration by a Validation Panel (Appendix 8) with an event held at the intended location of delivery.

The Planning Meeting will determine the validation route (STEP 2, Appendix 9), which is subject to confirmation by SEO after the proposing team submits the final set of documents, (STEP 11). The choice of validation route will reflect the level of complexity of a proposal and/or the arrangements required for effective validation. Factors to be considered include:

Location of programme delivery Involvement of an off-campus partner organisation The level of experience in programme design amongst members of the subject

team making the proposal The number of programmes and complexity of the proposal Whether the proposal is in a new or an existing subject area Any requirements for learning resources which are subject to confirmation The involvement and preferred approach of a PSRB The completeness of the Proposal Development Record (PDR) (Appendix 6) at

Step 10 in the process.

The arrangements for Academic Approval and Programme Approval take account of QAA’s Quality Code for Higher Education (UKQC or the Quality Code, see www.qaa.ac.uk ) and the European Standards and Guidelines, 2015.

5

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/

Chart 1. Programme approval process at a glance

6


Common initial steps for all proposals

7

STEP 1: Proposal secures Strategic Approval (if required) from SPRDC and Academic Approval from Programmes Committee. Proposer submits External Advisor nomination for approval by

Programmes Committee. Proposing team identify own training needs.STEP 2: Planning Meeting

SEO Secretary to recruit Internal Advisor and organises Planning Meeting at which Validation Route is

selected. Administrative set-up occurs.

STEP 3: SEO Secretary sets up the Proposal Development Record (PDR) and appoints

External Advisor.

STEP 4: Programme Design & Development Meeting Proposing team with AC consult SEO Advisor and Internal Advisor about

academic standards, programme aims and learning outcomes. SEO Advisor arranges any required training on programme design and development.

Proposing team draw up draft course leaflet and programme specification.

STEP 5: Stakeholder consultation Proposing team consult employers (e.g. Industry

Advisory Panel) PRSB with outline of proposed new or modified programme and uploads completed report to PDR.

STEP 6: Stakeholder consultation Proposing team write programme documents.

Team capture student views about Programme Specification and upload report of students' views to PDR.

STEP 7: School Sign Off Meeting School staff finalise, proof read and check programme documents. Head of School or nominee (e.g. AC) confirms readiness of programme

documents for external scrutiny.STEP 8: External Scrutiny (Meeting)

Proposing team & AC consult the Internal Advisor, External Advisor/PRSB representative(s) +/- SEO Advisor. Proposal is presented either during a meeting, by email or

by teleconference, Report of outcomes is made including essential follow-up action and modifications to documents before contents of PDR can be finalised.

STEP 9: School to Sign-Off PDR Proposing team use report from External Scrutiny Meeting to finalise programme

documents and complete the PDR. Head of School or nominee (e.g. AC) confirms readiness of PDR. Internal Advisor completes his/her Report and uploads to PDR.

STEP 10: PDR Review Meeting Proposer presents completed

documents to SEO Advisor & Internal Advisor who either confirm progression to Route A or B or return the proposal to the proposing team.

STEP 11: Secretary's Overview Report SEO Secretary writes an

overview report on design and development of the proposal.

Validation Route A (standard for on campus and by exception

for off campus programmes)

Validation Route B (standard for off campus and by exception

for on campus programmes)

8

STEP 12 University Standing Panel (USP) considers complete Proposal Development Record

STEP 13: USP decides whether or not to

recommend validation of the proposal to Senate.

STEP 14 A: Where USP decides to

recommend validation, the Chair of USP signs off the programme and the PDR-folder

For Off Campus programmes the relevant addendum to the contract must be available to

the USP to enable sign-off.

STEP 14 B: If USP chooses NOT to recommend

validation, the proposal is returned to the appropriate previous STEP.

STEP 15: If validation is recommended, USP Secretary completes the USP Report and

submits it to Education Committee and Senate

STEP 16: Validated programme signed-off and set-up on

SITs ready for recruitment.

STEP 12: Validation Panel reviews PDR and submits lines of enquiry to Secretary. Lines of enquiry sent to

Proposing Team.

STEP 13: Validation Event held at intended delivery

location

STEP 14: Secretary generates Reports which are submitted

to Education Committee and Senate

STEP 15: Proposer completes follow up

action on any conditions and recommendations

STEP 16: Proposer submits revised programme documents

to PDR-folder and alerts Secretary

STEP 17: Validation Panel Chair considers response to any

conditions and recommendations. For Off Campus programmes the relevant

addendum to the contract must be available to enable sign-off

STEP 18: Validated programme signed-off by Chair and

set-up on SITs ready for recruitment.

Programme approval process Common steps for all proposalsSTEP No.

Activity Description Appendix

Step 1 Proposal secures Strategic Approval (if required) from SPRDC and Academic Approval from Programmes Committee.

Proposer submits External Advisor nomination for approval by Programmes Committee.

Proposing team identify own training needs.

Once the proposal has been discussed at subject level and/or with the partner organisation, the proposer needs to secure University approval to proceed.

The relevant forms can be obtained from the SEO website http://www.bolton.ac.uk/Quality/PDA/Home.aspx and submitted to the Secretary of the Committee, (Appendices 2 and 3) and include:

For SPRDC, proposer completes the Strategic Approval Form (SAF) For Programmes Committee, proposer completes the Programme Approval

Form (PAF) or Change Approval Form (CAF) and the External Advisor Nomination Form for consideration and approval (Appendix 10)

When completing the PAF, the proposing team must be identified, together with any need(s) for training on programme approval.

Once a proposal gains approval to proceed, SEO will assign a Secretary to the proposal and organise a Planning Meeting (Appendix 9).

Appendices 2 and 3

Appendix 10

Appendix 9

Step 2 SEO Secretary to recruit Internal Advisor and organise Planning Meeting.

Administrative set-up. Proposing team contact

Marketing Department to determined STV web copy to be included in course search on the web site

SEO Secretary contacts the Proposer with the following details: Name of Internal Advisor. See role description in Appendix 11 Date and time of the Planning Meeting, which is attended by key

participants and at which the detailed planning occurs. See typical agenda in Appendix 9.

Programme Code issued and the creation of a blank Programme Specification template in the Programme Database. The SEO Secretary provides the Proposer with the Programme Code. (Appendix 2) See programme specification details in Appendix 6.

The Proposer contacts a member of Student Data Management (SDM) (Appendix 2) for:

Appendix 11

Appendix 9

Appendix 2Appendix 6

10

http://www.bolton.ac.uk/Quality/PDA/Home.aspx

the Module Codes and the creation of a blank Module Specification templates in the Module Database. See module specification details in Appendix 6.

Appendix 6

Step 3 SEO Secretary sets up the Proposal Development Record (PDR) and appoints the External Advisor who has been approved by Programmes Committee.

For Route B proposals, the Secretary invites the External Advisor to serve at Step 8 and Step 13.

The SEO Secretary provides he Proposer contacts with the following details: The Proposal Development Record (PDR) link on Moodle - see required

contents in Appendix 6.

The Proposal Development Record (PDR) is a virtual folder that contains evidence of the design, development and validation of a programme. Access is given to key participants in the process to enable them to submit items of evidence to the folder. The contents of the PDR-folder will comprise the formal record of the process of design, development and consultation - including all final programme documents.

The contents of the PDR are reviewed at the: Step 4: Programme Design and Development Meeting Steps 7 and 9: School Sign-Off Meeting Step 8: External Scrutiny Meeting Step 11: PDR Review Meeting Step 12: University Standing Panel or Validation Panel

Once the programme is approved, the access rights to the folder will be restricted to members of SEO and the PDR will become the definitive set of programme documents.

Appendix 6

Step 4 Programme Design & Development Meeting Proposing team with AC consult SEO Advisor and Internal Advisor about academic standards, programme aims and learning outcomes.

SEO Advisor arranges any required training on programme design and development

The Proposer convenes a meeting of the proposing team and Academic with the SEO Advisor and Internal Advisor. The meeting provides guidance on programme design, consultation and development, as follows:

Design-Consult-Develop: Programme design, consultation and development Alignment with the OfS Regulatory Framework including the UK Quality

Code for Higher Education Parts A, B and C University regulations Setting academic standards, designing a good quality student

11

Proposing team write the draft programme documentation

experience and ensuring that information for students is clear and accurate

Securing the views of students, employers and any relevant PSRBs Securing the views of any partner organisation(s) which currently or in

future will franchise the programme(s) Taking account of any relevant Apprenticeship Standard and End Point

Assessment that has been published as approved by the Institute for Apprenticeships (IfA)

Writing the module specifications and programme specification.

Meeting the University requirements: The UoB Curriculum Philosophy (Appendix 13a) UoB Graduate Attributes Matrix for Employability (Appendix 13a) Operational aspects of programme design, consultation and

development How to build in alignment with the University’s TIRI agenda (Appendix

13b) How to reflect the requirements of the Learning, Teaching and

Assessment Strategy and the Student Experience Strategy How to ensure the proposal addresses the University’s enhancement

priorities.

Writing the Programme documents and the Process documents for the PDR (Appendix 6)

The Proposer notifies the SEO Advisor about the training needs amongst members of the programme/ proposing team. The SEO Advisor arranges bespoke training for the team members.

Appendix 13a

Appendix 13b

Appendix 6

Step 5 Proposing team consult employers (e.g. Industry Advisory Panel) and/or PRSB with outline of proposed new or modified programme and uploads completed report to PDR.

The University requires that programmes are developed in accordance with the views of:

Employers/ professionals – e.g. members of the Industry Advisory Panel for each School (Appendix 14a)

Any relevant Professional Statutory, Regulatory Body (PSRB) (Appendix 14a)

The Trailblazer Group for any relevant Apprenticeship Standard and

Appendix 14a

12

Proposing team update draft programme documents in light of employer feedback

End Point Assessment (Appendix 14a) Partner organisation(s) that plan to offer the programme.

During design and development of a programme proposal, one or more meeting(s) should be held to capture comments from employers / professionals and any relevant PSRB, and partner organisations, respectively. The responsibility for convening such meetings rests with the School/ Division. The intention of the consultation is to capture views about the proposed new or modified programme and the following documentation should provide a basis for evaluation of the programme proposal:

Draft marketing information (course leaflet/ prospectus entry) Draft programme specification.

This is a formal requirement and the outcomes of the meetings should be formally recorded, in report templates or notes, as follows:

Consultation with employers and professionals (Appendix 14a) Evidence of engagement with any partner organisation(s) that

plan to offer the programme (for example, notes of meetings).The record(s) should be placed by the Proposer in the PDR-folder as part of the Process Documents.

Step 6 Proposing team update draft programme documents.

Team capture student views about Programme Specification and upload report to PDR

The Programme Proposer completes a first draft version of: Programme specification(s) (PDF from the database) Module specification(s) (PDF from the database)

The Programme Proposer and team produce: The Programme Handbook (Appendix 6d) any required Placement

Handbook and Mentoring Handbook, following the University templates Detailed information about specialist Learning Resources including staff

CVs and module responsibilities Marketing materials following University guidance For Partnership provision: Off Campus Operations Manual, following

the University template. For Apprenticeships, the draft contract, commitment statement and

plans for mentoring of apprentices in the workplace

The University requires that programmes are developed in consultation with

Appendix 6d

13

students. During development of a programme proposal, one or more meetings should be held to capture comments from students. The responsibility for convening such meetings rests with the School/ Division. The intention is to capture views about the proposed new or modified programme as presented in the programme specification and module specifications.

This is a formal requirement and the outcomes of the meeting(s) should be recorded using the template provided for this purpose in Appendix 14b. The completed template should be uploaded to the Proposal Development Record.

Appendix 14b

Step 7 School Sign-Off Meeting School staff proof read and

check programme documents. Head of School or nominee

(e.g. AC) confirms readiness of programme documents.

The Proposer and AC arrange for staff in the School, who are not on the proposing team, to proof read the programme documents and make any required changes to documents The documents are modified in line with advice from the proof readers.Once documents are ready, the Proposer convenes a meeting at which the Head of School or nominee (e.g. AC) review the revised documents and signs off their readiness for the External Scrutiny Meeting. (Appendix 15) Appendix 15

Step 8 External Scrutiny Meeting:Proposing team with AC present proposal to: Internal Advisor, External Advisor/PRSB representative(s) in person/ by teleconference, +/- SEO Advisor.

Chair uses Appendix 16b to make an accurate record of the outcomes and essential follow up action /modifications required to enable documents in PDR to be finalised.

The Proposer convenes, as required, the External Scrutiny Meeting at which the draft programme proposal should be presented. The meeting is chaired by the Internal Advisor, and a draft agenda is available (Appendix 16a). NB: the meeting requires access to an overhead projector in order that it can work visually through the documents in the PDR, as required.

The intention is to capture subject specialist advice on the proposed new or modified programme using the following documents:

Programme Specification Programme Handbook Module Specifications for all modules Staff CVs and module/ leadership responsibilities Marketing information (Programme leaflet/ prospectus entry) Mentoring/ placement handbooks, as relevant Operational Manuals, for off-campus programmes, as relevant Curriculum mapping, where relevant, e.g. for progression or articulation

of programmes.

Appendix 16a

14

How the programme meets any PSRB accreditation requirements Apprenticeship Standards Mapping, where relevant

The proposing team consults the External Advisor/PSRB representative for subject specialist advice, which includes:

subject standards in PSRB requirements; QAA’s Subject Benchmark Statements and any relevant Characteristics Statements; and the External Advisor’s knowledge of good practice in the subject area;

any subject specific legislative and regulatory requirements.

Consulting the approved External Advisor or PSRB representative is a formal requirement and the External Advisor is asked to complete a formal report summarising his/her view of the suitability of the proposal and any recommendations for modification of the proposal and/or programme documents using the report template in Appendix 10b.

The External Advisor is paid a fee and expenses (claims for the fee and expenses should be submitted to the SEO Secretary, who supplies a claim form for the purpose), see Appendix 10e.

Chair uses Appendix 16b to record outcomes and required follow-up action/ modifications to enable PDR documents to be finalised. This gives a checklist of follow up action required for the Proposer to finalise the programme and process documentation

Appendix 10b

Appendix 10e

Appendix 16b

Step 9 Proposing team use report from External Scrutiny Meeting to finalise programme documents and complete the Proposal Development Record (PDR).

School to Sign-Off PDR and upload report.

Proposing team modify programme documentation in accordance with the advice provided at the External Scrutiny Meeting, Step 8.

Once documents are ready, the Proposer convenes a meeting at which the Head of School or nominee (e.g. AC) review the revised documents and sign off their readiness for University level consideration. (Appendix 17)

The Internal Advisor completes his/her report on the development and to indicate the readiness of the proposal for Step 10, the PDR scrutiny meeting (Appendix 11b)

Appendix 17

Appendix 11b

Step PDR Review Meeting There is a generic agenda (Appendix 18) for this meeting at which the Appendix 1815

10 Proposer (development lead), SEO Advisor, and Internal Advisor review PDR and either confirm progression to Route A or B or return the proposal to the proposing team

Proposer presents the final versions of the programme documents in the PDR. The meeting either confirms that the proposal can progress to validation by Route A or B or returns it to the appropriate earlier step in the process, above.

Following the outcome of the meeting the SEO Secretary either adds the proposal to the agenda for the University Standing Panel or continues to arrange a Validation Panel and Event.

Step 11

The SEO Secretary completes the SEO Secretary’s Report and submits it to the PDR

SEO Secretary completes the Secretary’s overview report on the development of the proposal and the completeness of the PDR (Appendix 19). Appendix 19

Route A – University Standing PanelSTEP No. Activity Appendix

Step 12 University Standing Panel (USP) considers complete Proposal Development Record.

The terms of reference and membership of the University Standing Panel are given in Appendix 7a. The USP is to confirm that due process has been followed in the programme development.

The date and location of meetings of the University Standing Panel are given in the annual Senate Calendar that is published on the SEO webpage for Committees. The dates for meetings of the University Standing Panel that are correct at September 2018 are included in Appendix 1b.

The University Standing Panel ONLY considers programme proposals with a complete Proposal Development Record that has been confirmed as ‘ready for validation’ at the PDR Review Meeting.

The USP Secretary provides members of the University Standing Panel with access to the PDR containing the relevant documents for consideration by the USP. Prior to the meeting of the University Standing Panel, members review the Proposal Development Record.

Appendix 7a

Appendix 1b

Step 13 USP decides whether or not to recommend validation of the proposal to Senate.

The USP determines whether: due process has been followed; suitable action has been taken in relation to any recommendations from,

students, employers, the profession, a PSRB, the Internal and External 16

Advisors and SEO; a complete and acceptable set of final programme documents has been

produced; the programme is ready for recruitment and delivery; to recommend to Senate that the proposed programme be validated. Members of the USP determine the nature of the recommendation to be

made to Senate about validation of the proposal. A Report of the USP Proceedings is produced by the USP Secretary (see

Appendix 7e).Appendix 7e

Step 14A Where USP decides to recommend validation, the Chair of USP signs off the programme and the PDR-folderFor Off Campus programmes the relevant addendum to the contract must be available to the USP to enable sign-off.

Where USP decides to recommend validation of the proposal (normally without any conditions or recommendations) the Chair signs the Programme Approval and Sign-Off Form (see Appendix 7d) at the conclusion of the event.

For off-campus provision, the USP confirms that the Annex to the written agreement has been signed by the head of the partner organisation, prior to being signed for the University.

Appendix 7d

Step 14B If USP chooses NOT to recommend validation, the proposal is returned to the appropriate previous Step

If USP chooses NOT to recommend validation of the proposal, then it will return the proposal to the appropriate previous Step. In such cases, the Proposer will be notified about the reasons for the proposal having been returned and asked to complete specified action.

Step 15 If USP chooses to recommend validation, the USP Secretary completes the USP Report and submits it to Education Committee and Senate.

USP Chair then completes the Programme Approval and Sign-Off Form (Appendix 7d). USP Secretary completes the USP Report (see Appendix 7e). Education Committee is invited to consider and endorse the USP Report under delegated authority from Senate. Senate is invited to accept and approve the USP Report.

SEO Secretary adds the USP report to the PDR, which becomes the definitive record of programme documentation (at this point write-access to the PDR is restricted to SEO).

For off-campus provision, the Annex to the written agreement is signed for the University.

The USP Secretary notifies the proposing team by sending them a copy of

Appendix 7e

Appendix 7d

17

the Programme Approval and Sign-Off Form (see Appendix 7d)Step 16 Validated programme signed-off

and set-up on SITs ready for recruitment

The SEO Secretary activates the programme(s) on SITs after receipt of the completed Programme Approval and Sign–Off Form, (Appendix 7d); and, for off-campus provision, the signed Annex to the written agreement. ONLY THEN can students be recruited and commence to study the programme(s). If either document is missing, the provision is designated subject to validation (STV) on SITs and the programme cannot commence. The SEO Secretary activates the programme in SITS, by removing STV and sends out the SRL. This action will activate the web-based course database that is used for marketing the programme(s) and STV references will be removed from the web content (this may require further input from the Proposal team/Academic Coordinator and/or Head of School).

Appendix 7d

The approval period for a programme is normally five years, unless otherwise stated.

18

Route B – Validation PanelSTEP No. Activity Appendix

Step 12 Validation Panel reviews PDR and submits lines of enquiry to Secretary. Lines of enquiry sent to Proposing Team

The terms of reference and membership of the Validation Panel are given in Appendix 8a. The SEO Secretary will convene a Validation Panel and arrange an event in accordance with decisions taken at the Planning Meeting (Step 2). Normally the External Advisor appointed for Step 8 is invited to serve as external panel member.

The SEO Secretary provides members of the Panel with access to the online Proposal Development Record, to enable members to scrutinise the proposal documentation and generate lines of enquiry.

The SEO Secretary, in conjunction with the Chair of the Panel, collates the lines of inquiry and any requests for evidence. The SEO Secretary sends them to the Proposing team for information and action with a copy to the Panel. This is very important in ensuring the transparency of the process and is intended to enable the proposing team to prepare for the Event.

The Programme Proposer is invited to share lines of inquiry with the programme team and to submit any required further evidence by an agreed date in advance of the Validation Event.

Appendix 8a

Step 13 Validation Event held at intended delivery location

The Validation Event is held at the intended delivery location to enable the Panel to meet staff, students and employers to consider the proposal in detail. The event will normally include a tour of any relevant specialist learning resources, and/or premises at which learning will take place. A sample schedule for a Validation Event is given in Appendix 8c and the precise details for a given event will be agreed at the Planning Meeting (see Planning Meeting Notes).

If the Panel decides to recommend approval of the provision, without conditions and recommendations, the Chair signs the Programme Approval and Sign-Off Form at the conclusion of the event (see Appendix 8d Programme Approval and Sign-Off Form).

Appendix 8c

Appendix 8d

19

For proposals that involve a partner organisation, the Annex to the formal written agreement, which describes the provision, should be signed at the conclusion of the event by the head of the partner organisation.

If the Panel decides to recommend approval of the provision, with conditions and recommendations, a date is set for completion of the necessary action.

Step 14 Secretary generates Reports which are submitted to Education Committee and Senate

A Summary Report is produced by the SEO Secretary indicating the outcomes of the event (see Appendix 8e Template for Summary Report).

A Full Report is produced by the SEO Secretary (see Appendix 8f Template for Report). Education Committee is invited to consider and endorse the Full Report under delegated authority from Senate.

Senate is invited to accept and approve the outcomes of the Programme Approval Event in the Summary Report.

Appendix 8e

Appendix 8f

Step 15 Proposer completes follow up action on any conditions and recommendations

Proposer and team complete any required action on conditions and recommendations and provide evidence of meeting such conditions and recommendations.

Step 16 Proposer submits revised programme documents to PDR-folder and alerts Secretary

The Proposer submits the revised documents to the PDR folder by the designated date and alerts the SEO Secretary.

Step 17 Validation Panel Chair considers response to any conditions and recommendations. For Off Campus programmes the relevant addendum to the contract must be available to enable sign-off.

If the Chair confirms that the required action has been completed satisfactorily, the proposal proceeds to Step 18, if not, the proposal is returned to the appropriate earlier step.

Step 18 Validated programme signed-off and set-up on SITs ready for recruitment

The Chair signs the Programme Approval and Sign–Off Form, then submits it to the SEO Secretary (SEO). In this situation, when the provision is collaborative, the Annex to the formal written agreement, which describes the provision, should be signed by the head of the partner organisation.

20

The SEO Secretary notifies the proposing team by sending them a copy of the Programme Approval and Sign-Off Form (see Appendix 8d)

On receipt of the completed Programme Approval and Sign–Off Form and for collaborative provision, the signed Annex, the SEO Secretary activates the programme(s) on SITs and ONLY THEN can students be recruited and commence to study the programme(s). If either document is missing, the provision remains subject to validation on SITs and the programme cannot commence. In order to activate the programme in SITS, the SEO Secretary removes STV and sends out the SRL. This action will activate the web-based course database that is used for marketing the programme(s) and STV references will be removed from the web content (this may require further input from the Proposal team/Academic Coordinator and/or Head of School)..

Appendix 8d

The approval period for a programme is normally five years.

21


Common initial steps for all proposals

22

STEP 1: Proposal secures Strategic Approval (if required) from SPRDC and Academic Approval

from Programmes Committee. Proposer submits External Advisor nomination for approval by Programmes Committee. Proposing team identify own training needs.

STEP 2: Planning Meeting SEO Secretary to recruit Internal Advisor and

organises Planning Meeting at which Validation Route is selected. Administrative set-up occurs.

STEP 3: SEO Secretary sets up the Proposal Development Record (PDR) and appoints External

Advisor.

STEP 4: Programme Design & Development Meeting Proposing team with AGC consult SEO Advisor and Internal Advisor about academic

standards, programme aims and learning outcomes. SEO Advisor arranges any required training on programme design and development.

STEP 5: Proposing team consult employers (e.g. Industry Advisory Panel) PRSB with

outline of proposed new or modified programme and uploads completed report to PDR.

STEP 6: Proposing team write draft programme documents. Team capture student views about

Programme Specification and upload report to PDR.

STEP 7: School Sign Off Meeting School staff proof read and check programme

documents. Head of School or nominee (e.g. AGC) confirms readiness of programme documents.

STEP 8: External Scrutiny Meeting Proposing team & AGC present proposal to Internal Advisor, External Advisor/PRSB

representative(s) in person/ by teleconference, +/- SEO Advisor. SEO Secretary attends to record outcomes and follow up action and modifications required to enable documents in PDR to be

finalised.

STEP 9: School to Sign-Off PDR Proposing team use report from External Scrutiny Meeting to finalise programme documents and

complete the PDR. Head of School or nominee (e.g. AGC) confirms readiness of PDR. Internal Advisor completes his/her report and uploads to PDR.

STEP 10: PDR Review Meeting Proposer presents completed documents to SEO Advisor, Internal Advisor and SEO Secretary who either confirm progression to Route A or B or

return the proposal to the proposing team.

STEP 11: Secretary's Overview Report SEO Secretary writes an overview report on

design and development of the proposal.

Validation Route A (standard for on campus and by exception

for off campus programmes)

Validation Route B (standard for off campus and by exception

for on campus programmes)

23

STEP 12 University Standing Panel (USP) considers complete Proposal Development Record

STEP 13: USP decides whether or not to

recommend validation of the proposal to Senate.

STEP 14 A: Where USP decides to

recommend validation, the Chair of USP signs off the programme and the PDR-folder

For Off Campus programmes the relevant addendum to the contract must be available to

the USP to enable sign-off.

STEP 14 B: If USP chooses NOT to recommend

validation, the proposal is returned to the appropriate previous STEP.

STEP 15: If validation is recommended, USP Secretary completes the USP Report and

submits it to Education Committee and Senate



STEP 12: Validation Panel reviews PDR and submits lines of enquiry to Secretary. Lines of enquiry sent to

Proposing Team.

STEP 13: Validation Event held at intended delivery

location

STEP 14: Secretary generates Reports which are submitted

to Education Committee and Senate

STEP 15: Proposer completes follow up

action on any conditions and recommendations

STEP 16: Proposer submits revised programme documents

to PDR-folder and alerts Secretary

STEP 17: Validation Panel Chair considers response to any

conditions and recommendations. For Off Campus programmes the relevant

addendum to the contract must be available to enable sign-off



Appendix 1: Timelines for Programme Approval

The following dates enable the University to achieve essential compliance with Baseline Regulatory Requirements about timeliness of information for applicants. There is some flexibility where programmes are intended for closed client groups and for international off campus partnerships. Questions about the scheduling should be addressed to the Head of Quality Systems or the Academic Registrar.

1. Deadlines for proposals scheduled to start in September 2019

Any programmes that recruit students through UCAS and the University’s standard procedures must have receive Strategic Approval (from SPRDC) by February 2018 received Academic Approval (from Programmes Committee) by March 2018 and received Programme Approval by July 2018


Any programmes that recruit students through UCAS and the University’s standard procedures must receive Strategic Approval (from SPRDC) by February 2019 receive Academic Approval (from Programmes Committee) by March 2019 and receive Programme Approval/Validation by end of June 2019


Any programmes that recruit students through UCAS and the University’s standard procedures must receive Strategic Approval (from SPRDC) by February 2020 receive Academic Approval (from Programmes Committee) by March 2020 and receive Programme Approval/Validation by end of June 2020

24

Appendix 1a: Timelines for Strategic Approval, Academic Approval and Programme Approval/ Validation in 2018-19

The generic timelines for securing Strategic Approval, if relevant, Academic Approval and Programme Approval:

On and Off Campus provision

Step ActivityNumber of

Working weeks from the USP/

Validation meeting1. Proposal secures Strategic Approval (if required) from

SPRDC and Academic Approval from Programmes Committee.



-28 to -22 weeks

2. Planning Meeting SEO Secretary to recruit Internal Advisor and organises

Planning Meeting. Administrative set-up.

-24 to -18 weeks

3. SEO Secretary sets up the Proposal Development Record (PDR) and appoints approved External Advisor -23 to -17 weeks

4. Programme Design & Development Meeting Proposing team with AGC consult SEO Advisor and Internal

Advisor about academic standards, programme aims and learning outcomes.


-23 to -17 weeks

5. Proposing team consult employers (e.g. Industry Advisory Panel) PRSB with outline of proposed new or modified programme and uploads completed report to PDR.

-22 to -16 weeks

6. Proposing team write draft programme documents. Team capture student views about Programme Specification

and upload report to PDR-20 to -14 weeks

7. School Sign-Off Meeting School staff proof read and check programme documents. Head of School or nominee (e.g. AGC) confirms readiness of

programme documents.

-10 weeks

8. External Scrutiny Meeting: Proposing team with AGC present proposal to Internal

Advisor, SEO Advisor, SEO Secretary, External Advisor/PRSB representative(s) in person/ by teleconference. SEO Secretary records outcomes and follow up action and modifications required to enable documents in PDR to be finalised.

-8 weeks

9. Proposing team use report from External Scrutiny Meeting to finalise programme documents and complete the Proposal Development Record (PDR).


-6 weeks

10. SEO Secretary confirms completeness of changes to PDR in line with report from External Scrutiny Meeting.

-5 weeks

25

11. PDR Review Meeting SEO Advisor, Internal Advisor and SEO Secretary review

PDR and either confirm progression to Route A or B or return the proposal to the proposing team

-4 weeks

Route A: University Standing Panel (norm)

12 University Standing Panel (USP) considers complete Proposal Development Record.

-3 weeks

13

14 A

14B

University Standing Panel Meeting to decide whether or not to recommend validation of the proposal to Senate. Where USP decides to recommend validation, the Chair of USP signs off the programme and the PDR-folderFor Off Campus programmes the relevant addendum to the contract must be available to the USP to enable sign-off.If USP chooses NOT to recommend validation, the proposal is returned to the appropriate previous STEP.

Week 0

15 If validation is recommended, USP Secretary completes the USP Report and submits it to Education Committee and Senate

+1 week

16 Validated programme signed off and set-up on SITs for recruitment

+1 week

Validation Route B: Validation Panel (by exception)

12 Validation Panel reviews PDR and submits lines of enquiry to Secretary. Lines of enquiry sent to Proposing Team

-3 to -2 weeks

13 Validation Event held at intended delivery location Week 014 Secretary generates (a) Summary Report and (b) Full Report

which are submitted to Education Committee and Senate(a) +3 days (b) up

to +4 weeks15 Proposer completes follow up action on any conditions and

recommendations normally up to +4

weeks16 Proposer submits revised programme documents to PDR-folder

and alerts Secretary normally up to +4

weeks17 Validation Panel Chair considers response to any conditions and

recommendations. For Off Campus programmes the relevant addendum to the contract must be available to enable sign-off.

normally up to +5 weeks

18 Validated programme signed-off and set-up on SITs ready for recruitment

normally up to +5 weeks

26

Appendix 1b: Timelines for the University Standing Panels/ Validation Events in 2018-19

Timelines for the University Standing Panels/ Validation Events in 2018-19

Target month for approval event

Step ActivityUSP /

Validation Event in Oct-18

USP / Validation Event in Nov-18

USP / Validation Event in Dec-18

USP / Validation Event in Jan 19

USP / Validation Event in Feb-19

USP / Validation Event in Mar-19

USP / Validation Event in May-19

USP / Validation Event in June-19

Common initial steps – all proposals Due date for completion of activity

1. Proposal secures Strategic Approval (if required) from SPRDC and Academic Approval from Programmes Committee.



-28 to -22 weeks

-28 to -22 weeks

-28 to -22 weeks

-28 to -22 weeks

-28 to -22 weeks

-28 to -22 weeks

-28 to -22 weeks

-28 to -22 weeks

From 6-Apr-18 to18-May-18

From 11-May-18 to 22-Jun-18

From 18-May-18 to 6-Jul-18

From 6 Jul 18 to 18 Aug 18

From 10-Aug-18 to 21 Sep-18

From 7-Sep-18 to 19-Oct-18

From 9-Nov-18to 21-Dec-18

From 14 Dec-18 to 21-Jan-19

3. Planning Meeting SEO Secretary to recruit Internal

Advisor and organises Planning Meeting.

Administrative set-up.

-24 to -18 weeks

-24 to -18 weeks

-24 to -18 weeks

-24 to -18 weeks

-24 to -18 weeks

-24 to -18 weeks

-24 to -18 weeks

-24 to -18 weeks

4-May-18 to 15-Jun-18

8-Jun-18 to 20-Jul-18

22-Jun-18 to 3 Aug-18

3 Aug 2018 to 14 Sep 18

7-Sep-18 to 19-Oct-18

5-Oct-18 to 16-Nov-18

7-Dec-18 to 18-Jan-19

11-Jan-19 to 15-Feb-19

5. SEO Secretary sets up the Proposal Development Record (PDR) and

-23 to -17 weeks

-23 to -17 weeks

-23 to -17 weeks

-23 to -17 weeks

-23 to -17 weeks

-23 to -17 weeks

-23 to -17 weeks

-23 to -17 weeks

28

appoints approved External Advisor 11-May-18 to 22-Jun-18

15-Jun-18 to 27-Jul-18

30-Jun-18 to 11-Aug-18

10 Aug 18 to 21 Sep 18

14-Sep-18 to 26-Oct-18

12-Oct-18to 23-Nov-18

14-Dec-18 to 25-Jan-19

18-Jan-19 to 22-Feb-19

7. Programme Design & Development Meeting Proposing team with AGC consult

SEO Advisor and Internal Advisor about academic standards, programme aims and learning outcomes.


-23 to -17 weeks

-23 to -17 weeks

-23 to -17 weeks

-23 to -17 weeks

-23 to -17 weeks

-23 to -17 weeks

-23 to -17 weeks

-23 to -17 weeks

11-May-18 to 22-Jun-18

15-Jun-18 to 27-Jul-18

30-Jun-18 to 11-Aug-18

10 Aug 18 to 21 Sep 18

14-Sep-18 to 26-Oct-18

12-Oct-18to 23-Nov-18

14-Dec-18 to 25-Jan-19

18-Jan-19 to 22-Feb-19

9. Proposing team consult employers (e.g. Industry Advisory Panel) PRSB with outline of proposed new or modified programme and uploads completed report to PDR.

-22 to -16 weeks

-22 to -16 weeks

-22 to -16 weeks

-22 to -16 weeks

-22 to -16 weeks

-22 to -16 weeks

-22 to -16 weeks

-22 to -16 weeks

18-May-18 to 29-Jun-18

22-Jun-18 to 3-Aug-18

13-Jul-18 to 24-Aug-18

17 Aug 18 to 28 Sep 18

21-Sep-18 to 2-Nov-18

19-Oct-18 to 30-Nov-18

21-Dec-18 to 1-Feb-19

25-Jan-19 to 1-Mar-19

11. Proposing team write draft programme documents.

Team capture student views about Programme Specification and upload report to PDR

-20 to -14 weeks

-20 to -14 weeks

-20 to -14 weeks

-20 to -14 weeks

-20 to -14 weeks

-20 to -14 weeks

-20 to -14 weeks

-20 to -14 weeks

1-Jun-18to 13-Jul-18

6-Jul-18 to 17-Aug-18

27-Jul-18to 7-Sep-18

31 Aug 18 to 12 Oct 18

5-Oct-18to 16-Nov-18

2-Nov-18 to 14-Dec-18

4-Jan-19 to 15-Feb-19

1-Feb-19 to 15-Mar-19

13. School Sign-Off Meeting School staff proof read and check

programme documents. Head of School or nominee (e.g.

AGC) confirms readiness of programme documents.

-10 weeks -10 weeks -10 weeks -10 weeks -10 weeks -10 weeks -10 weeks -10 weeks

10-Aug-18 14-Sep-18 5-Oct-18 9 Nov 18 14-Dec-18 11-Jan-19 15-Mar-19 12-Apr-19

29

15. External Scrutiny Meeting: Proposing team with AGC present

proposal to Internal Advisor, SEO Advisor, SEO Secretary, External Advisor/PRSB representative(s) in person/ by teleconference. SEO Secretary records outcomes and follow up action and modifications required to enable documents in PDR to be finalised.


24-Aug-18 28-Sep-18 19-Oct-18 23 Nov 18 28-Dec-18 25-Jan-19 29-Mar-19 26-Apr-19

17. Proposing team use report from External Scrutiny Meeting to finalise programme documents and complete the Proposal Development Record (PDR).


-6 weeks -6 weeks -6 weeks -6 weeks -6 weeks -6 weeks -6 weeks -6 weeks7-Sep-18 12-Oct-18 2-Nov-18 7 Dec 18 11-Jan-19 8-Feb-19 12-Apr-19 10-May-19

19. SEO Secretary confirms completeness of changes to PDR in line with report from External


14-Sep-18 19-Oct-18 9-Nov-18 14 Dec 18 18-Jan-19 15-Feb-19 19-Apr-19 17-May-19

21. PDR Review Meeting SEO Advisor, Internal Advisor and

SEO Secretary review PDR and either confirm progression to Route A or B or return the proposal to the proposing team

-4 weeks -4 weeks -4 weeks -4 weeks -4 weeks -4 weeks -4 weeks -4 weeks21-Sep-18 26-Oct-18 16-Nov-18 21 Dec 18 25-Jan-19 22-Feb-19 26-Apr-19 24-May-19

30

Route A: University Standing Panel Due date for completion of activity

12 University Standing Panel (USP) considers complete Proposal Development Record.


28-Sep-18 2-Nov-18 23-Nov-18 28 Dec 18 1-Feb-19 1-Mar-19 3-May-19 31-May-19

13

14 A

14B

University Standing Panel Meeting to decide whether or not to recommend validation of the proposal to Senate. Where USP decides to recommend validation, the Chair of USP signs off the programme and the PDR-folderFor Off Campus programmes the relevant addendum to the contract must be available to the USP to enable sign-off.If USP chooses NOT to recommend validation, the proposal is returned to the appropriate previous STEP.

Week 0 Week 0 Week 0 Week 0 Week 0 Week 0 Week 0 Week 0

19-Oct-18 23-Nov-18 14-Dec-18 18 Jan 19 22-Feb-19 22-Mar-19 24-May-19 21-June-19

15 If validation is recommended, USP Secretary completes the USP Report and submits it to Education Committee and Senate

+1 week +1 week +1 week +1 week +1 week +1 week +1 week +1 week26 Oct 18 30-Nov-18 22-Dec-18 25 Jan 19 1-Mar-19 29-Mar-19 31-May-19 28-Jun-19

16 Validated programme signed off and set-up on SITs for recruitment

+1 week +1 week +1 week =1 week +1 week +1 week +1 week +1 week2 Nov 18 07-Dec-18 29-Dec-18 1 Feb 19 8-Mar-19 5-Apr-19 7-Jun-19 5-Jul-19

31

Route B: Validation Panel Due date for completion of activity

12 Validation Panel reviews PDR and submits lines of enquiry to Secretary. Lines of enquiry sent to Proposing Team

-2 to -3 weeks

-2 to -3 weeks

-2 to -3 weeks

-2 to -3 weeks

-2 to -3 weeks

-2 to -3 weeks

-2 to -3 weeks

-2 to -3 weeks

Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec 18 Jan-19 Feb-19 Apr-19 May-1913 Validation Event held at intended

delivery location Week 0 Week 0 Week 0 Week 0 Week 0 Week 0 Week 0 Week 0Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Jan 19 Feb-19 Mar-19 May-19 June-19

14 Secretary generates (a) Summary Report and (b) Full Report which are submitted to Education Committee and Senate

(a) + 3 working days (b) <+4 weeks








Nov-18 Dec-18 Jan-19 Feb 19 Mar-19 Apr-19 June-19 July-19

15 Proposer completes follow up action on any conditions and recommendations (*normally)

< +4 weeks*

< +4 weeks*

< +4 weeks*

< +4 weeks*

< +4 weeks*

< +4 weeks*

< +4 weeks*

< +4 weeks*


16 Proposer submits revised programme documents to PDR-folder and alerts Secretary (*normally)

< +4 weeks*

< +4 weeks*

< +4 weeks*

< +4 weeks*

< +4 weeks*

< +4 weeks*

< +4 weeks*

< +4 weeks*


17 Validation Panel Chair considers response to any conditions and recommendations. For Off Campus programmes the relevant addendum to the contract must be available to enable sign-off. (*normally)

< +5 weeks*

< +5 weeks*

< +5 weeks*

< +5 weeks*

< +5 weeks*

< +5 weeks*

< +5 weeks*

< +5 weeks*


18 Validated programme signed-off and set-up on SITs ready for recruitment (*normally)

< +5 weeks*

< +5 weeks*

< +5 weeks*

< +5 weeks*

< +5 weeks*

< +5 weeks*

< +5 weeks*

< +5 weeks*


32

Appendix 2: Key contacts in the Standards and Enhancement Office and the Student Data Management team

For advice on Strategic Approval, Academic Approval, planning and administrative set-up including programme codes:

For guidance on logistics and as Secretary to Strategic Planning and Approvals Committee (SPRDC), Hilary Birtwistle [email protected] ext. 3867

Secretary to Programmes Committee and Programme Approval Panels, Hilary Birtwistle [email protected] ext. 3867

Standards and Enhancement Officers, Angela Nuttall [email protected] ext. 3452 and Marina Kirby [email protected] ext. 3473;

Secretary to the University Standing Panel (USP), Jill Provan [email protected] ext.3859

For academic advice:

On design, development and approval of taught programmes: Head of Standards and Enhancement (Taught Programmes), Dr. Lisa Cove-Burrell, [email protected] ext. 3115

For module codes:

Contact Student Data Management (SDM) Alison Broadbridge [email protected] on ext. 3411

Your comments on any Standards and Enhancement Office processes and documents are welcome and should be addressed to the Academic Registrar, Dr. Anne Miller, [email protected] ext. 3243


34

mailto:[email protected]




mailto:[email protected]%20


mailto:[email protected]%20%20



Appendix 3: Arrangements for Strategic Approval and Academic Approval

Can be located on the SEO web pages at this link and looks like this:

35


Appendix 4: Link to Modification of Taught Programme Guidelines

Can be located on the SEO web pages at this link

36

http://www.bolton.ac.uk/Everything/PDF/Modification-to-a-Taught-Programme-Guidelines-2015-16-Staff-Version.pdf

Appendix 5: Validation criteria a). Generic approval criteria for on and off campus programmes

The broad criteria against which academic proposals will be evaluated are as follows:

1. Rationale for the programme, market demand and employment prospects for graduates (see QAA UKQC B1, B2,)a. Alignment with the strategic priorities of the University. This should include the

Graduate Attribute Matric for Employability (GAME); Teaching Intensive and Research Informed (TIRI) nature of the curriculum; the Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy; the curriculum philosophy ; the University’s Enhancement Themes

b. Market research and other evidence for demand including findings from consultation with current and prospective students

c. Demonstrable employment prospects for successful graduates including findings from consultation with employers and professionals.

2. Benchmarking of Academic Standards (see QAA UKQC Part A, B1)a. Academic standards should be benchmarked to the relevant qualifications

framework(s) and/or characteristics statement(s) for higher education in Part A of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education.

3. Aims and intended learning outcomes of the programme (see QAA UKQC Part A, B1, B4);a. Validity of the proposal in terms of its academic rationale and intended

learning outcomes, for the purposes which it is intended to serveb. Correspondence with the relevant subject benchmark statement(s) and/or other

professional reference points1.

4. Programme structure and curriculum content (see QAA UKQC B1, B4);a. Programme structure to conform to University guidelines and seek to provide a

balance between practical and theoretical components.b. Programme structure to be coherent and enable clear student progression.c. Curriculum content should be aligned with relevant subject benchmark

statements and/or other professional reference points.

5. Learning, teaching and assessment (see QAA UKQC B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7);a. Effective learning, teaching and assessment strategies and methods which enable

effective delivery of the curriculum and measurement of the intended learning outcomes.

b. Learning, teaching and assessment strategies and methods that match the learning needs of the students’ intake profile

c. Explicit reference to the use of learning technologiesd. Sound and diverse assessment arrangements which measure attainment of the

intended learning outcomes whilst providing opportunities for formative feedback to guide students' learning.

6. Entry requirements (see QAA UKQC B1, B2,)a. Suitable criteria for entry set in the context of an admissions policy that enables

the University's policy on widening access and participation and principles of fair admission (see QAA UKQC B2).

1 Subject benchmarks may be drawn from Part A of the Quality Code and/or from the requirements and frameworks of Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs).

37

7. Enabling student development, achievement and engagement (see QAA UKQC B1, B3, B4, B5);a. Academic and pastoral support strategies and mechanisms which are matched to the

likely needs of the intended student profile and which facilitate student development, achievement and engagement.

8. Management and organisation (see QAA UKQC B1, B3, B4, B5)a. Effective arrangements for programme management and organisation which meet

University requirements and enable student development, achievement and engagement.

9. Adequacy of human and physical learning resources (see QAA UKQC B1)a. Human and physical learning resources of suitable quality and quantity and which

are subject to considered development and renewal over timeb. Staff appointment, induction, peer review, performance review and support for

scholarly activity and staff developmentc. The curriculum and available learning resources should conform to any relevant

statutory requirements and University policies regarding access, special educational needs and disabilities, health and safety, equality of opportunity.

10. Maintenance of academic standards and enhancement of quality at module and programme level (see QAA UKQC Part A, Part B, especially B7 and B8)a. Effective monitoring, review and maintenance of academic standardsb. Effective actual or planned monitoring, review and enhancement of the quality of

students’ learning opportunitiesc. The evaluation of student feedback, captured in a variety of ways, to inform

development of the curriculum and/or enhancement of the student experience.

11. Accurate, valid, reliable, useful and accessible information about the provision (see QAA UKQC Part C)a. Information that is valid, reliable, useful and accessible in the Programmes

Specification Database, Module Database, programme handbook(s) and module materials

b. Information for University staff that is valid, reliable, useful and accessible.

Additional criteria are used for the approval of the following types of provision:

12. Provision that involves a partner organisation, this includes collaborative partnerships and progression or articulation arrangements. This includes all Off Campus provision and some On Campus provision such as that delivered for a closed client group. (see QAA UKQC B10 and Criteria for Approval of Collaborative Provision on the SEO webpages for the Programme Approval Process)

13. Qualifications awarded in conjunction with another degree awarding body (Joint and Double Qualifications) (see QAA UKQC Part A: Characteristics Statement - Qualifications involving more than one degree-awarding body)

14. Qualifications awarded in conjunction with another degree awarding organisation (e.g. Pearson Ltd., for Edexcel awards)

15. Provision that involves accreditation by a Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) (QAA UKQC A1, A2, A3, B10).

38

In such cases the arrangements for delivery are typically complex and require careful development and scrutiny. Advice and guidance should be sought from the Standards and Enhancement Office team in relation to 12-15.

Appendix 5b: Specific approval criteria for collaborative partnerships (off-campus and some on- campus partnerships)1. The University adopts a strategic approach to the delivery of learning through collaborative

partnerships.

2. The University commits appropriate levels of resources (including staff) to academic oversight of its collaborative provision.

3. The University implements effective governance arrangements for all learning provided by partner organisations. Such arrangements are in place at the following levels: the University/ partner, School/Division, programme and module.

4. The University develops, agrees and manages its arrangements for delivery of learning or provision of academic support in accordance with its formally stated policies and procedures.

5. The University policies and procedures provide adequate safeguards against financial impropriety, conflicts of interest that might compromise academic standards of quality of learning opportunities.

6. The University considers the business case for provision with others separately from approval of the academic proposal.

7. When engaging with another authorised awarding body to provide a programme leading to a joint award, the University satisfies itself that it has the legal capacity to do so.

8. The University assesses the risk of each partnership arrangement at the outset at the point of ISR

9. Following risk assessment, the University introduces suitable and proportionate safeguards to manage the risk.

10. The University uses appropriate and proportionate due diligence procedures to evaluate proposed arrangements for academic partnerships

11. The University conducts due diligence checks periodically to ensure that each partner organisation can continue to fulfil its obligations.

12. There is a written and legally binding agreement, setting out the rights and obligations of the parties, which is regularly monitored and reviewed.

13. It is signed by the head of the partner organisation and the University (or nominee) before the relevant activity commences

14. The University takes responsibility for ensuring that it retains proper control of the academic standards of learning delivered through collaborative partnerships.

15. The University does not permit serial arrangements

39

16. In the event of termination of a collaborative partnership, the University retains responsibility for ensuring that enrolled students can complete their studies.

17. The University maintains records (by type and category) of its collaborative partnership arrangements. For example, there is a Register of Collaborative Partnerships.

18. The University Senate retains ultimate responsibility for the academic standards of all credit and qualifications granted in its name. This responsibility is never delegated.

19. The University ensures that there are equivalent academic standards in it’s on and off campus provision.

20. The University ensures that it’s off campus provision meets the UK national higher education requirements.

21. It is unusual for a University OfCD partnership to involve recognition by a PSRB. In such cases the provision should adhere to the requirements of the PSRB in relation to aspects of delivery and any associated formal agreements.

22. The status of an OfCD programme in respect of any PSRB recognition should be made clear to prospective students.

23. The University uses QA processes for the approval of on and off campus provision that are rigorous, secure and open to scrutiny.

24. The University has clear arrangements for determining whether the University or the partner organisation is responsible for admission and registration/enrolment.

25. Admission arrangements for OfCD provision should be consistent with the University’s admissions policies.

26. All OfCD partnerships should adhere to the University assessment regulations and adopt the University’s LTA Strategy (2015-2018).

27. For any joint, dual/double or multiple awards, the University will agree with the partner on the division of assessment responsibilities and the assessment regulations and requirements which apply.

28. The University retains ultimate responsibility for the appointment, briefing and functions of the external examiners.

29. The University uses consistent external examining arrangements for its on and off campus provision. The external examiner for an OfCD programme will normally examine the equivalent on campus provision.

30. All OfCD modules and programmes are subject to the same or equivalent University monitoring and the same review arrangements as on campus provision.

31. The University ensures that it has effective control over the accuracy of all public information, publicity and promotional activity relating to learning opportunities delivered with others which lead to University awards

32. The Information that is produced for prospective and current students is fit for purpose, accessible and trustworthy

40

33. Delivery organisations or support providers are provided with all information necessary for the effective delivery of the learning or support

34. The University retains authority for awarding certificates and issuing detailed records of study in relation to student achievement.

35. The UoB certificate and/or transcript (record of achievement) states that the principal language of instruction and/or assessment is English, with only one exception.

36. Subject to any overriding statutory or other legal provision in any relevant jurisdiction, the certificate and/or transcript (the record of achievement) records the name and location of any other higher education provider involved in the delivery of the programme of study

37. Where information relating to the language of study or to the name and location of the delivery organisation or partner is recorded on the record of achievement only, the certificate refers to the existence of this formal record.

41

Appendix 6a: Proposal Development Record

a). Required contents of the Proposal Development Record (PDR)(*mandatory items)

Overall:Written statement on the rationale for and nature of the proposal: to include whether the modules and/or programme are already in-approval or newly developed*.

Programme documents:1. Pdf of Programme Specification* (from the University Programmes Specification

Database) incorporating: learning outcomes map for the programme(s) and assessment methods map for the programme(s) (Appendix 6b);

2. Pdfs of Module Specifications* (from the University Module Database) (Appendix 6c);

3. Evidence to demonstrate how the programme meets University initiatives* Curriculum Philosophy and GAME (see Appendix 13a) ‘Teaching Intensive and Research Informed’ (see Appendix 13b) University learning, teaching and assessment strategy, 2015-18

– for example a proposal should include a statement on the approach to pedagogy and assessment, directly referenced to the LTA Strategy

University enhancement themes;4. Programme Handbook* (Appendix 6d);5. Staff CVs and module/ leadership responsibilities* 6. Curriculum Mapping, as relevant;7. Information about provision of Learning Resources including SAF and

relevant SPRDC Minute(s), as relevant; to include a written assurance* of the availability of appropriate staff and physical resources for the programme from the Head of School/Division.

8. Placement handbooks, as relevant.9. Any specific Programme regulations/PSRB accreditation requirements*.10. For existing Off Campus partnerships:

copy of the signed and dated existing Contract, copy of the draft Addendum to the existing contract outlining the details of

the programme(s) that are to be approved*.11. For new Off Campus partnerships:

a copy of the draft Contract a copy of the draft Addendum outlining the details of the new

programme(s) that are to be considered for approval*.12. Off-Campus partnership operations manual*, as relevant.

Process documents:13. Evidence of Academic Approval: SAF/PAF/CAF and the associated Minute from

SPRDC and/or Programmes Committee, plus evidence of satisfactory resolution of any considerations/ requirements.

14. Notes of the Planning Meeting (Appendix 9).15. Record of the course code(s) and module code(s)16. The Report of Consultation with employers and professionals* during programme

design (Appendix 14a). 17. Internal Advisor’s details and Consultation Report* (Appendix 11).

42

18. The Report of consultation with students* during programme development (Appendix 14b).

19. Template for School to confirm that documents are ready for External Scrutiny Panel (Appendix 15).

20. External Advisor nomination form (Appendix 10c) 21. Consultation Report from the External Advisor* and/or PSRB representative(s)

(Appendix 10d).22. Template for School to confirm that documents are ready for University level

consideration (Appendix 17).23. SEO Secretary’s Report* to confirm design and development of the proposed

programme(s) (Appendix 19).24. USP Report* (Appendix 7e) OR Summary Report* (Appendix 8e) and Full

Report* (Appendix 8f) of the Validation Event.25. Programme Approval and Sign Off Form* (Appendix 7d or 8d)

*mandatory item

43

Appendix 6b: Guidelines for Preparing a Programme Specification

DATABASE SCREEN SHOT: GUIDANCE NOTES: Programme Code: The Programme Code is generated by the Standards and Enhancement Office, together with the Programme Specification “shell”, following the planning meeting. Programme Title: Enter the name of the programme – with (Hons) as a prefix if the programme specification relates to an honours degree. Do not include the qualification letters e.g. FdSc, BDes etc. or the place of delivery in the title.Examples of titles: (Hons) Business Management, (Hons) Business Management (HE6 Top Up)(Hons) Business Management with Foundation Year. Awarding Institution: This will usually be the University of BoltonDelivering Institution: This will be the University of Bolton unless the programme is delivered at a partner. UCAS Code: Please contact Recruitment and Admissions (Off-campus partners will need to contact OfCD)JACS Code: See: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/support/documentation/jacs/jacs3-detailedAcademic Year: Add the start year for the programmeLanguage of Study: This will automatically be filled in as “English”Fitness to Practice: Yes or N/AProfessional Accreditation: If the programme is accredited by a professional body then click on “Add New” and select from the drop down menu. If the relevant PSRB is not on the drop down menu, then please contact SEO.

Programme Awards: Some standard structures are displayed on the table in Annex 1.

Benchmark Statements: Ensure the most up to date QAA Subject Benchmark Statement is identified. See: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/subject-benchmark-statements as well as QAA Characteristics Statements. See: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/characteristics-statements

Internal and External References: Select UK Quality Code for Higher Education and The University of Bolton Awards Framework. Add any PSRB references if applicable. Other: If there are aby other references, select “Add New” and identify these.

General Entry Requirements: Select the appropriate statement for the programme level and 44

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/characteristics-statements


http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/subject-benchmark-statements


https://www.hesa.ac.uk/support/documentation/jacs/jacs3-detailed

any specific “A” levels and/or GCSEs. If no specific subjects are required, enter “any subject” in the blank boxes.Additional Criteria: Identify any non-standard criteria – see left for an example. Additional Admissions Matters: Select one or more from the following options: DBS, Attend Interview, Portfolio and Industry Experience.

45

Aims: Ensure these reflect the nature of the programme. Write in clear and engaging terms. Include necessary content to meet the learning outcomes specified on the Programme Specification and Module Specifications. Start each aim with a verb as these will be displayed under the tag: The principal aims of the programme are to……+ Refer to the University’s Best Practice Guide to Curriculum Design and Delivery.Distinctive Features of the Programme: Consider the programme’s unique selling points (USPs). Include Career and Life Skills development (refer to GAME attributes)Whilst an honours degree with Foundation Year or HE6 Top up is likely to have similar USPs to a standard honours degree programme, you may wish to add to the following - HE6 Top-up: This is a Top-up programme designed to allow you to progress from a prior approved qualification to an honours level degree.A programme of workshops/induction will support you in the development of honours degree level research approaches and skills. Honours with Foundation Year: A Foundation year provides you with a firm grounding in academic and xxx skills/underpinning knowledge. Learning Outcomes (LOs): Specify between 4 and 6 LOs for each category. Refer to the QAA Subject Benchmark Statements and the University’s Best Practice Guide to Curriculum Design and Delivery. Ensure Programme LOs are reflected/covered in the intended Module LOs.Knowledge and Understanding: Identify theories, practices and the nature of the work environment. These LOs should not contain any verbs as they follow the following tag: On completion of the programme successful students will be able to demonstrate systematic knowledge and understanding of: Cognitive, Intellectual and Thinking Skills: These should reflect the level descriptors QAA Frameworks for HE Qualifications - see: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/qualifications-frameworks.pdfStart each LO with a verb which is appropriate to the level of the final award. Examples:HE3 and HE4: explain, describe, discuss. HE5: Analyse, appraise, compare and contrast. HE6 and HE7: Critically appraise, critically evaluate, synthesise. HE7 also include: Solve complex problems, develop creative or innovate solutions/recommendations. Practical, Professional and Subject-specific Skills: These should be appropriate for the nature of the programme and subject.Transferrable, Key and Personal Skills: Consider life skills, such as, resilience and initiative, as well as reflection on academic, professional and personal goals.

46

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/qualifications-frameworks.pdf

This document contains some further useful guidance on learning outcomes:https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/writing_learning_outcomes.pdf

Programme StructureAn explanation of the programme structure is required for the HEAR (Higher Education Achievement Record). This section should include: Differentiation between core and any option modules – together with credit requirements for each level including fall-back awards. Example:This bachelors degree programme comprises 360 credits in total, with 120 credits awarded at each level (HE4, HE5 and HE6). All modules at HE4 and HE5 are core. At HE6 there are 3 core modules and a choice of 2 from 3 options. Fall-back awards are given to those students who do not gain the full 360 credits required for the BSc (Hons), as follows: Certificate of Higher Education -120 credits minimum, Diploma of Higher Education -240 credits minimum.

Module ListAdd modules in the order you wish them to be displayed on the programme spec. Insert the module code and select whether the module is core or optional. As it is not possible to modify a module once it has been input (it can only be deleted), it is a good idea to rank the modules using odd numbers only. In this way any additional modules can be inserted in the correct place at a later date using an even number. N.B. The title of the module will only appear once the module specification has been edited on the module database. Do not progress the programme spec until all module titles are displayed.

Learning and Teaching Strategies: A broad statement here will allow tutors the flexibility to adopt diverse learning and teaching approaches which are stimulating, personalised and inclusive – and which are informed by reflection, evaluation and scholarship. Also refer to the University’s Best Practice Guide to Curriculum Design and Delivery.

Learning Activities (KIS entry)Here you will manually need to calculate the % of scheduled learning and teaching activities, guided independent study and placement learning drawing on the Module

47

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/writing_learning_outcomes.pdf

Specification hours. Ensure the totals at each level add up to 100%.Summative Assessment Strategy: Here a brief summary of the programme’s assessment strategy is provided. To allow for flexibility, it is advised to provide general details on formative and summative assessment, as well as assessment feedback.Also refer to the University’s Best Practice Guide to Curriculum Design and Delivery and Good Assessment Guide

Assessment Methods (KIS entry): Here you will manually need to calculate the % of written exams, coursework and practical exams/assessments by drawing on the Module Specification percentages. Ensure the totals at each level add up to 100%.

Assessment Regulations: Select one from Assessment Regulations for Undergraduate Programmes Assessment Regulations for Postgraduate Programmes Other Regulations*

*If there are supplementary regulations, for example from professional bodies then select “Other Regulations” and provide a web-link to the regulations.

Grade Bands and Classifications: Select the type of programme from the menu.

Role of External Examiners: The text here is pre-entered.

Support for Student Learning: General Support: Select the support mechanisms which apply from the list presented (normally everything listed). A different list for On- and Off-campus courses is generated. Programme Specific Support: Any other support should be added here. Ensure this support will be available year-on-year – and that it is explained in the Programme Handbook.

Methods of Evaluating and Enhancing the Quality of Learning Opportunities: General Methods: Select the methods which apply from the list presented (normally everything listed).Programme Specific Methods: Any other methods should be added here.

Sources of Information: Generic Sources of Information: Select the methods which apply from the list presented

48

For On-Campus programmes this is normally everything listed. For Off-Campus programmes, some options might not be relevant. Custom Sources of Information: Add any other sources of information, together with a web-link. For Off-Campus programmes, add the partner website as a minimum.

Annex 1: Programme Awards: Examples of Standard Programme Structures Foundation Degree Standard honours

degreeHonours degree + Foundation Year

Honours degree – HE6 Top-up

Masters Degree

Award Foundation Degree Honours Degree Honours Degree Honours Degree Masters DegreeFdA/FdSc BSc/BA/BSc/LLB/

BEd/BEngBSc/BA/BSc/LLB/BEd/BEng

BSc/BA/BSc/LLB/BEd/BEng

MA/MSc/MBA/MEd/LLM/MMath/MDes

Title Subject only Subject only Subject only Subject only Subject onlyType Final Award Final Award Final Award Final Award Final AwardLevel HE5, UG Level 2 HE6, UG Level 3 HE6, UG Level 3 HE6, UG Level 3 HE7, PG/MastersAward Certificate of Higher

Education Diploma of Higher Education

Diploma of Higher Education

Postgraduate Diploma

Cert HE Dip HE Dip HE PgDipTitle Subject only Subject only Subject only Subject only Type Exit or Fall-back

AwardExit or Fall-back Award

Exit or Fall-back Award


Level HE4, UG Level 1 HE5, UG Level 2 HE5, UG Level 2 HE7, PG/MastersAward Certificate of Higher

Education Certificate of Higher Education

Postgraduate Certificate

Cert HE Cert HE PgCertTitle Subject only Subject only Subject only Type Exit or Fall-back

AwardExit or Fall-back Award


Level HE4, UG Level 1 HE4, UG Level 1 HE7, PG/Masters49

Award Foundation CertificateFndCert

Title Subject onlyType Exit or Fall-back

AwardLevel Foundation

Year/Access/FE

50

Appendix 6c: Guidelines for Preparing a Module SpecificationDATABASE SCREEN SHOT: GUIDANCE NOTES:

Module Codes: Module codes are generated by Student Data Management (Off-campus partners should contact the OfCD). You should not ask for a code to be generated until the programme/change has been given academic approval. The 3 letter prefix should be taken from the host programme name. The first number after the prefix indicates the level (HE3-HE8). Once a module code is generated, you will be able to populate its fields on the database.

Module Type, Size and Duration: You can choose from the following module types on the drop down menu: Standard, Dissertation, Fieldwork, Independent Study, Placement, Practical, Project, Work-Based Learning and Other.Standard undergraduate modules are usually 20 credits in size. Project and placement modules may be 40 credits in size. Some Masters modules are 30 and 60 credits respectively.ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) are equivalent to half the CAT credit value and are automatically calculated by the database.The duration of a module is usually one or two semesters. If opting for a two semester delivery of a standard module, a rationale and assessment plan is likely to be required at approval.

Pre-Requisites, Co-requisites and Barred Combination: Pre-requisites and co-requisites should be used sparingly with justification provided at approval.

Marking Scheme: Options on the dropdown menu are: - Numeric mark scheme i.e. mark of 0-100- Grade mark scheme i.e. P, F, L or I grade - Combination of numeric marks and grades

If a numeric mark scheme is selected, then the pass mark needs to be specified. This is usually 40% for undergraduate modules and 50% for postgraduate modules. Some programmes and modules will deviate from the standard due to professional and/or practical requirements.

Academic Year: Select the year in which the programme will start from the drop-down menu.Module Outline: It is recommended that this section is written after the Learning Outcomes have been finalised. The Module Outline will need to reflect what is specified in the Module Contents and module Learning Outcomes. It will also need to match the module description on the PAF2. Clear, student-friendly terminology is advised. Additionally you will need to indicate which Graduate Attributes will be focussed on in the module (up 2 attributes to for a 20 credit module and up to 4 attributes for a 40 credit module)

51

Indicative Content: Identify the subject areas and skills which need to be covered in the delivery in clear and simple terms. Ensure these include the necessary

content to meet the learning outcomes specified on the Module Specification. Include the relevant Graduate Attributes in the list.

Learning Outcomes (LOs): Specify between 3 and 5 LOs per 20 credit module.Start each LO with a verb which is appropriate to the level. Examples: HE3 and HE4: explain, describe, discuss. HE5: Analyse, appraise, compare and contrast.HE6 and HE7: Critically appraise, critically evaluate, synthesise. HE7 also include: Solve complex problems, develop creative or innovative solutions/recommendations. See: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/qualifications-frameworks.pdfEnsure learning outcomes are specific, measureable, valid and fair. Specific: Avoid including LOs which repeat general expectations, such as those laid out in the General Assessment Guidelines e.g. “Demonstrate effective Harvard referencing”, “Use appropriate learning resources to conduct secondary research” etc.- unless these relate to a skills module.Measureable: Avoid starting with verbs such as “appreciate” and “understand”. How can these be easily measured?Valid: Avoid LOs which don’t challenge the students to the required expectations e.g. “Demonstrate xxx practical skills”. Alternative: “demonstrate effective xxx practical skills in response to a given brief”.Fair: Avoid LOs which are reliant on factors outside a student’s control e.g. “demonstrate effective team outcomes” ALTERNATIVE: “contribute effectively to a team event” and “critically reflect on your team-working skills” Other considerations: Do not specify the assessment type in the LO, e.g. “produce a portfolio”, “write an essay”. However it is important that the LOs can be assessed by the assessment type. Also refer to the University’s Best Practice Guide to Curriculum Design and Delivery and athttps://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/writing_learning_outcomes.pdfLearning and Teaching Strategy: This section might include general text which is relevant to standard modules within a programme. E.g. This module will be delivered through a combination of a number of learning and teaching methods including: lectures, seminars, workshops and tutorials. Delivery will be supported

52



http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/qualifications-frameworks.pdf

by online discussions and activities posted on the VLE. You will be expected to attend all scheduled sessions and prepare for these in advance by undertaking relevant research and background reading. A general statement will allow a module tutor to tailor-make deliveries, which can be outlined in more detail in the Module Guide. N.B. Such text will not exclude TIRI activities such as flipped classrooms, visits, guest speakers etc. However, if such learning opportunities are specified in the strategy statement, then these MUST be provided in every delivery of the module.In some cases, the learning and teaching strategy will need to be more specific because of the nature of the module – particularly in relation to project and work-based learning modules. Also refer to the University’s Best Practice Guide to Curriculum Design and Delivery.

53

Learning and Teaching Methods: Please refer to the standard hours document issued by SEO. The total of the scheduled, independent and placement hours should equate to 10 hours per unit of credit, e.g. 200 hours per 20 credit module.

Formative Assessment Strategy: The QAA (2016) defines formative assessment as assessment for which feedback is provided to help students “learn more effectively and find ways to maintain and improve their progress. It does not contribute to the final mark, grade or class of degree awarded to the student.” Examples of formative assessment could include presentations of work in progress, quizzes, phase test, proposals and assessment plans. The formative assessment strategy section might include general text which is relevant to standard modules within a programme, e.g. Formative assessment is employed to support your learning on the module, allowing you to reflect on feedback on your progress from your tutors and peers. It takes a variety of forms including xxxx and does not contribute to the final module mark. Such a statement will allow flexibility in in formative assessment, which can be outlined in more detail in the Module Guide. In some cases, the formative assessment strategy will need to be more specific because of the nature of the module.

Summative Assessment Strategy: Here a brief summary of the module’s assessment methods is provided. It is important that the summary matches the descriptions in the Summative Assessment section below and reflects the LOs being assessed. There should normally be a maximum of 2 pieces of assessment per 20 credit module. However, exceptionally more may be permitted (particularly if a PSRB or apprenticeship standard dictates). If a number of small items of assessment are required, it is recommended that these are compiled in one portfolio assessment. When writing the strategy, be careful not to be too specific about the assessment required – Details can be provided in the Module Guide. Summative Assessment: You should ensure that assessments are relevant to the programme, varied and where possible allow for some flexibility e.g. written piece, verbal assessment (see TLA Strategy). It is also important here to consider the range of assessments on the programme as a whole and ensure consistency across a level. The following word count is recommended for written assessments:HE3: 3000 words per 20 credit module. HE4: 4000 words for 20 credit module. HE5: 4000-5000 words per 20 credit module. HE6: 5000 words per 20 credit module. HE7: 5000-6000 words per 20 credit module.

54

Learning ResourcesList text books and websites in University standard referencing – see http://www.bolton.ac.uk/bissto/Finding-Information/Referencing/Home.aspxInclude journal titles for HE5- HE8 level modules.Ensure most recent editions of text books are included.

Feedback to Students:Here standard text can be inserted: Formative and summative assessment feedback will be made available both verbally and in written form. Feedback will be provided within the terms of the University’s guidelines.

55

http://www.bolton.ac.uk/bissto/Finding-Information/Referencing/Home.aspx

Appendix 6d: Guidelines on the required contents of a Programme Handbook

A template with guidance is provided by SEO for use in preparing a Programme Handbook for On and Off Campus provision. The template indicates where additional elements are required for Off Campus students.

Questions about completion of the template can be addressed to the Head and Standards and Enhancement (Taught Provision), see Appendix 2.

The contents of the Programme Handbook will include details under the following headings:

Welcome Programme Details, Calendar and Timetable Communications and Attendance Student Support The Student Voice Learning Resources Mitigating Circumstances, Appeals and Complaints Health and Safety The Role of the External Examiner

56

Appendix 7a: Terms of reference and membership of the University Standing Panel

University Standing Panel (Route A only):

Strategic Vision: Teaching Intensive, Research Informed (TIRI)By 2020 the University of Bolton will be a teaching intensive, research informed higher

education institution whose distinctive high quality, student-focused, undergraduate and postgraduate programmes attract applications from all over the world.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. Authority of the PanelOn behalf of Senate the panel is responsible for scrutinising proposals for new or revised academic programmes of study that lead to University or external qualifications.

2. Duties of the Panel

i. In advance of meeting, to review, electronically, the Proposal Development Record for designated programme proposals, according to the Agenda and notification from the USP Secretary;

ii. To consider whether for each programme proposal there is sufficient evidence that due process has been followed at programme and School/ Division levels;

iii. To attend the relevant meeting of the Panel and to be prepared to discuss the suitability of designated programme proposals for approval;

iv. In advance and at the meeting, to sample and review, electronically, the evidence held in each Proposal Development Record on the Moodle site or (in future) the SharePoint site. The essential process documents for review are: The SEO Secretary’s Report (Appendix 13) The Internal Advisor’s Consultation Report (Appendix 10) School/ Division Sign-Off of the Proposal and Proposal Development Record

(Appendix 20) For off-campus partnerships: contractual documents including the signed

programme annex(s) and the Partnership Operations Manual

The essential programme documents for review are: The Programme Specification

The process documents available for sampling, electronically, as required, include: Checklist for modification of draft programme documents (Appendix 19) The Consultation Report from the External Advisor(s) / PSRB representative(s)

(Appendix 12) Report of the consultation with students (Appendix 11) Report of the consultation with employers / professionals (Appendix 9) The Validation criteria (Appendix 5)

The programme documents available for sampling, electronically, as required, include: The Programme Specification

57

Module Specifications Evidence to show how the proposal meets University requirements Programme/ Placement/ Mentoring Handbook(s) Staff CVs and module / leadership responsibilities Any curriculum mapping Information to confirm provision of learning resources Any specific programme regulations/ PSRB requirements Marketing materials Records of Academic Approval

v. At the meeting of the Panel: to consider and confirm whether for each programme proposal there is sufficient evidence that due process has been followed at programme and School/ Division levels. To reach a clear decision, the Panel can sample, electronically, the evidence in the folder containing the Programme Development Record, on the Moodle or (in future) SharePoint site.

vi. To make recommendations to the University Senate on whether or not to validate of a programme proposal. The possible outcomes are: Approval for a 5 year period or until the next internal subject review; Approval for a designated period that is less than 5 years; Non-approval with detailed reasons; Exceptionally, the Panel can require that the proposal is returned to an

appropriate earlier stage. Detailed reasons would accompany this decision. Exceptionally the Panel can require that a proposal be considered at a

validation event. Detailed reasons would accompany this decision.

vii. To identify any affirmations and/ or commendations of the proposal;

viii. To produce an annual report to the Education Committee and to Senate, the purpose of which will be to

list the new and existing University qualifications and programme tiles approved during the preceding academic year;

provide assurance that due process has been followed; highlight features of good practice for dissemination across the institution.

3. MembershipMembers: Chair; External Reviewer with experience of external quality assessment (QAA review, Ofsted

Inspection, and when relevant, Quality Assessment by HEFCE/BIS Teaching Excellence Framework);

1 Student Reviewer nominated by the Bolton Students’ Union, who must be independent from the programme(s) requiring approval;

2 Internal Reviewers who will be members of University staff independent from the programme(s) requiring approval, with experience of validation and review;

the USP Secretary, who will be one of the Standards and Enhancement Officers, on rotation, as notified on the Senate Calendar.

4. QuorumMeetings shall be quorate when the following are present: the Chair (or nominee); the External Reviewer; One other member – either an Internal Reviewer or a Student Reviewer.

5. Appointment of Chair/ Deputy Chair58

The Chair will be drawn, on rotation from: the Head of Standards and Enhancement (Taught Programmes); the Academic Manager; the Quality Enhancement Manager, as notified on the Senate Calendar.

6. MeetingsMeetings shall be held nine times during each academic year or otherwise as determined by the volume of business.

7. Committee ReportingThe Panel reports to Senate through its sub-committee, Education Committee.

8. ReviewTerms of reference are reviewed at the first meeting of the Panel annually and any changes are subject to approval by Senate.

59

Appendix 7b: Roles and responsibilities of members of the University Standing Panel


The University Standing Panel will normally comprise the following members, as a minimum:

The Chair will be a member of University staff, external to the proposing School / Division, with experience of the Programme Approval process.

2 Internal Reviewers A Student Reviewer will be a current or recent student of the University, external to

the proposing School/Division and is a full and trained member of the Panel. The Student Panel Member is nominated by the Students’ Union.

1 or more External Reviewer(s), who will hold wide experience of external review at a national/ international level;

USP SecretaryThe number of reviewers will normally be increased for large and/or diverse provision and/or where collaborative partnerships or external awards are involved.

The Chair’s main responsibilities are as follows:1. To manage the meeting so as to enable timely consideration of all proposals on the

agenda; 2. To ensure that the meeting is conducted in a respectful and collegiate manner that is

transparent and fair;3. To understand the broad nature of the proposal(s)4. To manage the review of the essential process and programme documents in the

Proposal Development Record for each proposal on the agenda:

The essential process documents for review are: The SEO Secretary’s Report (Appendix 13) The Internal Advisor’s Consultation Report (Appendix 10) School/ Division Sign-Off of the Proposal and Proposal Development Record

(Appendix 20) For off-campus partnerships: the signed Annex(s) to the contract, which describes

the arrangements for management of the programme


5. To enable the Panel to consider and confirm whether for each programme proposal(s) there is sufficient evidence that due process has been followed at programme and School/Division levels. To reach a clear decision, members of the Panel may sample further evidence from the Proposal Development Record:



60

The programme documents available for sampling, electronically, as required, include: The Programme Specification Module Specifications Evidence to show how the proposal meets University requirements Programme/ Placement/ Mentoring Handbook(s) Staff CVs and module / leadership responsibilities Any curriculum mapping Information to confirm provision of learning resources Any specific programme regulations/ PSRB requirements Marketing materials Records of Academic Approval

6. To enable the outcomes of the USP meeting event to be recorded formally by the USP Secretary in the USP Report;

7. To sign off the final approved proposal and submit the Programme Approval and Sign-Off Form to the USP Secretary by an agreed date.

The role of the Internal Reviewer, Student Reviewer and External Reviewer is as follows:1. To understand the broad nature of the proposal(s)2. In advance of meeting, to review, electronically, the Proposal Development Record for

designated programme proposals as directed by the USP Secretary3. To provide independent and objective assurance that for each programme proposal

there is sufficient evidence that the process of design and development is fit for purpose; and that the proposal meets University requirements for policy and regulation

4. To attend the relevant meeting(s) of the Panel and to be prepared to discuss the suitability of designated programme proposals for approval

5. In advance and at the meeting, to review the essential process and programme documents in the Proposal Development Record for each proposal on the agenda:





8. To consider and confirm whether for each programme proposal(s) there is sufficient evidence that due process has been followed at programme and School/Division levels. To reach a clear decision, members of the Panel may sample further evidence from the Proposal Development Record, which may be drawn from the following:


(Appendix 12) Report of the consultation with students (Appendix 11)

61

Report of the consultation with employers / professionals (Appendix 9) The Validation criteria (Appendix 5)


9. To contribute to the discussion and to support the preparation of the USP Report;10. In addition from the perspective of his/her general and strategic knowledge, role and

expertise to identify areas for affirmation and commendation, as follows:

An affirmation is recognition of an action that is already taking place in a programme to improve a recognised weakness or inadequacy in relation to: assurance of academic standards; the quality and/or enhancement of the learning opportunities for students; the quality of the information produced about the higher education provision.

Panels are invited to commend features of good practice. A feature of good practice is a process or way of working that, in the view of the Panel makes a particularly positive contribution in relation to: assurance of academic standards; the quality and/or enhancement of the learning opportunities for students; the quality of the information produced about the higher education provision.

The role of the USP Secretary is as follows:1. To manage the effective operation of the University Standing Panel; 2. To ensure that reviewers have been recruited to the meeting of the Panel; 3. To ensure that reviewers receive the Agenda for the meeting and gain timely access to

the relevant PDRs for each proposal, plus guidance about their role in the process;4. To ensure that all necessary housekeeping arrangements for the USP meeting have

been made. This to include any hotel and travel arrangements, as required, for members of the Panel;

5. To ensure that the External Reviewer receives the claim form for expenses, that the completed form is processed to pay the agreed fee and expenses;

6. To understand the broad nature of the proposal and to have reviewed the essential process and programme documents:




62


7. To support the Panel to consider and confirm whether for each programme proposal(s) there is sufficient evidence that due process has been followed at programme and School/Division levels;

8. To ensure that the main points of discussion and the outcomes in respect of each proposal and the overall event are recorded formally;

9. For each proposal that is approved, to contribute to the identification of affirmations and commendations, where relevant;

10. For each proposal to compile the USP Report in a timely manner (normally 3 working days) in the agreed format (see Appendix 28);

11. For each proposal that is approved, to ensure that the Chair signs the Programme Approval and Sign-Off Form;

12. To submit the USP Report (Appendix 28) for each proposal to Education Committee in a timely manner (i.e. the next meeting after the event);

13. To submit the Programme Approval and Sign Off form (Appendix 27) to Senate in a timely manner (i.e. the earliest opportunity after the event).

Training and mentoring for members of a Panel

Training is provided to ensure that all members of the USP are informed about the University’s current process for Programme Approval. All USP members, including Chairs, should successfully complete the University’s training on Programme Approval. Secretaries are required to undertake training that is provided within the Standards and Enhancement Office.

Mentoring arrangements are provided for novice members of USP, information about which is available on request from SEO (see Appendix 2).

63

Appendix 7C


AGENDA University Standing PanelA sub-committee of Education CommitteeInsert time and date of meetingInsert location of meeting

1. Welcome and introductions and to confirm attendance and/or note apologies:Chair: Dr. Anne MillerExternal Reviewer: Student Reviewer:Internal Reviewer:Secretary: Jill Provan

2. Terms of reference and membership;

3. To note any conflicts of interest;

4. To confirm the purpose(s) of the meeting and which proposals are under consideration at the meeting:

Insert programme title(s) and link(s) to the PDR

5. To confirm that members obtained access to the Proposal Development Records for the proposals under consideration at the meeting;

6. For each proposal, to consider and confirm whether for each programme proposal(s) there is sufficient evidence that due process has been followed at programme and School/Division levels. The discussion will focus on reviewer’s comments from prior review of the following:





To reach a clear decision, members of the Panel may sample, electronically, further evidence from the Proposal Development Record which may be drawn from the following:

64




7. To take comments on this proposal from members in turn:

Insert programme title(s) and link(s) to the PDR

a. External Reviewer b. Student Reviewerc. Internal Reviewerd. Secretarye. Chair

8. To identify any required action and by whom

9. For each proposal to make recommendations to the University Senate on validation / non-validation of a programme proposal. The possible outcomes are:

Approval for a 5 year period or until the next internal subject review; Approval for a designated period that is less than 5 years; Non-approval with detailed reasons. (In such cases the Panel will normally

recommend that the proposal returns to an appropriate earlier step in the approval process.)

Exceptionally the Panel can recommend that a proposal be considered at a validation event. Detailed reasons would accompany this decision.

10. For each proposal that is recommended for validation, to identify any affirmations and commendations



65

11. For each off-campus proposal that is recommended for validation, to ensure that the Annex to the relevant contract has been signed by the head of the partner organisation;

12. For each proposal for the Chair to complete the Programme Approval and Sign-Off form (Appendix 27) [NB. For off-campus proposals the Annex to the relevant contract must be signed beforehand]

13. Annually the Panel will consider its Annual Report to the Senate.

14. Close

66

Appendix 7d: Programme Approval and Sign-Off FormUniversity Standing Panel (Route A only):

Recommendation to Senate for Programme Approval

To be completed by the Chair of the University Standing Panel following a decision to recommend validation of a Programme Proposal by Senate.

1. The Programme Specification, Module Specifications and Programme Handbook(s) are

approved in relation to the following programme(s):

Award(s) and Programme title(s) and name(s) of any partner organisation/PSRB/ external awarding body or organisation, as relevant:

2. At its meeting on ……………………………………………………………………….the

University Standing Panel confirmed that the Programme(s), listed above, have been

designed Sand developed in accordance with University requirements.

The following affirmations were identified:

The following commendations were identified:

3. It is recommended to Senate that the programmes listed above be validated for a period

of…………………..years, or until the next Internal Subject Review.

Signature of the Chair of the University Standing Panel: __________________________

Name of Chair of University Standing Panel: _____________________

Date: _____________________________

67

Appendix 7e: Template for the USP ReportUniversity Standing Panel (Route A only):

Report University Standing PanelA sub-committee of Education Committee

Appendix 28: Template for the USP ReportUniversity Standing Panel (Route A only):

To be completed by the USP Secretary following consideration of a Programme Proposal by the University Standing Panel.

Academic Year Please insert academic year1. Programme title and qualification Please complete

2. Course code Insert course code

3. Qualification (including exit) Include the target award and all possible exit awards

4. Mode of attendance Insert full time/ part time / both

5. Anticipated number of intakes per year Indicate number and month(s) of intake(s)E.g. 2 – in September and January

6. Approved site(s) for delivery of the programme

Any approved by current or previous Panels

7. Proposed start date Month and year

8. School or Division Please complete

9. Programme Leader Please complete

10. Professional body / awarding body relationship to note

Please complete

11. Did USP members obtain timely access to the PDR for the Proposal?

YES/ NODelete as applicable. Negative responses require explanation.

12. Did USP members review each of the following essential items of evidence? Report from the Internal Advisor Report from the SEO Secretary Signed Annex to Contract, as relevant School/ Division Sign-Off Programme Specification

Delete as applicable. Negative responses require explanationYES/ NOYES/ NOYES/ NOYES/ NOYES/ NO

68

13. Did members find sufficient evidence that due process (Chart 1) had been followed at programme level?

YES/ NODelete as applicable. Negative responses require explanation

14. Did members find sufficient evidence that due process (Chart 1) had been followed at School/ Division level?

YES/ NODelete as applicable. Negative responses require explanation

15. What is the final decision of the USP on its recommendation to Senate regarding validation?a. Approval for a 5 year period or until the

next internal subject review;b. Approval for a designated period that is

less than 5 years;c. Non-approval with detailed reasons. In

such cases the Panel will normally specify the appropriate earlier step in the process to which the proposal should return.

d. Exceptionally the Panel can recommend that a proposal be considered at a validation event. Detailed reasons would accompany this decision.

Delete as applicable

a. YES/ NO

b. YES/ NO

c. YES/ NO. For positive responses please specify the step in the approval process to which the proposal should return (Chart 1)

d. YES/ NO

16. Reasons for the final decision of the USP: Reasons for decision b:

Detailed reasons for decision c or d:

17. List any affirmationsAn affirmation is recognition of an action that is already taking place in a programme to improve a recognised weakness or inadequacy in relation to: assurance of academic standards; the quality and/or enhancement of the learning opportunities for students; the quality of the information produced about the higher education provision.

insert

18. List any commendationsPanels are invited to commend features of good practice. A feature of good practice is a process or way of working that, in the view of the Panel makes a particularly positive contribution in relation to: assurance of academic standards; the quality and/or enhancement of the learning opportunities for students; the quality of the information produced about the higher education provision.

insert

69

Appendix 8a: Terms of reference and membership of the Validation Panel

Validation Panel (Route B only):

A Validation Panel will normally comprise the following members, as a minimum.

1. Chair2. Internal Panel Member3. Student Panel Member4. External Advisor5. SEO Secretary

1. The Chair will be a member of University staff, external to the proposing School/Division, with considerable experience of and training in the Programme Approval process. The Chair’s main responsibilities are as follows: To attend the Planning Meeting and agree the programme for the event; To understand the broad nature of the proposal; To scrutinise the documents and identify lines of inquiry and any requirements for

additional evidence; To submit a written indication of the lines of inquiry and requests for evidence to

the SEO Secretary by a date agreed at the Planning Meeting; In advance of the event, with the SEO Secretary, to collate lines of inquiry

and any requirements for additional evidence from the Panel in a timely manner;

To chair the Programme Approval event in a manner that enables the Panel to explore lines of inquiry and test the proposal against University requirements, the Quality Code and any relevant external requirements;

To help ensure that the Programme Approval process and event is conducted in a respectful and collegiate manner that is transparent and fair;

To work in an open and transparent way that supports the Programme Proposer and programme team in meeting the demands and requirements of the process;

At the conclusion of the Programme Approval event to summarise the outcomes and provide a verbal report to the Programme Proposer;

To enable the outcomes of the Programme Approval event to be recorded formally by the SEO Secretary;

To contribute to the production of the Summary Report and Report of the Programme Approval event that is written by the SEO Secretary;

To review evidence that a proposal has met any conditions of approval and will address recommendations for action;

To sign off the final approved proposal and submit the Programme Approval and Sign-Off Form to the SEO Secretary by an agreed date.

2. An Internal Panel Member will be a member of University staff, external to the proposing School/Division, with experience of and training in the Programme Approval process. The role of the internal Panel member is as follows: To understand the broad nature of the proposal; In advance of the event, to scrutinise the documents and identify lines of inquiry

and any requirements for additional evidence; To submit a written indication of the lines of inquiry and requests for evidence to

70

the SEO Secretary by a date agreed at the Planning Meeting; To help ensure that the Programme Approval event is conducted in a respectful

and collegiate manner that is transparent and fair; To work with others constructively and as an effective member of the Panel; With others, to explore the lines of inquiry and test the programme proposal

against University requirements, the Quality Code and any relevant external requirements;


To support the Chair in ensuring that the outcomes of the Programme Approval event are summarised effectively in a verbal report to the Proposer and in the Report;

As required, to assist with the production of the Report and/or the review of evidence that a proposal has met conditions of approval and will address recommendations for action.

3. A Student Panel Member will be a current or recent student of the University, external to the proposing School/Division and is a full and trained member of the Panel. The Student Panel Member is nominated by the Students’ Union. The role of student Panel members is as follows: To understand the broad nature of the proposal; In advance of the event, to scrutinise the documents and identify lines of inquiry

and any requirements for additional evidence; To submit a written indication of the lines of inquiry and requests for evidence to

the SEO Secretary by a date agreed at the Planning Meeting; To help ensure that the Programme Approval event is conducted in a respectful

and collegiate manner that is transparent and fair; To work with others constructively and as an effective member of the Panel; With others, to explore the lines of inquiry and test the programme proposal

against University requirements, the Quality Code and any relevant external requirements;




4. An External Advisor, who will be a subject specialist nominated by the Programme Proposer and approved by Programmes Committee in line with University criteria (see Appendix 21). The role of External Advisor is as follows: From the perspective of her/his subject specialist knowledge, industrial role

and/or professional expertise to advise the Panel on the suitability of the proposal;

To understand the broad nature of the proposal;

71

In advance of the event, to scrutinise the documents and identify lines of inquiry and any requirements for additional evidence;

To submit a written indication of the lines of inquiry and requests for evidence to the SEO Secretary by a date agreed at the Planning Meeting;

To help ensure that the Programme Approval event is conducted in a respectful and collegiate manner that is transparent and fair;

To work with others constructively and as an effective member of the Validation/Standing Approval/ISR Panel;

With others, to explore the lines of inquiry and test the programme proposal against University requirements, the Quality Code and external requirements in the subject, relevant occupations and/or profession;




5. The SEO Secretary, who will normally be a Standards and Enhancement Officer, or a member of Academic Support Services. The role of the SEO Secretary is as follows: To manage the operation and recording of the Programme Approval

event effectively; To organise and attend the Planning Meeting and note the meeting formally; To recruit the Panel and provide them with the proposal documents and guidance

about their role in the Programme Approval process; To make all necessary housekeeping arrangements for the Programme Approval

event, including any hotel and travel arrangements, as required, for members of the Panel;

To help ensure that the External Advisor receives the claim form for expenses and payment of the agreed fee and to process the completed form;

To understand the broad nature of the proposal and to have reviewed the documents;

In advance of the event, by a date agreed at the Planning Meeting, with the Chair, to collate lines of inquiry and any requirements for additional evidence from the Panel;

In advance of the event, by a date agreed at the Planning Meeting, to send the collated list of lines of inquiry and requests for further evidence to the Programme Proposer;

To support the Panel to explore lines of inquiry and test the proposal against University requirements, the Quality Code and any relevant external requirements;

To ensure that the event is conducted in a respectful and collegiate manner that is transparent and fair;


72

To ensure that the main points of discussion and the outcomes of each meeting and the overall event are recorded formally;

At the conclusion of the event to provide a written summary of the outcomes and support the Chair to provide a verbal report to the Programme Proposer(s);

To write the Summary Report of the Programme Approval event in a timely manner (normally 3 working days) in the agreed format;

To use the formal written record of the event to inform the preparation of the Report; To write the Report of the Programme Approval event in a timely manner

(maximum of 4 weeks) in the agreed format; To monitor the timely response by the Programme Proposer to any conditions

of approval and recommendations for action, issuing reminders as necessary; To alert the Head of Quality Systems and Academic Registrar in cases of late

submission (any more than 5 working days) of responses to conditions of approval and recommendations for action;

To receive evidence that a proposal has met any conditions of approval and/or recommendations for action. To make this evidence available to the Chair and/or other members of the Panel, as required;

To confirm that the Chair signs off the final approved proposal and submits the Programme Approval and Sign-Off Form to the SEO Secretary by the required date;

To maintain a full electronic record of the Programme Approval process from start to finish in the agreed manner within SEO;

To provide the Report of the event to Education Committee in a timely manner (i.e. the next meeting after the event);

To provide the Summary Report of the event to Senate in a timely manner (i.e. the earliest opportunity after the event).

The exact composition of the Panel is determined at the Planning Meeting. The number of internal and external Panel members will normally be increased for large and/or diverse provision and/or where collaborative partnerships or external awards are involved.

In the case of a proposal comprising collaborative provision, the Panel members and especially the External Advisor shall have relevant experience of the approval of collaborative provision. For proposals that involve a partner outside the UK the External Advisor shall normally have experience of approval of international collaborative provision.

Members appointed on behalf of a PSRB, and/or an external awarding body / organisation, as relevant, can be included in the Panel. Their responsibilities will normally be similar to those outlined above but the precise remit of such members is normally determined by the relevant PSRB/external awarding body/organisation. The integration of external approval arrangements with the University approval processes will be determined at the Planning Meeting.

Training and mentoring for members of a Panel

Training is provided to ensure that all members of a Panel are informed about the University’s current process for Programme Approval. All Panel members, including Chairs, should successfully complete the University’s training for members of Programme Approval Panels. Secretaries are required to undertake training that is provided within the Standards

73

and Enhancement Office.

Mentoring arrangements are provided for novice Chairs and members of Programme Approval Panels, information about which is available on request from SEO (see Key contacts, see Appendix 2).

Panel decisions and reporting

The Validation Panel is required to make a recommendation to the University Senate on approval/ non-approval of the proposal.

The decisions of the Validation Panel will be as follows:

1. Approval for a 5 year period or until the next Internal Subject Review;2. Approval for a designated period of time (less than 5 years);3. Non approval with detailed reasons.

Additionally, the Panel may specify mandatory Conditions of approval and/or discretionary Recommendations for action, as follows.

Conditions of approval Definition: A condition of approval is a mandatory requirement that must

be completed prior to the approval and sign-off of the proposed programme.

The current approach to Programme Approval is intended to obviate the need for academic conditions of approval.

If the proposal has followed the process for preparation of programme documents, there should not be any academic or documentary conditions of approval.

Where the Panel considers that a small number of conditions of approval are required, exceptionally, before a programme is fit for purpose, these should be specified.

Where the Panel considers that more than five conditions of approval are required before a programme is fit for purpose, the decision of the Panel should be non-approval. In such cases, guidance is available from the Academic Registrar and members of SEO (see Appendix 2).

Recommendations for action Definition: A Recommendation for action is a discretionary requirement for

consideration and action, normally, within the first year of programme operation.

The maximum number of recommendations for action is normally no more thanthree.

Any recommendation should describe action that will enhance the fitness for purpose of the programme.

Prior to the approval and sign-off of the proposed programme, the Programme Proposer may be required to provide a written indication of the ways in which any recommendation(s) will be addressed.

Any recommendation should be the subject of monitoring and evaluation by

74

the programme leader and team during the first year of operation of the programme.

A report of progress on Recommendations should be included in the Programme Plan15 that is completed for annual monitoring of the first year of operation.

75

Appendix 8b: Responsibilities of members of a Validation Panel

Validation Panel (Route B only):

Responsibilities of Panel Members

Programme proposals will be considered by a University Standing Panel / Validation Panel, which has the following responsibilities:

1. To ensure that the proposed/modified programme will fulfil the University's expectations of academic standards and quality;

2. To ensure that the provision meets the relevant Expectations of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education;

3. To ensure that students will have the opportunity to develop and achieve the agreed learning outcomes of the programme;

4. To confirm the academic validity of the proposal through exploration of the criteria for Programme Approval;

5. To ensure that students will have the opportunity to engage as partners in the quality assurance of their education;

6. To identify and affirm or commend good practice in programme design, delivery and assessment;

7. To identify and affirm or commend good practice in the management of academic standards and quality of the students’ learning experience;

8. To ensure that the provision meets the requirements of any relevant PSRB and/or external awarding body/organisation;

9. To advise the University Senate on whether or not to approve the proposal and whether there should be any conditions (mandatory) or recommendations (discretionary) associated with that approval.

76

Appendix 8c: Generic schedule for a Validation EventValidation Panel (Route B only):

The actual schedule for the event will be confirmed at the Planning Meeting. The following is an example.

09.15 SEO Secretary arrives ahead of the rest of the Panel and checks room layout and housekeeping, making adjustments as needed

09.20 Panel arrives at the venue

Introductions: Chair welcomes members and invites Panel members to introduce themselves and explains the remit of the Panel [Section E, p12 and Section D p10]

09.30-09.45 Presentation:

Introductions: Chair welcomes Proposer and any team members and invites everyone to introduce themselves

Presentation by the Programme Proposer (10 minutes) on key features of the programme, to cover the following criteria [Section D, p10]

Rationale for the programme, market demand and employment prospects for graduates

Aims and intended learning outcomes of the programme Management and organisation; Adequacy of human and physical learning resources;

09.45-10.45 Private Panel meeting to discuss the lines of inquiry, adequacy of any additional evidence and the agendas for individual meetings. Meeting to cover the following criteria [Section D, p10]

Rationale for the programme, market demand and employment prospects for graduates;

Benchmarking Academic Standards Aims and intended learning outcomes of the programme; Programme structure and curriculum content; Learning, teaching and assessment; Entry requirements; Enabling student development, achievement and engagement; Management and organisation; Adequacy of human and physical learning resources; Maintenance of academic standards and enhancement of

quality at module and programme level Valid, reliable, useful and accessible information about the

provision

77

10.45-11.30 Meeting with students:

Members of staff do not attend meetings with students.

Meeting to cover the following criteria [Section D, p10] Students invited to introduce themselves, identifying their

programme and level of study, and whether they are a studentrepresentative

Reasons for choice of HE Provider, their programme of study and source of information about their chosen programme

Completeness, accuracy and reliability of information accessed in advance of joining their programme, whether expectations have been met

Induction – what it comprised and nature of information provided to students after enrolment. Programme Handbook and ILOs

Involvement of students in design and development of the proposal

Students’ thoughts about the proposal:o Rationale for the programme, market demand

and employment prospects for graduates;o Programme structure and curriculum content;

Students’ comments on the planned approaches too learning, teaching and assessment;o Enabling student development, achievement and

engagement;o Management and organisation;

Adequacy of human and physical learning resources; Students’ contribution to maintenance of academic standards

and enhancement of quality at module and programme level Provision’s strengths and areas for improvement

11.30-11.45 Private Panel meeting to summarise outcomes from the student meeting and confirm agenda for meeting with employers

11.45-12.15 Tour of physical learning resources, as relevant (can be excluded / extended) to cover the following criteria [Section D, p10]

Enabling student development, achievement and engagement; Management and organisation; Adequacy of human and physical learning resources; Valid, reliable, useful and accessible information about the

provision

12.15-12.45 Meeting with employers to cover the following criteria [Section D, p10]

Nature of relationship Involvement in University advisory board(s) Involvement in development of proposal Involvement in programme delivery/ provision live briefs Placement provision Suitability of graduates’ skills and competencies for employment

78

12.45-13.15 Lunch with employers

13.15-13.30 Private Panel meeting to summarise outcomes from the meeting with employers and LR tour and to confirm agenda for staff meeting

13.30-14.30 Meeting with academic staff to cover the following criteria [Section D,p10]


Benchmarking academic standards Aims and intended learning outcomes of the programme; Programme structure and curriculum content; Learning, teaching and assessment; Entry requirements; Enabling student development, achievement and engagement; Management and organisation; Adequacy of human and physical learning resources; support

for staff including development and scholarly activity Maintenance of academic standards and enhancement of


provision14.30-14.45 Private Panel meeting to bullet outcomes from the meeting with staff

and to confirm agenda for meeting with managers

14.45-15.15 Meeting with School/Division/Partner Organisation managers including Head of School/Division/Partner Organisation, as relevant, to cover the following criteria [Section D, p10]


Management and organisation; Adequacy of human and physical learning resources; Maintenance of academic standards and enhancement of


provision

79

15.15-16.00 Private Panel meeting:

Chair rehearses the responsibilities of the Panel [Section E, p10] and the decision to be made [Section H, p16]

Summarise outcomes from the meeting with managers and to confirm that the Panel has sufficient evidence on which to reach

a decision conclude and reach a decision on the outcomes of the event

The Panel is required to make a recommendation to the Senate on approval/ non-approval of the proposal.

The decision of the Programme Approval Panel, one of the following:a) Approval for a 5 year period or until the next Internal Subject

Reviewb) Approval for a designated period of time (less than 5 years)c) Non-approval with detailed reasons

Additionally, the Panel may specify mandatory Conditions of approval and/or discretionary Recommendations for action

16.00-16.10 Final Meeting: the Chair to provide verbal report on outcomes to the Programme Proposer and available staff and managers, to include:

Thanks for participation in the approval process, the provision of documents and engagement in the meetings

Positive observations about the meeting with students / employers

Indicate the decision…“We will be recommending to Senate that…(a, b, or c, above)

Any Affirmations Any Commendations Any Conditions with date for receipt of evidence of completion Any Recommendations with date for receipt of a written

indication of planned response from proposing team. Reminder about the need to monitor progress with recommendations and to report on outcomes during annual monitoring in the Programme Plan.

Thank the Panel

16.10-16.15 Chair completes the Programme Approval and Sign-Off Form

Head of partner organisation signs the contractual paperwork

16.15 Close

16.30 Panel to ensure that room is left in suitable condition

Panel Departs

80

Appendix 8d: Programme Approval and Sign-Off FormValidation Panel (Route B only):

Programme Approval and Sign-Off Form

To be completed by the Chair of the Panel at the end of the event and/or on the satisfactory completion of any mandatory Conditions of approval and receipt of a satisfactory response to Recommendations for action.

I confirm that

1. the Programme Specification, Module Specifications and Programme Handbook(s) are approved in relation to the following programme(s)

2. the Programme Proposer/Team has satisfactorily responded to the specified conditions of the approval event held on ……..………………………………..(insert date)

3. the Programme Proposer/Team has satisfactorily responded to the specified recommendations of the approval event held on ……………………………..(insert date)

Award(s) and Programme title(s) and name(s) of any partner organisation/PSRB/ external awarding body or organisation, as relevant:

Signature of Chair of Panel:

Name of Chair of Panel:

Date:

This form should be returned to the SEO Secretary of the Validation Panelby the date agreed at the approval event.

81

CHAIR COMMENTS - please indicate if there is anything you wish to note regarding the above:

Appendix 8e: Template for the Summary ReportValidation Panel (Route B only):

Summary Report

Validation PanelA sub-committee of Education Committee

Summary of a Validation Panel held on [insert date xx-xx- 2016/7] to consider [insert award and programme title]

1. DECISION

The decision of the Validation Panel is to recommend the following to the University Senate:

[Tick one]

To approve the provision for a 5 year period or until the next Internal Subject Review

To approve the provision for a designated period of time (less than 5 years)

That the provision is not approved for the following detailed reasons [Insert list of reasons for non-approval]

1. AFFIRMATIONS and COMMENDATIONS


The Panel affirms the following: [Insert affirmations]


The Panel commends the programme team on the following features of good practice: [Insert features of good practice]

2. CONDITIONS

To ensure that the programme is fit for purpose, exceptionally, the Panel requires the completion of the following CONDITIONS of approval, by [insert date xx-xx-2016/7]

82

1. ………………………………………………2. …………………………………………… ..

3. RECOMMENDATIONS (Maximum of three)

To ensure that the programme(s) remains fit for purpose, the Panel makes the following recommendations for action during the first year of operation, [insert academic year].

1. ………………………………………………2. ……………………………………………….3. ………………………………………………

Progress on these recommendations should be reported during the annual monitoring of the Programme(s) in the Programme Plan for the first year of operation, [insert academic year].

Standards and Enhancement Office[insert date xx-xx-2016/7]

83

Appendix 8f: Template for the ReportValidation Panel (Route B only):

Report Validation Panel

A sub-committee of Education Committee

Report of a Validation Panel held on [insert date xx-xx-2016] to consider [insert award

and programme title]

1. DECISION

The decision of the Validation Panel is to recommend the following to the University Senate:

[Tick one]

To approve the provision for a 5 year period or until the next Internal Subject Review

To approve the provision for a designated period of time (less than 5 years)

That the provision is not approved for the following detailed reasons [insert list of reasons for non-approval]

2. AFFIRMATIONS and COMMENDATIONS


The Panel affirms the following: [Insert affirmations]


The Panel commends the programme team on the following features of good practice: [Insert features of good practice]

3. CONDITIONS

To ensure that the programme is fit for purpose, exceptionally, the Panel requires the completion of the following CONDITIONS of approval, by [insert date xx-xx-2016/7]

1. ………………………………………………2. …………………………………………… ..

84

4. RECOMMENDATIONS (Maximum of three)

To ensure that the programme(s) remains fit for purpose, the Panel makes the following recommendations for action during the first year of operation, [insert academic year].

1. ………………………………………………2. ……………………………………………….3. ………………………………………………

Progress on these recommendations should be reported during the annual monitoring of the Programme(s) in the Programme Plan for the first year of operation, [insert academic year].

5. PANEL AND PARTICIPANTS OF MEETINGS

Panel:Title and Name Job title Role on Panele.g. Prof. Jane Smith Head of School/Division ChairInsert rows as required

Meeting with current students (anonymised):Number of participants Programme, level Student representative

[insert tick]Insert rows as required

Meeting with members of the management and/or programme team:Title and Name Job titleInsert rows as required

Meeting with employers and professionals:Title and Name Employer/ Organisation / professionInsert rows as required

85

6. DISCUSSION

Purpose of the event:[Insert a summary of the key points: rationale, market demand, career destinations, employer engagement and student engagement during development]

Presentation by the Proposing team:

[Insert a summary of the key points and include a reference to the location of the presentation slides]

Criteria for Programme Approval:

[Insert a summary of how the proposal meets the broad criteria]


Benchmarking Academic Standards Aims and intended learning outcomes of the programme; Programme structure and curriculum content; Learning, teaching and assessment; Entry requirements; Enabling student development, achievement and engagement; Management and organisation; Adequacy of human and physical learning resources; Maintenance of academic standards and enhancement of quality at module

and programme level Valid, reliable, useful and accessible information about the provision

[Insert a summary of how the proposal meets any relevant specific criteria, as follows.]

Collaborative partnerships and progression or articulation arrangements. Qualifications awarded in conjunction with another degree awarding body (Joint

and Double Qualifications) Qualifications awarded in conjunction with another degree awarding

organisation (e.g. Pearson Ltd., for Edexcel awards) Provision that involves accreditation by a Professional, Statutory and

Regulatory Body (PSRB)

Students’ views:

[insert a summary of the key points]

The Tour of Resources:


Employers’ views:



86

[insert date xx-xx-2016]

87

Appendix 9: Generic Agenda for the Planning Meeting

AGENDA Procedure in advance of the meeting:

A. Planning Meeting to be arranged by the SEO Secretary, who invites the Proposing team for the programme, for Route A proposals: intended Internal Advisor for Route B proposals: intended Chair of the Validation Panel the Head of School/Division and/or AGC (SELE) from the proposing

School/Division, SEO Secretary the Academic Registrar (or nominee) to chair the meeting

For OfCD programmes: a representative from the partner organisation the Off Campus Programmes Validations Manager and/or relevant

Academic Partnership Manager

B. The SEO Secretary to distribute the following in advance of the meeting: Appendix 9 from the Programme Approval Handbook: “Generic Agenda

for the Planning Meeting” Extracted Minute of SPRDC and/or Programmes Committee that

confirms Academic Approval and indicates any special considerations or requirements

The SAF, PAF or CAF for the programme Chart 1 from the Programme Approval Handbook: “Programme approval

process at a glance” Appendices 1a and 1b from the Programme Approval Handbook:

“Timelines for Academic Approval and Programme Approval in 2016-17” Appendix 6a from the Programme Approval Handbook: “Proposal

Development Record: required contents” Appendix 10 a-c from the Programme Approval Handbook: External

Advisor (Only required if the EA has not already been approved at Programmes Committee)

Either Appendix 7a from the Programme Approval Handbook: “Terms of reference and membership of the University Standing Panel” OR Appendix 8a “Terms of reference and membership of the Validation Panel”

A sheet containing the link to the Programme Approval Handbook and Appendices on the SEO webpages

88

The Proposed Programme Notes

Name of the programme and award

To note the date and content of the Minute of SPRDC approval To note the date and content of the Minute of Programmes Committee approval To note whether Validation Route A or B is to be followed and any particular considerations from SPRDC or Programmes CommitteeIntended programme title

Awards: target and exit plus any CPD modulesMode(s) of study: full and/or part time

Name and details of any Professional Statutory and Regulatory Body(ies)Name and location of any partner

Nature of the partnership (franchise/ validation/ articulation/ flying faculty)Delivery model

Planned student profile/ recruitment and start date(s)Any specific course assessment regulationsAny specific considerations

The Programme Approval Process Notes

Overview of the process in 2018-19 see Chart 1 “Programme approval at a glance”Choice of Validation Route A or B

Common steps for all on and off campus programmes (Steps 1-11)Key Meetings:

Step 4: Programme Design and Development Meeting – with SEO Advisor and Internal AdvisorSteps 7 and 9: School Sign-Off Meeting

Step 8: External Scrutiny Meeting

Step 10: PDR Review Meeting

89

Step 12/13: Approval meeting

Consulting – employers, professionals and students (Appendix 14)Partner organisation involvement

The Proposal Development Record and documentary requirements (Appendix 6)The University requirements (Appendix 13)

Timeline for the development: Notes

Route A only: University Standing Panel

Target USP ……

This determines the due dates for completion of the steps – to be confirmed at the meeting.

Route B only: Validation Panel

Validation Panel: w/b ……

Intended delivery location

Chair:

Internal Panel member:

External advisor(s) – Appendix 10d + CV to have been submitted to Programmes Committee

Student Panel member:

PSRB representative, as relevant:

Route B only: Proposed schedule for the Validation event (Appendix 8c)

Notes

Start time:

5-10 minutes for introductions

10 minutes for presentation of proposal and 5 minutes for questions

45-60 minute private Panel meeting to confirm agendas for the meetings on the basis of the lines of enquiry document

30 minute meeting with students

90

15 minute private Panel meeting to summarise outcomes from student meeting and confirm agenda for tour/meeting with employers

30 minute resources tour (if relevant)

30 minute meeting with employers

30 minute lunch break, with employers

15 minute private Panel meeting to summarise outcomes from tour/meeting with employers and confirm agenda for meeting with staff

45-60 minute meeting with staff team (+/- managers, as determined by nature of proposal and size of the team)

15 minute private Panel meeting to summarise outcomes from meeting with staff and confirm agenda for meeting with managers

30 minute meeting with management team

30 minute private Panel meeting to summarise outcomes

5-10 minute verbal report back to proposing team

Route B only: travel arrangements for off-campus proposals – to confirm who will take what action

Notes

Road / rail travel

Flights

Hotel

Visas

Liaison with partner on programme for the event

91

Appendix 10a: Expectations and responsibilities of the role of External Advisor and/or PSRB representative(s)

An External Advisor/PSRB representative will be a subject specialist nominated by the Programme Proposer and approved by Programmes Committee in line with University criteria (Appendix 10b). The role of External Advisor/PSRB representative is as follows:

1. From the perspective of her/his subject specialist knowledge, industrial role and/or professional expertise to advise the University on the suitability of the proposal;

2. To understand the broad nature of the proposal;

3. To access the programme documents in the Proposal Development Record, using the login details provided by the SEO Secretary. The following documents will be made available to the External Advisor/ PSRB representative for consideration: Programme Specification incorporating

o the learning outcomes mapo the assessment methods mapo evidence of how the programme meets the TIRI requiremento evidence of how the programme uses for student-centred pedagogy and meets

the LTA Strategyo evidence of how the programme meets requirements for University

enhancement themes Programme Handbook Module Specifications for all modules Staff CVs and module/ leadership responsibilities Marketing information (Programme leaflet/ prospectus entry) Mentoring/ placement handbooks, as relevant Operational Manuals, for off-campus programmes, as relevant Curriculum mapping, where relevant, e.g. for progression or articulation of

programmes. How the programme meets any PSRB accreditation requirements

4. To participate in an iterative process of discussion and review of the programme proposal(s) with the Proposer: reviewing the initial proposal documents; providing written and/or verbal comments to the Proposer; reviewing any amended documentation; and providing a final written Report to the University (Appendix 10d).

5. To test the programme proposal against expectations and requirements in the subject, the UK Quality Code and external requirements in the subject, relevant occupations and/or profession. In particular the External Advisor/PSRB representative is invited to provide advice in relation to: subject standards and PSRB requirements; the Subject Benchmark Statements and any relevant Characteristics Statements; knowledge of practice in the subject area; subject specific legislative and regulatory requirements;

6. To participate in one or more developmental meeting (s) with the Proposer and others. The

92

consultation can take place either by correspondence or through a developmental meeting, either in person or through teleconferencing, (e.g. Skype/Zoom);

7. To work in an open and transparent way that is respectful and collegiate and which supports the Proposer and programme team in meeting the demands and requirements of the process;

8. To ensure that the outcomes of the scrutiny of the proposal and discussion with the Proposer are summarised effectively:

a. to the Proposer in a written/verbal report b. and to the University in a written External Advisor’s Consultation Report (see

Template in Appendix 10d);

9. The External Advisor is paid a fee and expenses and claim forms are available from and should be submitted to the SEO Secretary (Appendix 10e).

93

Appendix 10b: Criteria for the appointment of an External Advisor for advice during programme development

1. The University values the contribution made by external peers to its approval of academic programmes.

2. The University seeks to appoint External Advisors who are able to offer an informed, critical and constructive scrutiny of proposed programmes whilst serving as external Panel members.

3. External Advisors will most often be drawn from higher education providers and may sometimes be independent consultants or practitioners from industry, commerce or the professions. Where multiple External Advisors are appointed, at least one of them should be an experienced academic from the UK HE sector.

4. External Advisors are nominated by the relevant School/Division to meet the requirements agreed during at the Planning Meeting.

5. The nomination form to be completed by the relevant School/ Division can be found in Appendix 10c. The completed form and a curriculum vitae should be submitted to the Secretary of Programmes Committee (see Appendix 2)

6. External Advisors should meet the following criteria:

Academic and/or professional qualifications matched to the programme(s) under consideration, in respect of both the subject and level of those qualifications.

Sufficient standing, expertise and experience to judge arrangements for setting and maintaining academic standards and the quality of learning. This may be indicated by:

o present (or last if retired) and previous post(s);

o range and depth of experience across UK Higher Education and/or the professions and/or relevant employment;

o current and recent active involvement in research and/or scholarly and/or professional activities in the relevant field of study.

In the case of collaborative provision, the External Advisor shall have relevant experience of the approval of collaborative provision in the relevant national setting. For proposals that involve a partner outside the UK the External Advisor shall have experience of the approval of international collaborative provision.

A proposed External Advisor will ideally have recent and relevant experience of the EA role, or comparable related external experience, to indicate competence in the role. If a proposed External Advisor does not have experience of external involvement in either of these capacities, then the nomination should be supported by:o internal involvement in validation, review, accreditation, recognition

94

or similar activities;

o other relevant and recent experience likely to support the proposed role.

7. In making the nomination and in agreeing to be nominated, the relevant School/Division and the nominee will confirm to the best of their knowledge that the following conditions apply.

A proposed External Advisor should not normally be directly or indirectly (e.g. through a third party) affiliated with the University in any way, nor have been so within the previous five years.

8. A proposed External Advisor should not be or be likely to be: personally associated with the sponsorship of current or future students

studying the programme(s) under scrutiny; involved in the assessment of students following the programme(s)

under scrutiny; in a position to influence significantly the employment of existing or potential

students following the programme(s) under scrutiny; involved with work placements or training of students following the programme(s)

under scrutiny an external examiner in the School/Division from which the proposal under

consideration originates.

9. The use of the criteria for nomination and appointment should ensure impartiality of judgement. The intention is to ensure that the proposed External Advisor is appropriate, competent and impartial to fulfil the function.

95

Appendix 10c: Nomination form for the appointment of an External Advisor

1. NAME of SUBJECT(S) TO BE REVIEWED OR FULL TITLE AND AWARD OF PROGRAMME(S) TO BE VALIDATED

2. DATES BETWEEN WHICH THE EXTERNAL ADVISOR WILL SERVEFrom:

To:

3. FOR VALIDATION EVENTS, INCLUDE LOCATION OF DELIVERY AND NAME OF PARTNER ORGANISATION, WHERE RELEVANT:

4. TITLE AND NAME OF NOMINEE:

5. PRESENT POST OF NOMINEE:

6. PLACE OF WORK OF NOMINEE:

7. List of the Nominee’s experience as an External Advisor (serving on panels outside employing HE Provider, QAA review work, External Examining)

8. ADDRESS AT WHICH NOMINEE MAY BE CONTACTED, INCLUDING TELEPHONE AND EMAIL:

9. DETAILS OF NOMINEE'S ASSOCIATION, IF ANY, WITH THE PROGRAMME

96

TEAM(S), PARTNER ORGANISATION OR SCHOOL DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS:

PLEASE NOTE: It is essential that the nominee is able to provide independent external input to the event. A nominee should not have had certain types of association with the University in the last 5 years (e.g.) as an external examiner, as an external consultant providing advice on programme development.

If you have any queries regarding the eligibility of a nominee please consult the SEO Secretary in the Standards and Enhancement Office before making this nomination.

10. EVIDENCE OF NOMINEE'S ACADEMIC STANDING AND APPROPRIATENESS TO THE SUBJECT(S) AND PROGRAMME(S) BEING CONSIDERED.

(ATTACH CV AND LIST: Qualifications, Teaching Experience, Internal and External Validation/Review Panel Membership, involvement in National Bodies or Agencies, External Examiner experience, Programme Leadership and Management roles held, Experience of Collaborative Provision, Research and Scholarly activities)

9. NAME OF STAFF MEMBER MAKING THE NOMINATION (insert)

10. Insert the NAME of Head of School/Division or nominee who approves this nomination

Name (insert).........................................................

Date .........................................................

Completed nomination forms should be submitted to the Secretary of Programmes Committee (see Appendix 2) with the PAF for the proposal.

INCOMPLETE FORMS WILL BE RETURNED

97

Appendix 10d

Template for Consultation Report from the External Advisor and/or PSRB representative(s)

This report template should be completed at Step 8, the External Scrutiny Meeting. Payment will be made following completion of this template.

Award and programme title:Name of External Advisor (EA) :Date of report:

Please confirm that the programme has been developed in line with the Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree-Awarding Bodies (UKQC Part A)YES/NO (delete as relevant. A negative response requires explanation)

Please comment below on how the aims and intended learning outcomes for the proposed programme reflect academic, subject and professional expectations within the sector, as set out in the FHEQ, subject benchmarks statements and other relevant external reference points.Please type comments here:

Please comment below on the appropriateness and coherence of the curriculum and learning opportunities of study leading to the award of the programme listed above.Please type comments here:

Please comment below on the appropriateness of the proposed teaching and learning and assessment strategies for the delivery of the curriculum, facilitating learning and enabling students to demonstrate the achievement of the stated intended learning outcomes.Please type comments here:

Is the collective expertise of the staff suitable and available for effective delivery of the curricula, for the overall teaching, learning and assessment strategy and for the achievement of the intended learning outcomes?YES/NO (delete as relevant. A negative response requires explanation)

Plus commentary, if applicable:

For programmes that are seeking PSRB accreditation only, please name the PSRB and comment below on whether the programme proposal meets the requirements of the professional body:Please type comments here:

Please list any features of good practice in learning, teaching and assessment that you would wish to bring to the attention of the School/ Division/ University Standing Panel:Please type comments here:

98

Has the programme proposer responded adequately to your comments on the suitability of the proposal, during its development?YES/NO (delete as relevant. A negative response requires explanation)

Any other comments?Author to insert

Thank you

Please upload the completed template to the Proposal Development Record (PDR) or return to the SEO Secretary in the Standards and Enhancement Office.

99

Appendix 10e: Payment of fees and expenses to an External Advisor

The University offers the following fees to an External Advisor:

£250 for provision of subject specific advice on a Proposal Reasonable travel expenses will be paid Overnight accommodation can be arranged, if required

Where the proposal is an Off-campus partnership

Travel within the UK: 1 day at £100 Travel within the Middle East: 3 days at £100 per day Travel long haul: 4 days at £100 per day

The External Advisor is invited to contact the relevant SEO Secretary to acquire a claim form for the fee and any associated travel expenses (see Appendix 2). The Proposer will normally be able to provide the External Advisor with the name and contact details of the relevant SEO Secretary. Overnight accommodation can be booked by the SEO Secretary, if required.

100

Appendix 11a: Expectations and responsibilities of the role of Internal Advisor;

Internal Advisor’s role and responsibilities:

1. To provide advice from outside the proposing School/Division about University requirements for programmes;

2. To have attended an updating session on Programme Approval 3. To attend Step 2: The Planning Meeting organised by the SEO Secretary.

The planning meeting is a good opportunity to find out about the programme; to discuss the expected timeline; ask questions to enhance understanding and discuss with the Programme Proposer how best to work with the programme team during the validation process

4. To attend Step 4: the Programme Design and Development Meeting5. To chair Step 8: the External Scrutiny Meeting6. To attend Step 10: the PDR Review Meeting to confirm the readiness of the proposal 7. In conjunction with the SEO Secretary, to monitor that the proposal is in line with QAA

requirements, UoB regulations and PSRB requirements, where applicable;8. To review documentation and give feedback NB. the role is one of providing

feedback in the same way an external examiner might, it is NOT about writing or proof-reading the documentation;

9. At Step 10, to complete the Internal Advisor’s Consultation Report template (Appendix 11b) and to indicate formally whether the proposal and PDR are ready to progress to consideration by the University Standing Panel;

10. To make the time commitment to undertake the role

Characteristics expected:1. To be a member of University staff, external to the proposing School/Division, with

considerable experience of and training in the Programme Approval process. 2. A general knowledge of key University requirements for concerning curriculum design

and development in line with the Curriculum Philosophy and Graduate Attributes Matrix for Employability, TIRI requirements, the LTA Strategy, good assessment design, the University’s enhancement priorities;

3. Familiarity with key University policies and processes, e.g. the Assessment Regulations, the Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy.

4. A general knowledge of the requirements of the external environment, including the HEFCE Baseline Regulatory Requirements, incorporating the UK Quality Code. This to include the Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree-Awarding Bodies (FHEQ), Subject Benchmark Statements and Characteristics Statements (UKQC); good practice in relation to quality of the student experience (UKQC); and Information (UKQC/ CMA Guidelines);

5. Willingness to suggest useful practice and different perspectives from another part of the University of Bolton and elsewhere;

6. Willingness to suggest other people that may be able to help if there is a problem to be solved or specialist advice is required;

Benefits for the Internal Advisor: To appreciate how other programmes and Schools/Division operate, which may

generate greater opportunities to transfer the practice of others to their home area; The role also provides a vehicle to develop the skills of working with teams in a

collaborative manner; Individual professional development may be enhanced through learning from peers; Insight to and experience of the operation of organisations other than the University.

101

Note on the role:In addition to being a critical friend for the programme developers, it is really helpful when the Internal Advisor attends the key meetings at Steps 2, 4, 8 and 9 and takes a lead wherever possible or required. For example, we ask that you chair at least Step 8 the External Scrutiny Meeting, which is where a typical ‘validation’ discussion can occur, whether the external attends in person or via teleconference.

The PDR review meeting should only be a brief meeting Step 9. It is critical at this time that we receive your completed report before Step 10, to signal whether all is well and the PDR is complete.

102

Appendix 11b: Report Template for Internal Advisor’s Consultation Report Section 1:

Qualification and Title of programme(s):

Course Code(s):

Name of Internal Advisor :

Role and School/Division:

Date of this report:

Section 2:Please confirm that the following items of documentation have been produced and you are satisfied that they have been developed in accordance with due process, and with appropriate reference to relevant internal and external requirements.

Confirmation will signal to the School/Division and University Standing Panel that you are satisfied the documentation provides appropriate and accurate information about programme qualifications, structures and content in line with University regulations and requirements; the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ); the QAA’s UK Quality Code for Higher Education; and any PSRB requirements, where applicable.

Programme Documents: Confirmation and commentary to explain response:Please type your comments in this column

Programme Specification(s) (pdf) incorporating

the learning outcomes map the assessment methods map evidence of how the programme

meets the TIRI requirement evidence of how the programme

uses for student-centred pedagogy and meets the LTA Strategy

evidence of how the programme meets requirements for University enhancement themes

Module Specification(s) (pdf) for all modulesEvidence of student engagement, e.g. through consultation Programme HandbookStaff CVs and module/ leadership responsibilities

103

Marketing information (Programme leaflet/ prospectus entry)Mentoring/ placement handbooksOperational Manuals, for off-campus programmes, as relevantCurriculum mapping, where relevant for progression or articulation of programmes.How the programme meets any PSRB accreditation requirementsExternal Advisor’s final report (and evidence of a response from the programme team if applicable)

Section 3:

Based on the evidence provided in the documentation listed above and your involvement with the design and development as detailed in section 4, below, please provide formal confirmation that the programme and qualifications listed on the Programme Specification:

Yes/No and commentary to explain response and signpost the evidence:

Align with relevant national qualification level descriptors, FHEQ, subject benchmark statement(s) and, if applicable, professional and statutory body standards.

YES/NO (delete as relevant)

Show clearly how the content and structure of the programme and its assessment strategy provide students with the opportunities for learning and assessment they need, to enable them to demonstrate that they have achieved the programme learning outcomes at the requisite level.


Meet the University Curriculum Philosophy including the TIRI requirements and GAME requirements


Meet the University requirements for student-centred pedagogy


Meet the University requirements for digital literacy; employability and enterprise


Demonstrate compliance with the University Assessment Regulations


Demonstrate that threshold academic standards have been set and are achievable/ measurable.


Demonstrate evidence of good practice in teaching, learning and assessment which enhances the student experience (further


104

details to be provided in section 4).

Section 4: Description of Internal Advisor’s involvement:

Please provide a summary outlining your involvement with the programme team during the design and development process.

Describe any highlights, challenges and features of best practice that you would wish to bring to the attention of the School/Division and University.

Are you satisfied that you have been involved at all stages in accordance with the expectations outlined in the guidance?


Are you satisfied that your contribution has been dealt with appropriately, including any requests for revisions to documentation produced during the draft stages?


Do you have any recommendations or comments about the programme approval process more generally that you would like to bring to the attention of the University Standing Panel and/or the Head of School/Division?

Comments will be used by SEO to make programme approval practices more effective and efficient.


STEP 9: In your view are the programme documents and the PDR ready to progress to the University Standing Panel/ Validation Event?

YES/NO (delete as relevant. Negative answers require explanation and an indication of the next steps to be taken by the Proposer)

Thank you

The Internal Advisor should submit the completed report to the PDR and alert SEO Secretary.

105

Appendix 12: Programme Design and Development Meeting

a). Generic Agenda

Programme Design and Development Meeting

1. Welcome and introductions: Proposing team, AGC, SEO Advisor, Internal Advisor;

2. Purpose of the meeting: to consider salient aspects of design of the programme;

3. Nature of the proposal and programme: Consideration of the SAF and SPRDC Minutes (if applicable) Programmes Committee Minutes and PAF;

4. Programme structure and delivery plan (s);

5. Programme design guidancea. Academic standardsb. Quality of the student experiencec. Quality of information d. Other aspects of the Baseline Regulatory Requirements

6. Module design guidance

7. Documentary requirements

8. Student and employer feedback guidance

b). Outcomes a) Following the meeting the programme development team should be able to

produce draft programme documentation for consultation with the internal and external advisors, students and employers.

b) Close

106

Appendix 13: University Requirements

A Best Practice Guide to Curriculum Design 2017-18

This document supports the use of innovative programme design of taught programmes at all levels (HE3-HE8). The guide is divided into four main sections:

1. Rationale 2. Key Reference Points 3. The University of Bolton Curriculum Philosophy 4. Practical Guidance for Curriculum Design,

Section 1: Rationale The aim of the guide is to ensure that University of Bolton programmes are designed using a unique and highly effective curriculum architecture in order to:

Provide a distinctive, stimulating and attractive learning offer Allow for the development of a personalised, relevant and challenging

student learning experience Enhance student satisfaction Improve student achievement and retention Improve student employability Enhance stakeholder involvement Promote the University of Bolton Graduate Attributes Framework

Teaching Intensive, Research Informed: Accordingly, emphasis is placed on the support and empowerment of tutors to develop innovative and effective learning, teaching and assessment strategies, which are underpinned by cutting edge research and scholarly activity.

Section 2: Key Reference Points The following sector-wide and University documents have been drawn upon to develop the University of Bolton Curriculum Philosophy (Please see annex 1 for web-links):

External:QAA Characteristics Statements

107

QAA Subject Benchmark Statements QAA Quality Code HEA Transforming Teaching, Inspiring Learning Professional Body requirements Department for Education: Teaching Excellence Framework Degree Apprenticeship Trailblazer Standards

Internal: TIRI White Paper 2015 and “What makes a Programme TIRI?” Document 2016University Strategic Plan 2015-2020University Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy 2015-2018University of Bolton Graduate Attributes Framework 2017 Employability and Enterprise Strategy 2014-17External Examiner ReportsSEO Programme Design and Approval Process 2017-18Guides to Writing Programme Specifications and Module Specifications 2017-18The Good Assessment Guide 2017 (Under construction) University of Bolton Learning Development Framework

Section 3: The University of Bolton Curriculum PhilosophyProgrammes at University of Bolton:

Section 4: Practical Guidelines108

Curriculum design takes place at programme approval stage. Please refer also the Guidelines for Preparing Programme Specifications and Guidelines for Preparing Module Specifications.

Component 1: Programmes at the University of Bolton are underpinned by learning and teaching practices informed by reflection, scholarship and cutting-edge research (TIRI) Research and scholarly activity should be used to inform curriculum

design - to ensure programme content is relevant, current and interesting.

Allow for flexibility at programme and module level by outlining broad strategies for learning and teaching. Examples of learning and teaching methods should be presented, and not a finite list. In this way, academics can adopt delivery methods which are relevant, stimulating and underpinned by educational scholarship and research.

Component 2: Programmes at the University of Bolton offer a stimulating, relevant, personalised and inclusive experience When writing programme and module learning outcomes, consider the

wording carefully, recognising the diverse nature of the student body, the dynamic external environment and international perspectives.

Allow for flexibility at programme and module level by outlining broad strategies for learning, teaching and assessment (formative and summative).

Where possible/appropriate, describe the methods of assessment on a module specification in broad terms e.g. written piece*, oral piece**, practical skills assessment, portfolio of evidence. This will allow students and/or employers to have an input into the type of assessment set.

Embed formal opportunities for setting and reflecting on goals, as well as professional development planning at each stage of the programme

*Examples of written assessments include reports, essays, seminar papers, academic journal articles, blogs, trade journal articles, newspaper articles, press releases, reflective diaries**Examples of oral assessments include PowerPoint/Prezi presentations, seminar presentations, poster presentations, role plays, interviews, vivas.

Component 3: Programmes at the University of Bolton develop students as autonomous, self-directed, critical and reflective learners

109

At each level make explicit where and how students will develop and reflect on key on academic*, professional/practical and life skills** within a relevant context. Skills should be embedded in the curriculum and there should be clear progression from dependent to independent learning – culminating in an independent research project.

At each level use appropriate verbs for learning outcomes – demonstrating expectations. e.g:HE3 and HE4: explain, describe, discuss. HE5: Analyse, appraise, compare and contrast.HE6 and HE7: Critically appraise, critically evaluate, synthesise. HE7 also include: Solve complex problems, develop creative or innovative solutions/ recommendations * Examples of academic skills: information literacy, academic writing, referencing, presentation and research skills ** Examples of life skills: rhetoric, logic, analysis, creativity, planning, time-management, flexibility, communication, negotiation, conflict management, team working, leadership, enterprise, grit and resilience.

Component 4: Programmes at the University of Bolton develop knowledge and skills to ensure graduates achieve their personal, academic and professional goals Consider both specialist and interdisciplinary knowledge – informed by

Benchmark Statements, Apprenticeship Trailblazer Standards, PSRBs (if relevant), as well the present and future needs of industry.

Leading research and scholarly activity should be used to inform curriculum design - to ensure programme content is relevant, current and interesting.

Embed formal opportunities for setting and reflecting on personal, academic and professional goals at each stage of the programme.

Consider how enterprise and work-related learning can be integrated effectively into the teaching learning and assessment of a programme. Work-related learning may include placements, live project briefs, guest speakers, industry visits etc. Note: Keep details of projects, speakers and visits general to allow for flexibility and to ensure CMA guidelines are not breached.

If a programme includes a period of work experience then a Placement Handbook will need to be provided which includes the roles and responsibilities of the student, academic supervisor and placement provider. See the Code of Practice for Work Based and Placement Learning.

110

You may want to consider including an enterprise (or entrepreneurship/intrapreneurship) module in your programme in order to develop creativity, innovation, managed risk-taking and commercial skills.

Component 5: Programmes at the University of Bolton employ effective assessment/ feedback practices which support knowledge and skills development Use a diverse range of relevant assessments - both formative and

summative.

Avoid of over-assessment (No more than 2 assessments per 20 credit module).

Demonstrate diversity and comparability of assessment load across levels though the production of an assessment map.

Allow for flexibility at programme and module level by outlining broad rather than specific strategies for formative and summative assessment.

Component 6: Programmes at the University of Bolton are developed, delivered and evaluated in partnership with students and other stakeholders Current/perspective student opinions must be sought when designing a

programme. Group presentations to students are a useful way of outlining discuss key programme features, as well as gaining feedback.

Potential employer feedback can be sought via email and /or via School Industry Advisory Boards. The draft programme specification together with a brief outline of each module give employers a useful overview.

Apprenticeship and PSRB standards will also influence curriculum content.

Component 7: Programmes at the University of Bolton use resources and technology effectively to support learning, teaching and assessment A list of programme learning resources and specialist resources is

required at validation.

It is expected that learning, teaching and assessment is supported by the use of VLE.

111

Try not to be too specific about technological resources in the programme and module specifications – in order to future-proof them. Promotional materials can contain details of specific resources, as these can be updated when required.

Component 8: Programmes at the University of Bolton provide graduates with the opportunity to develop a unique and effective set of attributes

Consider how graduate attributes can be developed at each level e.g. through explicit skills development, diverse assessments, independent and group learning opportunities, work-related learning, opportunities for reflection on outcomes and progress, personal development planning, knowledge sharing and peer feedback and support.

112

Annex 1: Web Links to References External References:

QAA Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree-Awarding Bodies


QAA Subject Benchmark Statements: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/subject-benchmark-statements

QAA Characteristics Statements: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/characteristics-statements

HEA Transforming Teaching, Inspiring Learning https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/

learning_excellence_summary_v2.pdf Department for Education: Teaching Excellence Framework

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/lt/tef/tefproviders/ NUS Assessment and Feedback Benchmarking Toolhttps://www.nusconnect.org.uk/resources/assessment-and-feedback-

benchmarking-tool

Internal References: University of Bolton Strategic Plan 2015-2020: https://www.bolton.ac.uk/AboutUs/Resources/StrategicPlan.pdf University of Bolton Programme Design and Approval Process: http://www.bolton.ac.uk/Quality/PDA/Home.aspx University of Bolton Learning Development Framework

http://www.bolton.ac.uk/BoltonBusinessSchool/Adam-Student-Experience/Learning-Development-Framework-2016.pdf

113




https://www.bolton.ac.uk/AboutUs/Resources/StrategicPlan.pdf

https://www.nusconnect.org.uk/resources/assessment-and-feedback-benchmarking-tool

https://www.nusconnect.org.uk/resources/assessment-and-feedback-benchmarking-tool

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/lt/tef/tefproviders/

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/learning_excellence_summary_v2.pdf

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/learning_excellence_summary_v2.pdf








Appendix 13b: Guidance on how to achieve and embed the Teaching Intensive Research Informed (TIRI) Curriculum

TEACHING INTENSIVE:

1) Effective support for students’ learningExamples:

A. Greater amount of timetabled contact time than others in the sectorB. Emphasis on academic tutorials to support effective assessment and feedbackC. Academic skills support – programme specific and central supportD. Use of blended learning (VLE) to engage discussion and wider researchE. Employability opportunities including placements, internships and practical workF. Other enrichment activities including guest lectures, visits, trade fairs, exchanges

etc.G. Emphasis on a “learning community” which includes peer, proctor and alumni

support

Demonstrated in: PAF & Programme Handbook Programme Specification: KIS data - Learning Activities Programme Specification: Distinctive Features of the Programme Programme Specification: Support for Student Learning Programme and Module Specifications: Learning and Teaching Strategies Module Specifications: Learning and Teaching Methods (hours of contact)

2) A tailor-made learning experienceA. Skills evaluation on entryB. Opportunities for students to shape the character of delivery and assessmentC. Opportunities for personal development planningD. Bespoke careers guidance

Demonstrated in: PAF & Programme Handbook Programme Specification: Learning Outcomes i.e. Practical, Professional or

Subject- specific Skills and Transferable, Key or Personal Skills Programme Specification: Distinctive Features of the Programme Programme and Module Specifications: Learning and Teaching Strategies Module Specifications: Learning and Teaching Strategies and Assessments

RESEARCH INFORMED:

3) Staff scholarly activity and research informing the curriculum, learning and assessment

Examples:A. Using research and scholarly activity to ensure module content is relevant,

current and interestingB. Using applied research to embed employability into the curriculum

114

C. Using scholarly activity and research to develop effective and innovative learning, teaching strategies

D. Using scholarly activity and research to develop innovative and diverse assessment strategies

Demonstrated in: PAF & Programme Handbook Programme and Module Specifications: Learning and Teaching Strategies Programme Specification: Distinctive Features of the Programme Module Specification: Assessments Staff CVs Staff Development Plan

4) Opportunities for students to engage in active research

Examples:A. Undertaking independent research projectsB. Publishing/co-publishing opportunitiesC. Taking part in research conferencesD. Attending/participating in research seminars/workshops

Demonstrated in: PAF2 & Programme Handbook Programme Specification: Learning Outcomes i.e. Practical, Professional or

Subject- specific Skills and Transferable, Key or Personal Skills Programme Specification: Distinctive Features of the Programme Programme and Module Specifications: Learning and Teaching Strategies Module Specification: Assessments e.g. seminar papers, poster

presentations, dissertations etc.,

115

Appendix 13c: GAME Supporting the Curriculum - OVERVIEW

Please refer to page: https://www.bolton.ac.uk/Quality/PDA/Programme-Approval-Process/Documents/pdf/2018-19/Appendix-13c-GAME-Supporting-the-Curriculum-Overview.pdf

Appendix 13d Guidance on Mapping GAME

All new undergraduate programmes should have Graduate Attributes embedded in modules a systematic way. Each 20 credit module should include the development (and ideally the assessment) up to two attributes and each 40 credit module should include up to 4 attributes.There are 10 attributes (GAME) and each of these should be developed (and ideally assessed) at each level. Please see overleaf for an example of a GAME map. It is recommended that you assign more specialist attributes such as Resilient and Global Citizen first. Collaborative sits well with any modules where there are a group assessment and Life-long learning and Self-aware sit well with PDP and project modules, as well as modules involving critical reflection. Generic attributes such as Problem-solver and Effective communicator which are developed in most modules are best allocated last. Please also refer to Appendix 13c GAME Overview Document to determine the definitions for each attribute. These may be wider than initially thought.If you have any queries, please contact the Head of Standards and Enhancement (Taught Provision).

116

https://www.bolton.ac.uk/Quality/PDA/Programme-Approval-Process/Documents/pdf/2018-19/Appendix-13c-GAME-Supporting-the-Curriculum-Overview.pdf



GAME Mapped to BSc (Hons) Retail Business Management Resilient Problem solver Effective

communicatorGlobal Citizen Enterprising Adaptable Collaborative Confident Lifelong

learningSelf-aware Module

Total

RBM4001 Professional & Academic Skills 1 1 2RBM4002 The UK Retail Industry 1 1 2RBM4003 Retail Business Law 1 1 2

BMP4004 Contemporary issues in Marketing

1 1 2

BMP4005 Information Systems and Big Data Analysis

1 1

BMP4006 People and Performance 1 1 2

RBM5001 Retail Management & Career Development

1 1 1 1 4

RBM5002 Consumer Behaviour 1 1 2RBM5003 Retail Operations 1 1 2

RBM5004 Leading and Managing Work Teams

1 1 2

BMP5006 Financial Management and Decision Making

1 1 2

RBM6000 or RBM6001

Retail Business Management Dissertation/Work Based Project (Retail Management)

1 1 1 1 4

RBM6002 Strategic Retail Business Management

1 1 2

RBM6003 Omni Channel Retailing Strategies

1 1 2

SCM6008 Procurement Management 1 1 2SCM6009 Project Management 1 1 2

BMP6008 Integrated Digital Marketing Strategy

1 1 2

3 6 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 37

1 = Delivered and Assessed

117

Appendix 14: Consultation with employers, professionals and students during programme design The QAA’s Employer Engagement Report (2010) indicates the desirability of employer input into the design of the curriculum to ensure “the relevance, validity and currency of the programme.” Examples of good practice include:

employers identifying demands and needs, informing the development of programmes that address specific skills, knowledge and expertise needs, and/or closure of those that do not;

the contribution of employers to the design of programmes in order to ensure that programmes:

- are relevant, valid and current- develop appropriate skills, knowledge and expertise- provide access to work-relevant tasks and assessment- provide access to industry standard resources- provide access to workplace learning- provide input by industry professionals or others with relevant professional expertise;

The role of PSRBs in embedding academic and professional standards within the curriculum as part of approval and validation processes, and their input into review and monitoring arrangements.

The consultation process:The University requires that programmes are developed in consultation with:

1. Employers/ professionals2. Any relevant Professional Statutory, Regulatory Body (PSRB)3. Students and/or prospective students4. Standards written by Trailblazer Groups for Degree and Higher Degree Apprenticeships

The consultation process is the responsibility of the School/Division. The following consultation format is recommended:

1. Steps are taken early in the process to identify appropriate and willing employers/ professionals (for example the members of an Industry Advisory Board or similar professional network)/ students

2. Employers/ professionals/students receive draft documents prior to consultation meetings and asked for initial feedback. Draft documents to include:

Draft marketing information (Programme leaflet/ prospectus entry) for employers Draft programme specification for students

3. The consultation meetings are scheduled and participation is confirmed (this would normally be an Industry Advisory Board/ Student-Staff Forum)

4. Each participating employer/professional is invited to complete the report template given below, (Appendix 14a). A member of the proposing team completes the report about students’ views (Appendix 14b)

5. The reports from employers are collated and scanned. Copies are submitted to the PDR-folder. The views expressed by the employers are taken into account when designing the programme and help to shape the development of the programme.

6. Standards written by Trailblazer Groups for Degree and Higher Degree Apprenticeships should be embedded in the curriculum.

118

Appendix 14a: Report template for consultation with employers and professionals during programme design

Award and programme title:Course Code:Name of Employer :Job title & organisation:PSRB (if relevant):Date of report:Please return this report by:Please return this report to:

Please confirm that the following materials have been made available to you at and/or prior to the consultation meeting:

Draft marketing information (Programme leaflet/ prospectus entry)YES/NO (delete as relevant). A negative response requires explanation:

Please comment below on the extent to which the proposed programme seems relevant, valid and current.

Please comment below on the extent to which the proposed programme is likely to develop appropriate skills, knowledge and expertise.

Please comment below on the extent to which the proposed programme will provide access to tasks and assessment of relevance to future employment.

Please comment below on the extent to which the proposed programme is likely to provide students with access to industry standard resources/ current thinking and practices in the profession/ industry, as relevant.

Please comment below on whether you/your organisation would be prepared to provide

119

contributions to the programme, for example guest lectures, research project briefs.

Please comment below on whether your organisation would seek to provide work-related learning (live projects) for students to undertake, at the University, whilst on the programmeYES/NO (delete as relevant). If your response is positive, please outline the type of work-related learning that you envisage:

Please comment below on whether your organisation would seek to provide work-based learning (placements) for students to undertake, in your workplace, during their studies.YES/NO (delete as relevant). If your response is positive, what might be the terms (e.g. likely duration, full or part time, payment):

Please comment below on whether your organisation would seek to employ graduates from the proposed programmeYES/NO (delete as relevant). A negative response requires explanation:

Any other comments?

Thank you

Once completed, the Proposer should scan this form and submit it to the PDR.

120

Appendix 14b: Report Template for consultation with students/ applicants during programme development

This template should be used by the Proposer to record how s/he has engaged and consulted students during programme design and development.

Proposed award and programme title:

Course Code:

Name of Programme Leader:

Date of meeting with students / survey of students:

Programme title(s), level of study, status & number of students consulted (please provide details of which programmes the students were drawn from, their level of study & how many students were consulted):

Programme title How many students? At what level of study are these students currently?

Add rows if requiredNature of student engagement:

Please provide details about how students have been engaged in the programme design and development process. Include an indication of the timing of their involvement plus the dates of any meetings / surveys that have been held / conducted:Type hereWhat programme information did you give to the students as part of this process?

Please tick as relevant and/or list additional items

Programme Specification Marketing materials Programme Handbook Module Specifications Module Guide(s) Other (list additional items)Please summarise any comments made by the students that you would wish to bring to the attention of the School/Division/USP.

For example, what do they think about the proposed curriculum or the programme more generally? Please provide both positive & negative opinionsType here (and list the evidence that has been saved in the PDR-folder. For example, questionnaires, email correspondence, minutes of Board of Study or focus group).Please summarise how the programme team has responded to comments made by students during design and development of the proposed programme:

Type hereAny additional comments not covered by the above?

Type here

121

Appendix 15: Template for School to confirm that documents are ready for External Scrutiny Meeting

This template should be used to evidence how the School/Division sign-off stage has been carried out. There must be an appropriate mechanism in place to consider all proposals.

School/Division sign-off reportAward and programme title:Course Code:Date of School/Division sign-off:

Template to be completed and saved to the Proposal Development Record by:Please alert the SEO Secretary once the completed template is in the PDR:

Please confirm how scrutiny and sign-off at School/Division level has been undertaken and provide the names of those involved.

Please list here

Please confirm how the Internal Advisor and the SEO Secretary have been involved in the School/Division sign-off process:

Please provide details (e.g. attendance at meetings, provision of comments electronically to inform the meeting etc.,)

Please confirm that a representative from School/Division level attended the planning meeting to ensure that information regarding deadlines, timescales and the process for receiving and signing off documentation was communicated to appropriate staff within the School/Division:

YES/NO (please delete as appropriate; a negative response requires an explanation)

Please confirm that the Head of School/Division has provided written assurance of the availability of appropriate staff and physical resources for the programme.


123

Please confirm that the following items of documentation have been scrutinised and approved as part of the School/Division sign-off process. A positive response will indicate to the University Standing Panel that the proposal, content and documentation meet internal expectations and have addressed relevant external requirements appropriately.

If further work is required, the School/Division must identify action and agree deadlines for completion prior to consideration by the University Standing Panel:

Document Received and approved – YES/NO (please delete as appropriate; a negative response requires an explanation)

SAF/PAF/CAF/PCF YES/NOProgramme Specification incorporating the learning outcomes map; the assessment methods map; evidence of how the programme meets the TIRI requirement; evidence of how the programme uses for student-centred pedagogy and meets the LTA Strategy; evidence of how the programme meets requirements for enhancement

YES/NO

Programme Handbook(s) YES/NOMentoring/ placement handbook(s) YES/NOStaff CVs and module/ leadership remits YES/NOModule Specifications for all modules YES/NO

Marketing information for course database on web YES/NO Operational Manual(s), where relevant YES/NO Curriculum mapping, where relevant YES/NO How programme meets PSRB accreditation Requirements, where relevant

YES/NO

Evidence of employer/professional engagement YES/NOEvidence of student engagement YES/NOExternal Advisor’s report YES/NOInternal Advisor’s report YES/NO

If applicable, please outline below any further action required and deadlines for completion:

Please list here

Please confirm that there is alignment between the academic standards of the proposed award(s) and the levels referred to in the QAA Framework for HE Qualifications (see UKQC Part A).

YES/NO (please delete as appropriate)

If NO, please specify what additional work is required and provide the deadline for completion:

124

Please confirm that the programme has been written in line with the TIRI agenda, the LTA Strategy and the University enhancement themes.

TIRI: YES/NO (please delete as appropriate)

LTA Strategy: YES/NO (please delete as appropriate)

SE Strategy: YES/NO (please delete as appropriate)

GAME: YES/NO (please delete as appropriate)

Enhancement themes (student-centred pedagogy; digital literacy: employability and enterprise) : YES/NO (please delete as appropriate)

Please list any features of good practice in learning, teaching and assessment that enhance the student experience, which you wish to bring to the attention of the University Standing Panel, for wider dissemination:

Please list here

Please list any recommendations for action that you wish to bring to the attention of the programme team (for consideration and reporting in the Programme Plan):

Please list here

125

Appendix 16a: Generic Agenda for External Scrutiny Meeting

AGENDA Following Steps 8 and 9, and using the checklist from the External Scrutiny Meeting, the Proposer presents the completed documents to the SEO Advisor, Internal Advisor and/or SEO Secretary.

1. To note the current status of the Proposal in relation to:a. Completion of actions required at the External Scrutiny Meeting (Appendix

16b)b. Completeness of the programme documents in the PDR (Appendix 6a)c. Completeness of the process documents in the PDR (Appendix 6a)d. Confirm the date of the University Standing Panel at which the proposal is

to be considered (Appendix 1b)

2. To confirm the availability of the following a. School / Division Sign-Off of the PDR (Appendix 17)b. External Advisor’s Report (Appendix 10d)c. Internal Advisor’s Report (Appendix 11b)

3. To determine whether the proposal:a. can progress to USP on a given date (insert date)b. can progress to a Validation Panel on a given date (insert date)c. requires further development work at School level and to note any

remaining recommendations to modify the proposal.

4. Close .

126

Appendix 16b: Template for Report on Outcomes of External Scrutiny Meeting

Title of proposal:

Date of the meeting:

Participants: (insert role and name)

Recommendations from the meeting: Action to be taken by the Proposing team in response to the recommendations by whom and by when

Insert - add more rows if required)

Any specific recommendations from the employers/ professionals/ PSRB

Any specific recommendations from students

Any specific recommendations from the External Advisor

Name of the Secretary completing this report:

Date of distribution to participants and uploading to PDR:

127

Appendix 17: Template for School to confirm that documents are ready for University level consideration

This template should be used to evidence how the School/Division sign-off stage has been carried out. There must be an appropriate mechanism in place to consider all proposals.

School/Division sign-off reportAward and programme title:Course Code:Date of School/Division sign-off: If more than one meeting took place, please

include all dates. Include details of any scrutiny carried out electronically, if applicable.

Template to be completed and saved to the Proposal Development Record by:Please alert the SEO Secretary once the completed template is in the PDR:

Please confirm how scrutiny and sign-off at School/Division level has been undertaken and provide the names of those involved.

Please list here

Please confirm how the Internal Advisor and the SEO Secretary have been involved in the School/Division sign-off process:

Please provide details (e.g. attendance at meetings, provision of comments electronically to inform the meeting etc.,)

Please confirm that a representative from School/Division level attended the planning meeting to ensure that information regarding deadlines, timescales and the process for receiving and signing off documentation was communicated to appropriate staff within the School/Division:


Please confirm that the Head of School/Division has provided written assurance of the availability of appropriate staff and physical resources for the programme.


128

Please confirm that the following items of documentation have been scrutinised and approved as part of the School/Division sign-off process. A positive response will indicate to the University Standing Panel that the proposal, content and documentation meet internal expectations and have addressed relevant external requirements appropriately.

If further work is required, the School/Division must identify action and agree deadlines for completion prior to consideration by the University Standing Panel:

Document Received and approved – YES/NO (please delete as appropriate; a negative response requires an explanation)

SAF/PAF/CAF/PCF YES/NOProgramme Specification incorporating the learning outcomes map; the assessment methods map; evidence of how the programme meets the TIRI requirement; evidence of how the programme uses for student-centred pedagogy and meets the LTA Strategy; evidence of how the programme meets requirements for enhancement

YES/NO

Programme Handbook(s) YES/NOMentoring/ placement handbook(s) YES/NOStaff CVs and module/ leadership remits YES/NOModule Specifications for all modules YES/NO

Marketing information for course database on web YES/NO Operational Manual(s), where relevant YES/NO Curriculum mapping, where relevant YES/NO How programme meets PSRB accreditation Requirements, where relevant

YES/NO

Evidence of employer/professional engagement YES/NOEvidence of student engagement YES/NOExternal Advisor’s report YES/NOInternal Advisor’s report YES/NO

If applicable, please outline below any further action required and deadlines for completion:

Please list here

Please confirm that there is alignment between the academic standards of the proposed award(s) and the levels referred to in the QAA Framework for HE Qualifications (see UKQC Part A).

YES/NO (please delete as appropriate)

If NO, please specify what additional work is required and provide the deadline for completion:

129

Please confirm that the programme has been written in line with the TIRI agenda, the LTA Strategy and the University enhancement themes.

TIRI: YES/NO (please delete as appropriate)

LTA Strategy: YES/NO (please delete as appropriate)

Enhancement themes (student-centred pedagogy; digital literacy: employability and enterprise) : YES/NO (please delete as appropriate)

Please list any features of good practice in learning, teaching and assessment that enhance the student experience, which you wish to bring to the attention of the University Standing Panel, for wider dissemination:

Please list here

Please list any recommendations for action that you wish to bring to the attention of the programme team (for consideration and reporting in the Programme Plan):

Please list here

130

Appendix 18a: Generic Agenda for PDR Review Meeting

AGENDA Following Steps 8 and 9, the Proposer presents the completed documents to SEO Advisor, Internal Advisor and/or SEO Secretary.

5. To note the current status of the Proposal in relation to:a. Completion of actions required at the External Scrutiny Meeting (Appendix

16b)b. Completeness of the programme documents in the PDR (Appendix 6a)c. Completeness of the process documents in the PDR (Appendix 6a)d. Confirm the date of the University Standing Panel at which the proposal is

to be considered (Appendix 1b)

6. To confirm the availability of the following a. School / Division Sign-Off of the PDR (Appendix 17)b. External Advisor’s Report (Appendix 10d)c. Internal Advisor’s Report (Appendix 11b)

7. To determine whether the proposal:a. can progress to USP on a given date (insert date)b. can progress to a Validation Panel on a given date (insert date)c. requires further development work at School level and to note any

remaining recommendations to modify the proposal.

8. Close .

131

Appendix 19: SEO Secretary’s Report University Standing Panel (Route A only):

For completion at Step 11:

Section 1: Key Programme Information

Date when PDR completed

Programme Award and Title

Course code

SPRDC Approval Date, if relevant

Have any considerations or requirements from SPRDC been addressed satisfactorily?

YES/NO(Delete one, A negative answer requires explanation)

Programmes Committee Approval DateHave any considerations or requirements from Programmes Committee been addressed satisfactorily?

YES/NO(Delete one, A negative answer requires explanation)

Target Award(s) and all exit awards

Mode of attendance Insert full time/ part time / both

Anticipated number of intakes per year

Approved site(s) for delivery of the programmeProposed start date (Month and year)

School or Division

Professional body / awarding body relationship to noteProgramme Leader

Date of External Scrutiny Meeting

Name and location of any relevant Partner Organisation(s)Date of School/ Division sign-off

Internal Advisor’s details and date of IA’s Report including sign-off for progression to USP/ Validation Panel

132

Section 2: Process Details

[Note: The following text to be included as standard]:Documentation has been completed in line with the agreed processes for validation. This documentation has now been stored as evidence within the relevant PDR-folder and may be accessed via the following link: [Note: insert link to the PDR-folder]

Prompt: Please include an overview and any specific points about the process and the approaches adopted by the programme team that you would wish to draw to the attention of the USP/ Validation Panel.

Prompt: Where applicable, a statement should be included to indicate that any actions identified at STEP 8: External Scrutiny Meeting have been completed and the documentation updated accordingly.

Prompt: Where applicable, a statement should be included to indicate that any suggestions/comments included within the External/Internal Advisors’ final reports have/ have not been responded to by the programme team and the documentation updated accordingly.

Section 3: Outcomes of the PDR Review Meeting[Note: The following text to be included as standard]:The proposal has been approved at the PDR Review Meeting to go forward to either the University Standing Panel or a Validation Panel [Note: delete as applicable]

[Note: Route A Proposals ONLY - The following text to be included as standard]:The Internal Advisor and SEO Advisor at the PDR Review Meeting recommended that the programme(s) listed in section one be considered for approval by the University Standing Panel (on behalf of the Education Committee and Senate) to run from (Note: SEO Secretary to insert date), subject to the satisfactory operation of the programme(s) confirmed through the University’s quality assurance mechanisms.

The following Features of Good Practice (FGP) were noted:

From the External Advisor’s report:

From the Internal Advisor’s report:

From the School/Division sign-off report:

The following recommendations were noted: (Programme teams should indicate how recommendations have been considered by providing an update in the next annual Programme Plan)

134

1.

2.

3.

Name of the Secretary:……………………………………………………………………………

Date of report completion:…………………………………………………………………………

135

PROGRAMME APPROVAL HANDBOOKPolicy ref: tbcVersion number 03Version date August 2016, updated September 2017,

September 2018

Role of Developer/ Reviewer Academic RegistrarPolicy Owner (Group/ Centre/Unit) Standards and Enhancement OfficePerson responsible for implementation (post- holder)

Academic Registrar

Approving Committee/ Board Education CommitteeDate approved 8 June 2016;Effective from September 2016Dissemination method (e.g. website) SEO web pages; staff development

sessions;Review frequency Annual updatingReviewing Committee Education CommitteeConsultation history (individuals/groups consulted and dates)

From September 2014 to present Programme Proposers and Panels have piloted the revised approaches on a developmental basis.

Document history (e.g. rationale and dates of previous amendments)

Updated June 2016 for September 2016 to introduce validation by University Standing Panel on the basis of an externally verified proposal development record.

Updated January 2016 to refresh previous guidelines and to align processes with The Quality Code.

First approved by the Academic Board/ Academic Quality and Development Committee, January 2002. Modified: March 2009, October 2014.

136