information systems 28 - middlesex university€¦ · web view3 programme validation, review and...

Programme validation, review and modifications Section 3

3 Programme validation, review and modifications

3.1 Flowchart

3.2 The difference between a validation and review eventAlthough the procedure for validating an existing programme has many similarities with an event for a new programme, it has a different purpose and requires the scrutiny of additional documentation. Therefore a validation of an existing programme (referred to in this publication as ‘review’) should not just be regarded as a ‘re-validation’. Even if an existing programme has not changed its delivery or curriculum since the last validation there is still a need to review in terms of student experience and achievement.

To prevent the repetition of text, 3.3 to 3.6 are to be read in the context of planning for both a validation and review event but 3.7 must also be read when planning for a review. Please also refer to Guidance 3xxvi - The purpose of a programme validation and of a programme review.

3.3 Programme validation3.3.1 PurposeValidation approval is the process by which the School and the University ensures that any programme is academically sound, i.e. the academic standards are appropriate, the curriculum can deliver to the required standards, learning and teaching methods allow achievement of standards, and the assessment appropriately measures achievement of learning outcomes and of standards. In addition, the validation ensures adequate programme-specific resources are available to support the proposal . Please also refer to Guidance 3xxvi - The purpose of a programme validation and of a programme review.

For most validations a formal event is required. This applies to in house programmes (including MU overseas campuses) and collaborative provision. A formal validation event is required for all new programmes although those

http://www.mdx.ac.uk/Assets/section3.doc updated 06jan14 2013/14

AQS

Assurance Committee

Review

APACApproved proposal

APACApproved proposal

Validation / Review

AQS

Assurance Committee

AQS submits validation report overview

AQS submits validation report overview

Review report Validation/ review report

http://www.mdx.ac.uk/Assets/section3.doc


programmes made up of existing validated modules may, by agreement of APAC, be validated by School Committee with external input

any significant change to an existing programme, The significance of the change will be considered by APAC and guidance given as to whether the School Committee is able to approve the validation with external agreement. (3.8.3)

However, minor changes do not normally require the approval of the APAC. Detailed information regarding minor changes, and associated procedure, is also within 3.8.3

3.3.2 Collaborative programmes - definitionsThe University recognises three broad categories of collaborative programme: joint franchised validated

The Handbook uses the term ‘validated’ in two senses. The first broad sense is related to any programme whatsoever that has been ‘validated’, meaning that the programme has had formal approval by a University Validation Panel. The second sense is used specifically in relation to collaborative provision and refers to a ‘validated’ programme (see below).

Joint programme – a University programme, or part thereof, leading to a qualification of the University, developed, delivered and assessed jointly with a Partner Institution (or Institutions) and quality assured by the University.

Franchised programme – a University programme, or part thereof, leading to a qualification of the University, designed, assessed and quality assured by the University but delivered at and by a Partner Institution.

Validated programme – a programme of study, developed, assessed and delivered by a Partner Institution, awarded by and ultimately quality assured by the University.

3.3.3 Timing, location and expensesNo validation event for a programme due to start in September or January should occur after the preceding May or October respectively, unless by approval of the Chair of APAC. This applies to all variants of validation procedure at both programme and module level as detailed later in this chapter.

Normally, the validation event must be located at the University campus in which the programme will be delivered and for collaborative programmes at the partner institution. This is to allow viewing of the facilities/resources pertaining to the programme and to provide assurance that the programme meets its specification. However, for collaborative programmes the School may apply via APAC to hold the Validation at the University or by video conference. There are charges to Collaborative Partners for validation and review events of joint, franchised and validated programmes. Further information can be obtained by contacting the AQS team or Academic Partnerships.




3.3.4 ResponsibilitiesSchoolThe Officer co-ordinates and manages the process of validation at School level, including arranging the pre-meeting, documentation, panel, event and reporting. The Officer for the event is responsible for any follow-up required.

The relevant Deputy Dean has responsibility for the overall quality of the event. If serious problems arise, or if the proposed event departs significantly from standard procedures, the Officer or relevant Deputy Dean should consult AQS.

The University Link Tutor ensures that staff involved in the collaborative programme are fully informed of procedures.

UniversityThe Validation Panel is appointed to act on behalf of the University’s Assurance Committee and takes full responsibility for its collective decision. AQS advises Schools about validation and review and writes an annual report to the Assurance Committee reporting on the process for all programmes including accredited partners.

There are detailed guidance documents for the roles of: Officer (Guidance 3i), Programme Leader (Guidance 3ii) and Panellists (Guidance 3iii)

3.3.4 Procedure 3.3.4.1 Preparation meeting for a validationAny formal Validation should be preceded by a School preparation meeting to discuss: the proposal the timetable for preparation the Panel draft documentation (including Programme Specification - Appendix 3f) practical arrangements for the event.

Guidance on designing a curriculum is available in Guidance 3viii, and a template for programme handbooks in Appendices 3i-3l.

The meeting is: Chaired by the relevant Deputy Dean (or nominee). Held far enough in advance of the formal event to allow for necessary correction

and circulation of documents. Attended by the key programme team members, the Officer, and any important

contributors to the programme development, whether internal or external to the University.

If the event involves members too distant to attend, a telephone or other link can be used to receive their input during the meeting.

The checklist of officer duties and the list of documentation (see Guidance 3i) should be used as a prompt. Discussion should include the draft agenda (Appendix 3n may be useful), timetable and practical arrangements. Notes of the working meeting are



Programme validation, review and modifications Section 3not presented as part of the formal paperwork for the event, but are used as an action list (and should be kept for reference where possible).

3.3.4.2 People involved in a validation The Validation Panel usually comprises the following members (see Guidance 3iii for information on the roles and responsibilities of each member, and section 3.4 for specific information for Distance Education validations): Officer

Chair and a University representative Please note that:

- Both should normally be a senior member of staff familiar with University procedures.

- Either the Chair or the University Representative must have experience of working actively with students in a learning, teaching and assessment capacity.

- Both the Chair and the University Representative can be from the same School as each other although every effort should be made to use a Chair and a University Representative from different Schools

- The Chair should not be from the same School as the programme which is being validated.

- The University Representative can be from the same School as the programme which is being validated although he/she must be from a different department.

Professional statutory and/or regulatory body representative(s) Co-Chair as appropriate

One/two External Assessors using the following criteria:

a. An External Assessor's academic/professional qualifications should be appropriate to the proposal to be validated/reviewed.Both the level and the subject of the assessor's qualifications should generally match the proposal to be validated or reviewed. In many cases practical or professional skills/achievement may be equally relevant. At least one External Assessor must also have appropriate recent, but not necessarily current, experience and knowledge of UK Higher Education – such as recent experience of teaching and assessing on UK HE qualifications or setting the standards of such qualifications.

b. An External Assessor should have appropriate standing, expertise and experience to maintain comparability of standards. This may be indicated by: the present (or last, if retired) post and place of work the range and scope of experience across higher

education/professions current and recent active involvement in

research/scholarly/professional activities in the field of study concerned

c. External Assessors should be drawn from a wide variety of institutional/professional contexts and traditions in order that the programme benefits from wide-ranging external scrutiny. There should not be: more than one assessor from the same institution on the Panel




reciprocal external assessing between programmes or departments in two institutions

d. External Assessors should be impartial in judgement and should not have previous close involvement with the University or collaborative partner which might compromise objectivity. Over the last three years, the proposed External Assessor should not have been: A member of staff, a governor, a student, or a near relative of a

member of staff of the University/partner. An External Examiner on a cognate subject/programme in the

University/partner or a collaborative partner institution. Involved as External Examiner for the proposal when it was approved

by another validating body. A member of staff at the University/partner, or Teaching on a Middlesex University Award run by a collaborative

partner institution.

e. External Assessors should not normally be a member of a Panel if they have been an External Assessor at MU in the last 18 months. Officers can access spreadsheets AQS.

Exceptions to criteria c) and d) for External Assessor arrangements may occur in programme areas where the number of experts is limited. In these circumstances AQS asks the School for confirmation that the external is objective and impartial in their role. The Higher Education Academy may be a useful source for External Assessors (www.heacademy.ac.uk )

See Guidance 3i for a table of panel compositions according to the type of validation.

In addition the following attend the Validation event for meetings with the panel:

senior School staff - the Dean of School and/or the relevant Deputy Dean (and other(s), such as the Head of Department, as relevant). If the proposal is heavily cross-curricular, senior staff from the other schools are also involved

programme team – the team usually includes: the Programme Director, Programme Leader and members of team and the Liason Manager from Library and Student Services. If relevant: key technicians, administrators, English Language Learning Support staff, careers manager and external institutions/businesses or other University staff

and for collaborative events senior staff: the Principal (or representative) of the institution (as appropriate). programme Team, including the University and Institution Link Tutors.



http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/


3.3.4.3 Documentation For a detailed explanation of each document’s contents and who has responsibility, see Guidance 3i. (Guidance 3ii lists those which are only the responsibility of the Programme Leader). Validation documents should be numbered in the order that the Officer thinks appropriate:

a. agendab. officer paperc. APAC Form with the extract of the APAC minute of approvald. report on completion of APAC conditions (if any)e. overview document (for validations) or self critical review (for reviews) (See

Guidance 3xxvii)programme handbook including indicative assessment schedulef. QAA Quality Code section A2: Subject Benchmarks, Qualification Framework

and, if applicable, the Foundation Degree Qualification Benchmark or the Masters Characteristics or PSRB standards (not required for franchised programmes)

g. Curriculum Design – Academic Policy Statement: APS18 http://www.mdx.ac.uk/Assets/curriculum_design.pdf (Validated programmes only need to follow the principles and this policy does not need to be included for franchised events)

h. draft programme marketing materiali. fully updated CVs or abbreviated CVsj. an event evaluation form, for feedback on the running of the event (Appendix 3d)

Additional documents for collaborative events:k. the Institutional Visit/Waiver Report (only for new partners)l. the Institution’s regulations (subject to Academic Registry approval in advance)m.n. Additional documents for External Assessors:o. the University Regulations; Appendix 3b, Section 3, Guidance 3iii –Roles and

Responsibilities of Panel Members, Guidance 3ix - Diversity in relation to Validation and Review; area/campus maps, and map/directions to hotel if needed; expenses claim form

For extending the levels of delivery for an existing franchised programme, only the following should be included: the latest validation report the last Quality/Annual Monitoring Report student feedback and Boards of Study minutes External Examiner reports any other relevant information

3.3.4.4 Distribution of documentationDocumentation should be submitted to the School three weeks in advance of the event. Papers are sent out two weeks before the event is to be held. The relevant Deputy Dean or Chair may postpone the event if there is a serious delay in the papers being distributed or if, upon receipt of the papers, they deem the documentation to be unacceptable for the event to proceed.

A full set of papers is produced for the: panel programme team (as appropriate)



http://www.mdx.ac.uk/Assets/curriculum_design.pdf

Programme validation, review and modifications Section 3One copy should be retained within the School with any other relevant documentation for audit purposes

The agenda is sent, for information, to the: School Quality Enhancement Manager (Validation and Review), AQS Admissions Technical Development Manager Director of Academic Partnerships (collaborative events only) Regional Office, where applicable (overseas collaborative programmes only)

3.3.4.5 The validation event A suggested agenda is available in Appendix 3n. The following is a list of meetings which are likely to occur, but is not an agenda: private Panel meeting tour of facilities (if appropriate) meeting with Senior School staff and programme teams further private Panel meeting

Middlesex courses which are not taught/assessed in English must follow the conditions listed in Guidance 3xx.

The Panel should consider and discuss the following in relation to the academic standards of the programme and quality of opportunity afforded by the proposal:a. whether the aims and outcomes are appropriate and can be achieved through

the teaching and learning strategy. Are these supported by the curriculum, whether achievement of aims and outcomes can be demonstrated by the assessment methods and if all module learning outcomes are assessd summatively. These questions should be made with reference to the Curriculum Design – Academic Policy Statement: APS18 (http://www.mdx.ac.uk/Assets/curriculum_design.pdf) which should be followed exactly for all in-house, joint and franchised Learning Framework programmes. Non-Framework programmes (mainly validated collaborative programmes) should follow the principles of this policy although arrangements for level 4 assessment need not necessarily be followed

b. whether the proposal has taken into consideration the relevant QAA Subject benchmark or national standard laid down by a PSRB and is appropriately placed within the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications

c. whether the appropriate programme-specific resources are in place to support the proposal

d. whether the Programme Specification (Appendix 3f) has been completed appropriately

e. whether the proposal is consistent with the University policies and strategies; and

f. where a university qualification is delivered by a university Service, the validation documentation and programme handbook sets out clearly the staff who will undertake various roles normally associated with a school

3.3.4.6 Franchised programmes and extended approvalThe suggested agenda templates, Appendices 3n-o, detail consideration for all collaborative programmes but it is necessary to note that a University programme normally operates successfully at the University for at least two years before being



http://www.mdx.ac.uk/Assets/curriculum_design.pdf

Programme validation, review and modifications Section 3considered for franchising. Therefore at a franchised validation it is not possible to make changes to the content of the programme which may be running elsewhere in the UK or overseas. The event would focus much more on administrative, resourcing and learning experience matters and should not contain conditions in relation to the academic content of the programme.

If APAC extends approval for higher levels of a qualification, parts of which have already been approved, a Validation could still be required (e.g. to franchise the 2nd year of a degree programme). The Panel should ensure that approval decisions are informed by full consideration of academic standards and the quality of the learning opportunities. The report records issues under these areas.

3.3.4.7 Conditions, recommendations and length of approvalOnce a new programme is validated, it is normally incorporated within the six-year School review cycle, and is subject to the University monitoring and audit. However, a panel can request a shorter period of time before review – the reasons for this should be clearly recorded in the validation report.

The panel can set the programme team conditions and recommendations as the outcome of the validation event. We define these as follows:

Condition: an important matter which the Panel believes would currently, or could potentially, put quality and/or standards at risk and which requires urgent corrective action or requires preventative corrective action (possibly through a longer term condition) or is a university requirement.

Recommendation: a matter which the Panel believes has the potential, if addressed, to enhance quality and/or further secure standards.

The possible outcomes of the event are as follows:a. Unconditional approval (without conditions, though perhaps with

recommendations).b. Approval subject to the meeting of conditions;c. Approval subject to the meeting of conditions but for less than the standard 6

years;d. Rejected and referred back for further work.

Recommendations can be for (a) to (c) above, but do not have to be met in order for the programme to run.

3.3.4.8 Post validation event The Officer should follow the report template (Appendix 3b) where relevant, and record issues if discussed under the headings.

The unconfirmed report should be circulated to: all panel members and senior staff at event Programme Leader(s) (for discussion with Team) the School Quality Enhancement Manager (Validation and Review) , AQS

The confirmed report should be circulated within six weeks (allowing for University closures) to: the above (but for action of the programme team rather than discussion). the Dean/relevant Deputy Dean of School Director of Academic Partnerships (collaborative events only) anyone not at event, but involved in follow-up actions



Programme validation, review and modifications Section 3 anyone invited to, but absent from, the event

The outcome of the validation is noted at the Assurance Committee as part of an interim and annual report by the School Quality Enhancement Manager (Validation and Review), AQS. The annual report includes identification of good practice for University dissemination. If University issues arise during the validation, the Officer forwards a copy of the report to the appropriate Service or School.

Meeting of conditionsa. The Programme Leader, in collaboration with the partner if applicable, is

responsible for submitting an itemised written response to any conditions of approval (please use Appendix 3c where possible) and a revised draft of the programme handbook, to the Officer. The Officer will then submit to the Chair of the event for consideration. The latest date for conditions to be met for a September/January start should normally be 31 July/30 November respectively.

b. An itemised written response to recommendations is also sent by the Officer to the Chair for consideration. Although recommendations do not have to be adopted, a rationale for non-adoption is mandatory (please use Appendix 3c).

c. If the response is satisfactory, the Chair signs part A of the Confirmation Form (Appendix 3e). If the validation was for an in-house programme then the Officer circulates the Confirmation Form to those listed at the end of the Confirmation Form. In the case of a collaborative programme, the Memorandum of Co-Operation must be agreed and signed by both the Partner and the University, following which, the Director of Academic Partnerships and theDeputy Chief Executive will sign Part B of the Appendix 3e. The programme is not validated to run until this form has been signed and the Chair of the Assurance Committee has the authority to halt a proposed intake if conditions are not fulfilled.

d. Deadlines exceeded by more than 1 month (with no request for an extension) are notified to the Chair of APAC and the Assurance Committee with immediate effect.

e. In the event of a lack of agreement between the programme team and the Chair, the School has the right of appeal to Academic Board.

f. In cases of absence of the Chair of an event, the Director of AQS and University Representative jointly sign off the event after being provided with the appropriate evidence that conditions have been fulfilled.

g. The Officer is responsible for other post event actions, including passing on programme information for entering onto MISIS. This is detailed at the end of Guidance 3i.

3.3.4.9 Memorandum of Cooperation for Collaborative programmesBefore a collaborative programme can be offered and students enrolled, the Memorandum of Cooperation must be signed. This applies after both a validation event for a new programme and a review event for a revalidated programme. Once the conditions have been met and the Chair has signed Part A of Confirmation of a Validation or Review (form 3e), the Officer will obtain a signature from the Deputy Chief Executive and the Director of Academic Partnerships, who will sign part B to declare that all necessary parts of the MoC have been completed and signed by both Middlesex University and the partner institution.

The MoC, including its Financial and Administrative Annexes and subsequent Addenda, is the contractual document governing the operation and management of the programme. No programme will be allowed to commence without a signed MoC and fully signed Confirmation of a Validation or Review form. In the case of a revalidation, no students can be recruited to the revalidated programme until the MoC and Confirmation of a Validation or Review form has been signed.




Once both parts A and B of the Confirmation Form have been signed the Officer can then circulate to those listed at the end of the Form. AQS retain a copy for University oversight.

3.3.4.10 Validation of a resubmitted proposal The Programme Leader acts on the action list from the referred back validation or review event. The revised, resubmitted papers include a covering document which lists in detail the action taken by the team to strengthen the resubmitted proposal, including any consultancy or staff development undertaken.

The Panel for a resubmitted event should normally have one original External Assessor and one new External Assessor and either the Chair or the University Representative from the original event.

3.3.4.11 Non recruitmentValidation approval will lapse if a programme does not recruit for two years in succession.

1st year of non-recruitment:

Details of why the programme has not recruited should be included in the relevant department/partner Quality/Annual Monitoring Report (A/QMR) and noted at the appropriate School committee. In the event that the programme has not recruited and an A/QMR is not produced it should be noted in the School QMR, then either the University HoD, DoP or Link Tutor should ensure that the School is informed of the circumstances. The Centre for Academic Partnerships should also be informed for collaborative programmes.

2nd year of non-recruitment:

Should follow the process as for the first year but in addition the relevant Deputy Dean will inform APAC.

Re-instating a lapsed programme validation:

The School should apply for APAC approval by submitting the original APAC application but with additional information as to why the programme has not recruited and what the team proposes to do to ensure the programme will be viable in the future. APAC will decide if the business case is still viable and agree the most appropriate method of renewing the validation.

3.3.5 Validation of programmes to run at new sites or campuses of approved institutionsProgramme validation will be combined with site approval, involving the same team (see section 5, 5.2.4.1). The overall purpose of validation remains as outlined in 3.1-3.4 and to ensure that arrangements at the new sites are sufficient for the successful delivery of the programme(s), including ensuring that adequate programme-specific resources are available to support the proposal;




A student handbook, CVs of staff responsible for delivery of teaching and a resource statement should be available to the panel. The panel will ensure that arrangements for managing multi-site delivery are appropriate to ensure comparability of the student experience and maintain quality and standards across all sites at which programmes are delivered.

AQS3.4 Distance Education (DE)The University is responsible for ensuring programmes provided at a distance are designed so that the academic standards are appropriate and that the student experience is equivalent to that of students studying similar programmes at the University.

3.4.1 DefinitionDistance education is taken to mean programmes or parts of programmes explicitly designed to provide for students who are geographically removed from the university or partner institutions. Students studying on distance education programmes may be resident in the UK or overseas.

Distance education programmes may be facilitated and delivered to students by a variety of media, including paper, video, audio and e-learning. In some cases the University may also use local partners to support the delivery of the educational experience to the students. As discussed in Guidance 3x all materials for modules to be delivered by distance education, regardless of mode of delivery, should identify a pedagogical model and provide an explanation and rationale for selecting this model.

3.4.2 Scope

The programme will be regarded as distance education where more than 50% of the teaching is not delivered face to face. This includes programmes where there is a combination of modes that enable students to study remotely from the campus, for example a blend of work based learning modules, distance education modules and modules taught face to face. If a programme falls within this definition, the development team will need to provide all the content for one module as part of the paperwork at the validation event. In this instance the validation should include a panel member with distance education experience.

Where the programme is not defined as distance education but includes module(s) delivered in distance education mode, the modules must have been designed in accordance with the Guidance of the Design of Distance Education (Guidance 3x). The validation will not require a DE panellist but the team may find it helpful to include a panel member with distance education experience. Where distance education modules form part of the programme, the development team will need to provide a substantial example of the materials in DE format (at least 25% of the total module materials) that demonstrate use of a pedagogical model.

3.4.3 ProcedurePreparation & planningStaff considering the creation of a DE programme, or the translation of University modules into DE mode, should contact the Educational Development Team within



Programme validation, review and modifications Section 3AQS for guidance, prior to submitting the programme to APAC to enable the assignment of appropriate development support to assist in the design, development, validation and delivery of the programme’

The following information may help with the design of distance education programmes: guidance 3x – Guidance of the Design of Distance Education guidance 3xi – Good Practice in Designing and Approving Distance Education

programmes or modules AQS website – Templates for Developing Open and Distance Learning Materials

(contact the Educational Development Manager).

Other relevant publications include: Policy on the ‘Use of Educational Technology’

http://www.mdx.ac.uk/Assets/use_of_technology.pdf Strategy on the ‘Use of Educational Technology’

http://www.mdx.ac.uk/Assets/use_of_tech_plan.pdf QAA Quality Code Chapters A2: The Subject and Qualification Level; Chapter

B10: Management of Collaborative arrangements and Chapter B5: Student Engagement http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/quality-code/Pages/default.aspx

For programme teams planning DE programmes, the Educational Development Team can run workshops on request and/or provide staff development and support for planning and authoring DE materials and facilitating e-learning. Programme teams should contact the Educational Development Manager as early as possible in the planning process. It is strongly recommended that DE materials should be tested with students and a (sample) first draft approved by the Educational Development Team prior to being presented for validation.

Panel For a distance education Validation/Review the University Representative or Chair of the event should be a AQS-approved panellist who has experience of DE. An approved list of people is available at: http://www.intra.mdx.ac.uk/ouruniversity/services/clte/programme-validation/index.aspx

In addition Schools should seek to appoint an External Assessor with distance education experience where possible.

DocumentationIn addition to the standard requirements, the Programme Leader Overview should:a. Highlight how the reference points and guidance above have been used in

designing the programme.b. Show how materials and activities are designed to support student learningc. Include information on updating and enhancing learning materials.d. Indicate how the reliability of the delivery system has been tested, and indicate

contingency plans which are in place in the event of the failure of the designed modes of delivery.

e. Indicate how the delivery of any study materials is fit for purpose, and has appropriate availability and life expectancy.

f. Indicate that delivery of any study materials direct to students remotely is secure and reliable, and that there is a safe means of confirming receipt.

g. State any particular roles and responsibilities in relation to the provision of e-resources especially with respect to license arrangements for access to said resources outside of the UK.



http://www.intra.mdx.ac.uk/ouruniversity/services/clte/programme-validation/index.aspx

http://www.intra.mdx.ac.uk/ouruniversity/services/clte/programme-validation/index.aspx

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/quality-code/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/quality-code/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.mdx.ac.uk/Assets/use_of_tech_plan.pdf

http://www.mdx.ac.uk/Assets/use_of_technology.pdf

Programme validation, review and modifications Section 3h. State arrangements for any distance education support centres specifically with

request to support from Learning Resources’ Web Helpdesk.i. (http://webhelpdesk.mdx.ac.uk) and Online Enquiry Services, ‘Ask A Librarian’

(http://askalibrarian.mdx.ac.uk). j. Provide details of any specific quality assurance mechanisms employed by the

School for distance education.k. Show how e-learning resources and methods have been used to support the

student learning experience.l. Show how Information Literacy issues will be addressed in the design of the

curriculum with respect to using e-resources.m. A structured outline of the whole programme should be provided to the panel in

the documentation.n. For a DE programme an example should normally be provided of at least one

complete module (or a proportion of more than one module, as agreed with EDU) of learning materials typical for the programme (e.g. 30 credits at undergraduate level, 15 or more credits at postgraduate level), together with outline plans, including the Module Narratives and assessment strategies, for all modules. If students are to use solely electronic media and not hard copy for the purposes of their learning then the Panel should have access to the electronic resources in advance of the validation in order to familiarise themselves with the materials. Where a hybrid of electronic and hard copy is provided it may be necessary to produce a guide leading the External Assessor through the material provided.

o. A clear production schedule (calendar) for further modules should be provided with clearly stated deadline dates, responsibilities etc. (Validation is subject to such deadlines being met.

3.4.4 The eventAt the event particular consideration should be given to: The learning, teaching and assessment strategies within which learning materials

are intended to be used. Clarity of content and presentation Communications channels for delivery including administrative underpinning and

student contact. Student feedback arrangements including Boards of Study and student feedback

forms (ensuring anonymity). Academic, pastoral and study skills support. Assessment arrangements: identification and location of examination centres;

awareness of time zones; supervision, security of papers, arrangements for vivas (where applicable); involvement of local agencies and staff in delivery of the programme; ensuring assessed work is attributed to students where IT-based or remote methods are used; ensuring that the assessment process is capable of ensuring that the student’s assessed work is the original work of the student.

Updating and enhancing materials (frequency, etc). Staff training, both to those in the University and in local agencies; relevance of

staff experience and expertise, sensitivity to regional and cultural context, etc.

In cases where a distance education support centre is to be used, a resource visit to the Centre by a member of the Panel (or nominee) with experience of distance education and knowledge of the subject matter would be required. The panel member should consider the areas outlined in Guidance 3xxi, Guidance for the support of distance education support centres.

The validation may concentrate as much on issues of programme delivery and administration as on the academic content.



http://askalibrarian.mdx.ac.uk/

http://webhelpdesk.mdx.ac.uk/


3.4.5 Post validation/reviewProgramme Teams will be required (with the support of the Educational Development Team) to “sign off” each additional DE module developed post validation using the form provided in Appendix 3v verifying that the structure, processes and materials are of an equivalent standard to those presented to the validation panel. The Educational Development Team will monitor the completion schedules presented at validation and will advise both the programme team and the Academic Quality Unit of any slippage in the schedule.

3.5 Validation or review by school committeeThis procedure is designed for those occasions when a proposal is either small or straightforward and may be validated or reviewed by School Committee. Such occasion would be approved by APAC. Examples of such proposals include: A new programme created mainly from existing University modules, or A change in programme status (e.g. introducing an additional or changed mode

of study). Occasionally where an existing partner wishes to offer a new programme which

is in a cognate area, a visit to the partner may not be required. The school event or committee should include a resource statement (substituting for visit),documentation (CVs etc) and other requirements as agreed with AQS andAPAC.

The overall purpose of validation/review remains as outlined in 3.3 and the documentation required is the same. The Committee meeting should include an appropriate External Assessor (may be via correspondence) and a copy of the minutes and an Appendix 3e should be circulated as normal.

3.6 Validation of programmes to be run at overseas campuses3.6.1 Purpose

3.6.1.1 The procedure is designed for approving or validating programmes to run at already approved overseas campuses.

3.6.1.2 The overall purpose of validation remains as outlined in 3.1-3.4 and therefore we need to assure ourselves that: Arrangements at the overseas campus are sufficient for the successful delivery

of the programme, including ensuring that adequate programme-specific resources are available to support the proposal;

3.6.1.3 The procedure to be followed in each case is proportionate to the potential risk involved in programme set up, delivery and management.

3.6.1.4 Please note that there are separate procedures for the opening and review of an overseas campus.

3.6.2 Scope3.6.2.1 The procedure applies to programmes to be run at both (i) new or recently approved campuses and (ii) established campuses. However, there are some differences between (i) and (ii) as outlined later in the procedure.

3.6.2.2 It is also based on the following scenarios:



Programme validation, review and modifications Section 3Scenario A The proposed programme runs at London campuses, and there are already programmes at the same level in the same or a cognate subject area running at the overseas campus wanting to deliver the proposed programme;

Scenario BThe proposed programme runs at London campuses, but represents a greater level of risk for delivery at the overseas campus. The types of risk in this category could include – (i) there are not currently any programmes running in a cognate subject area at the overseas campus in question (based on JACS codes); (ii) the programme is at a level not currently being delivered in a cognate subject area at that campus;(iii) the programme requires the use of highly specialist resources or equipment which the campus does not already have; (iv) any other risk as identified by APAC.

Scenario CThe proposed programme is new, and will be validated for delivery at both London and one or more overseas campuses;

Scenario DThe proposed programme is new, and will be validated for delivery at an overseas campus only.

3.6.3 Procedures

3.6.3.1 Scenario Aa. Consideration and approval of the programme proposal through the relevant

School- based Committee (such as APC).b. Consideration and approval of the programme proposal from APAC.c. Resource requirements are provided by the London programme team to the

overseas campus.d. Confirmation is received from the Campus Director (or nominee), who confirms

that the resources, including staffing, can be provided.e. The confirmation is noted via the relevant School Committee, and AQS is then

notified.

3.6.3.2 Scenario Ba. Consideration and approval of the programme proposal through the relevant

School-based Committee.b. Consideration and approval of the programme proposal from APAC.c. Where the risk concerns resources or if agreed by APAC, a campus visit needs

to be undertaken by member of school-based staff to establish the appropriateness of the resources for delivery of the programme.

d. Programme handbook (or programme specification and Module Narratives), resource statement and staff CVs to be provided to an external assessor for their consideration and approval, and the outcome noted at the relevant School Committee. Where a campus visit has taken place, a report on this also needs to be provided to the external examiner for approval. AQS is then notified of the outcome.

3.6.3.3 Scenario Ca. Consideration and approval of the programme proposal through the relevant

School Committee and then APAC.



Programme validation, review and modifications Section 3b. Validation of the programme through the standard procedures outlined from 3.3.3

with the following additions: (i) the event should normally take place at the London campus; (ii) an overseas campus resource statement to be provided in the briefing pack for the validation event; (iii) overseas campus involvement in validation by video conferencing or in person, where appropriate.

3.6.3.4 Scenario D a. Consideration and approval of the programme proposal through the relevant

School Committee and then APAC.b. Validation of the programme through the standard procedures outlined from 3.3.3

with the following additions: (i) the event should normally take place at the overseas campus.

3.6.4 Additional information to be considered for new or recently established overseas campuses

3.6.4.1 APAC monitors the progress with the set up of the campus, as per the procedure in Section 13. If this review is successful, then the campus becomes ‘established’. Until such time that the campus becomes ‘established’, it will not be possible to undertake Scenario D validations.

3.6.5 TimingExcept in exceptional circumstances, no validation event for a programme due to start in September should occur after May of that year, unless agreed by the Chair of APAC.

3.6.6 Duration of approvalFor scenarios A and B, approval lasts until the date for review of the programme as validated on the London campus.

For Scenarios C and D, the period of approval would be agreed at validation. The standard period of approval is 6 years, though a shorter period could be approved.

3.7 Programme review3.7.1 PurposeA Review may be held as part of the usual School 6 yearly cycle for review; or it may be specially convened: As a result of major restructuring to the programme structure/content – in these

cases the Review focuses on the reasons which caused the review to take place and any requirements of external bodies.

As a result of serious problems in relation to a programme (eg. an adverse External Examiner report or other feedback). The issues need to be fully discussed in advance at the appropriate level of seniority and a proposed solution brought to the Review.

In response to a requirement laid down by the original validation – this Review should focus on the particular issues identified (e.g. those associated with an experimental mode of delivery), or

To meet a professional body requirement – AQS should be notified and may be involved in preparations for the event.



Programme validation, review and modifications Section 3Whatever the reason, approval for the Review must be given by the APAC, following Section 2.

Review is intended to consider: Changes to external reference points such as subject benchmark statements,

PSRB requirements. Changes in student demand, employer expectations and employment

opportunities. The continuing validity and relevance of aims and outcomes in relation to

research in the area, professional practice, etc. The effect of incremental change to the programme(s) during their period of

validation. Current research and practice in relevant disciplines. The extent to which the curriculum continues to support the achievement of

outcomes and assessment continues to demonstrate achievement of outcomes The extent to which the use of e-learning is appropriately embedded within the

curriculum to support student achievement of the learning outcomes. The extent to which resources are appropriate to enable students to achieve

learning outcomes. The effectiveness of mechanisms for quality assurance that seek to optimise the

student learning experience (including student recruitment and admissions; student feedback; student issues; academic and pastoral support; peer observation; staff development plans).

The effectiveness of mechanisms to assure standards.

Please also refer to Guidance 3xxvi - The purpose of a programme validation and of a programme review.

3.7.2 ScopeReviews cover all programmes, including MU overseas campuses and collaborative programmes. Reviews are arranged by cognate groups of programmes where possible. It is important to ensure an appropriate balance between the size of the provision to be scrutinised and the length of the Review.

MU Overseas campuses Where reviews include provision delivered on a Middlesex University overseas campus, the review documentation will include the relevant documentation and resource statements relating to the programme(s) offered at the campus(es). A representative from each campus offering the programme(s) will be invited to attend the review event for meetings with the panel. A video/tele conference will take place with students and where necessary also with programme staff.

Franchised programmesFor franchised programmes this can be as: Part of the periodic Review of the in-house programme and would include a

resource statement, representation and feedback from all partners to which the programme is franchised, and feedback from their students; or:

It can be reviewed on its own six yearly cycle. Where this is the case the views of staff and students must be taken into consideration at the in-house review and confirmation from the partner(s) must be provided that any additional resource requirements can be met.



Programme validation, review and modifications Section 3In addition to the considerations in 3.7.1 there should be discussions of: Comparative performance of students on collaborative and parent (or similar)

University programmes. Placement arrangements in line with Guidance 3xii Guidelines for Validation and

Review Panels for Placement Learning for Franchised and Validated programmes.

On a part-programme franchise: measures taken to prepare students to come to the University induction programme on arrival into the 2nd or final year of the University; and integration of cohorts of students of different nationalities.

Location The Review will normally be held at the University for in-house programmes, and also for franchise and joint programmes. Where the review of a franchised programme is undertaken on its own six yearly cycle, the review event should be held at the partner, or by video conferencing. If the Review is conducted at the University, the Link Tutor and key staff from the partner institution attend the event and there must be satisfactory arrangements for assessment of student opinion of the programme.

The review of a validated collaborative programme would normally be held at the partner.

Where a programme is running on more than one site, the review can be held at the main partner site, but key programme and teaching staff from all sites must attend the review event. Documentation will include resource statements from each of the sites offering the programme. Arrangements should be made for students from all sites to contribute to the event.

Where multi-site provision with a partner is complex, a resource visit may be required, as determined by AQS on a case-by-case basis. This will be undertaken by a senior member of School staff or a panel member, together with an external assessor.

3.7.3 Procedure3.7.3.1 Preparatory meetingThe structure of this meeting is the same as detailed in 3.3.4.1 but using the suggested review agenda template, Appendix 3o, to prompt discussion.

3.7.3.2 People involved in a reviewThe people who can be involved are the same as for 3.3.4.2 but for reviews smaller panels may be appropriate. See Guidance 3i for a table of panel compositions according to the type of Review.

For a review there is an additional meeting of the panel with: Students who should represent a cross-section of the current cohorts including

overseas campuses. Where possible, meetings with graduates of the programme.

3.7.3.3 Writing the agendaThe review event should be informed by the agenda which will have been drafted by the Officer and if possible approved by the Chair. The agenda items should not only state the meetings which comprise the event but the purpose of each. This will assist



Programme validation, review and modifications Section 3the chair if not the other panel members and those attending meetings. Appendix 3o is a suggested template for a review event agenda.

3.7.3.4 DocumentationA Review should include the same documentation and be distributed as detailed in 3.3.4.3-4. The overview paper should still describe the operation of the programme, and detail changes proposed, but will include a critical review of the programme’s delivery since the last validation. The overview paper should contain details of changes proposed to the programme concerned (eg. new modules, change of pathways) and these should be described fully. It should include an appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals based on quantitative and qualitative evidence, of the learning opportunities available to students and of any changes in resources required as approved at the appropriate School Committee. If the programme is delivered at an MU overseas campus details of this provision must be included. The overview paper must consider the statistical data related to the programme (including progression and achievement data, student feedback, First destination statistics) and how this has affected the running of the programme.

There is no mandatory format for producing this overview. Appendix 3m is merely an example template for a self-critical review, with guidelines/suggestions incorporating the above.

Additional documentation is as follows: The Annual/Quality Monitoring Report (including those for MU overseas

campuses) for the last two years including all appendices covering student feedback, external examiner reports and responses, statistical data such as progression and achievement data, PSRB and/or QAA reports.

Board of Studies minutes for the last two years Most recent validation or review report.

3.8 Changes to programmes and programme titles3.8.1 Flowchart

3.8.2 PurposeThe purpose of this procedure is to ensure that all changes to academic provision take account of internal and external requirements and that appropriate consultation and notification takes place in the development and approval of these changes. In addition this procedure should guard against incremental changes to programmes, where the resulting changes are so significant that they warrant a full Review.


Proposal School Committee

APAC

Approved

ValidationProposal not approved or Subject to conditions

Approved Proposal

Title Approved

Notification to relevant parts of

the University


Programme validation, review and modifications Section 33.8.3 Major changesMajor changes to programmes are those which substantially change the character of the programme. The following changes require School and then APAC approval, followed by a Validation/Review event: Changes in collaborative programme status (e.g. from franchised to validated). Creation of a new programme based on existing University modules. An annual change to more than 30 credits of a programme involving the

introduction of new modules, or modules which have undergone significant revision (see 3.9).

A change of more than 1/3 of the credits of a programme during the period of Validation involving the introduction of new modules, or modules which have undergone major changes (see 3.9).

The following changes require School and then APAC approval but no Validation/Review event: Changes to PT/FT mode/adding or removing a London campus (to a programme

already running on at least one London campus). Changes to resources or student numbers. Major changes to programme titles. NB this would require a new code. Detailed

instructions are available on the Curriculum MISIS web pages. (http://www.intra.mdx.ac.uk/tools-resources/misis/helpful-documents/curriculum/index.aspx )

3.8.4 PlanningThe following should be consulted or notified as appropriate: Relevant Deputy Dean (if using their School’s module(s)). University/Institution Link Tutor for collaborative partner students via Board of Study (wherever possible other channels should be

exploited, e.g. web communication) External Examiners

3.8.5 Reporting and notificationThe following should be notified as appropriate: Relevant Deputy Dean University/Institution Link Tutors Learning Resource Managers DE team in EDU (if distance education elements included) the timetabling team Student Records ([email protected]) Assessment Officers ([email protected]) students

3.8.6 Minor changesThe School Committee alone can approve minor changes but must ensure agreement of the University Link Tutor if applicable. These are logged as part of the quality/annual monitoring process (see Section 7). APAC must receive notification if there is any change to the programme title.



http://www.intra.mdx.ac.uk/tools-resources/misis/helpful-documents/curriculum/index.aspx



3.9 New modules, changes to modules and module deletion

3.9.1 Flowchart

3.9.2 PurposeThe purpose of this procedure is to ensure that all changes to academic provision take account of internal and external requirements and that appropriate consultation and notification takes place in the development and approval of these changes.

3.9.3 ResponsibilityUnlike changes to programmes as detailed in 3.8, the School is entirely responsible for approving changes to modules, new modules, and module deletions at School Committee. This includes joint and franchised modules. These changes are recorded as part of the quality/annual monitoring process. Validated programmes are required to follow an equivalent process as set out below which must include consultation with the University Link Tutors for major changes.

3.9.4 Major changesMajor changes are those which substantially alter the aims and learning outcomes of a module and/or substantially affect the achievement of learning outcomes of programmes or pathways for which the module is a constituent part. A major change to the contents of a module or its title will require the creation of a new module code. Detailed instructions are available on the Curriculum MISIS web pages (http://www.intra.mdx.ac.uk/tools-resources/misis/helpful-documents/curriculum/index.aspx )

3.9.5 New moduleThe validation of a single module, either in-house or for a collaborative partner, is undertaken by the School Committee according to the principles set out in this procedure. Where the module is for a collaborative partner, there should also be consultation with the Link Tutors.

3.9.6 Planning, notification and formsThe people who should be consulted and notified for major changes involving module provision, are the same as listed in 3.8.5. The following forms are available for use: module proforma – Appendix 3g; and change to module form – Appendix 3h.

3.9.7 Operational or administrative changes to modulesCertain operational or administrative module changes, while not considered major, require appropriate consultation with, and notification to, other parts of the University. Examples of changes are: deleting a module run, changing pre-requisites and changing a module name or number. The relevant Deputy Dean is responsible for ensuring that staff/students are consulted and notified using the same lists in 3.8.5.


Proposal Approved

Relevant parts of the University

Quality Monitoring Report

School Committee




Programme validation, review and modifications Section 33.9.8 Minor changesThe decision as to whether a change to a module or its title is major or minor is subject to the approval of the relevant Deputy Dean in conjunction with the following criteria which are deemed minor: Recoding of a module retaining the same content. Changes of a drafting nature. Those required to keep academic content current. Those enhancements of the module teaching, learning and assessment

strategies, or other assessment arrangements that are intended to improve the quality of the student learning experience. Changes will be deemed minor provided that the changes will not substantially alter the character of the module, and that the module strategies and arrangements continue to accord with the teaching, learning and assessment strategies of programmes of which the module in question is a constituent part. Such amendments will allow for changes in emphasis on particular teaching or assessment methods, a move from outmoded or ineffective methods, or the introduction of new (to the module) approaches. Where changes are made, the Module Leader should monitor the effects of the changes with respect to the achievement of students, and student feedback, for at least one year subsequent to the change. Comments from the External Examiner on the changes made should also be invited and considered.

3.10 Non-Credit Bearing Courses (NCBCs)

3.10.1 PurposeThe University recognises that NCBCs extend access to higher education and lifelong learning, meet regional needs and advance economic, social and cultural participation. To this end this procedure sets out the quality assurance procedures for NCBCs to ensure the quality of design and delivery of NCBCs.

3.10.2 ScopeA non credit-bearing course is a programme of study, delivered in the name of the University by or under the auspices of a School or Corporate Service of the University; such a course is not credit-rated within the University's Academic Credit Scheme, and completion of it does not itself contribute towards a qualification of the University unless it is subsequently assessed as part of a claim for AP(E)L. All courses which are not for credit will be clearly designated as such in all publicity, advertising, handbooks and internal documents for the absence of doubt and to avoid confusion for students about the credit-weight of courses provided by the University. For the purposes of the procedures, non credit-bearing courses have been categorised into three types:

NCBC category A: NCBCs that are intended to facilitate student entry onto Middlesex University credit bearing programmes (either by directly qualifying students for admission, or by preparing students for qualifying assessment). These programmes typically act as recruitment routes onto University credit bearing programmes; and could reasonably be regarded as part of the University’s academic provision. A Certificate of Achievement may be award to a student who has successfully completed an assessed non-credit bearing course, which does not fulfil the requirements for a University qualification

NCBC category B: Provision not intended to provide progression routes onto Middlesex programmes, and for which there is assessment. A Certificate of Achievement may be awarded to a student who has successfully completed an




assessed non-credit bearing course, which does not fulfil the requirements for a University qualification

NCBC category C: Provision not intended to provide progression routes onto Middlesex programmes, and for which there is no assessment. A Certificate of Recognition may be awarded for confirmation of attendance, participation or completion of approved activities.

For clarification, NCBCs do not include conferences, academic workshops or seminars, or staff development provision not linked to the three categories above. The university does not expect or require existing non-credit programmes to become credit-bearing over time of necessity; equally, provision of NCBCs is not invariably an indication of the intention of develop subsequent credit-bearing provision. The university recognises that there is a case for NCBC provision determined by the market, by curriculum, by engagement with emerging areas of professional practice and student groups, and by wider considerations. NCBCs may be delivered by a variety of means including summer school, asynchronous and synchronous online learning, distance learning, periodic classes, closed CPD workshops forums and classes, workplace specialist briefings and short courses and by other means. Communication development and skill development projects explicitly linked to consultancy (for example, specialist workshops for in-company practitioners resulting from company-commissioned consultancy by MU staff) is not regarded as a NCBC.

3.10.3 Responsibilities

All categories of NCBCs

UniversityAcademic Registry will determine and publish a policy and procedure for the provision of certificates issued to students who follow and complete NCBCs offered by Schools and Corporate Services. In addition, Academic Registry will compile, maintain and have ready for public inspection an accurate and up-to-date list of all NCBCs delivered by or under the auspices of the University and make returns of such NCBCs to such public agencies as are entitled to receive them as and when required. AQS shall conduct periodic audit of NCBC provision and provide training to all Schools and Services offering non-credit bearing programmes.

School/ServiceSchools/Services will provide Academic Registry with an accurate list of NCBC activity.

3.10.3.1 NCBC category A

UniversityAPAC will agree the quality assurance and regulatory requirements. These will normally be the same to those that apply to credit bearing provision, unless the School/Services requests exemptions or amendments. Such exemptions or amendments must include rationale for APAC to approve.

School/ServiceThe School or Service with responsibility for the delivery or quality assurance of the courses will submit an APAC form (Appendix 2a) to APAC. In the case of courses delivered by a Service, but quality assured by a School, then the APAC form should be jointly submitted. Quality assurance for courses will normally reside within a



Programme validation, review and modifications Section 3School, unless the Service concerned is approved for such academic quality assurance activity by AC.

3.10.3.2 NCBC category B and C

School/ServicePrimary responsibility for quality assurance is located within the Schools or Service responsible for delivery or quality assurance of the NCBC. Deans of School and Directors of Service are accountable for the detailed implementation of policy in this respect.

3.11 Procedures

3.11.1NCBC category A

3.11.1.1Programmes

NCBCs within this category will be treated in a similar way (in terms of programme quality assurance including validation, review, monitoring, appointment of external examiners etc) to credit bearing provision with suitable exemptions or adjustments made to reflect the precise nature of the provision. New programmes, or those due for review, will submit proposals to APAC (with appropriate adjustments to the APAC form agreed with AQS). Exemptions from, or adjustments to, the academic quality procedures, and any regulatory requirements, as they apply the NCBC, will be agreed by APAC on a case-by-case basis (which may obtain guidance in these matters from AQS (in the case of the procedures), and from Academic Registry (in the case of regulatory matters).

3.11.1.2Partner approval

For delivery via partnership, partners must either be:

institutionally approved; category 1 or 2 articulation partners (in which case an extension of approval

is required using the process as detailed below), or be approved to deliver category A NCBC (process as detailed below)

3.11.1.3Extension of articulation partner approval to approval deliver non-credit bearing courses (NCBCs)

In addition to having a current category 1 or 2 approval, the school/service that is quality assuring the provision will prepare a report in accordance with the form: Appendix 3aa Extension of articulation partner approval to approval deliver non-credit bearing courses (NCBCs) and pass to AQS who will make a recommendation to the Deputy Chief Executive who will approve the categorisation.

3.11.1.4Approval to deliver non-credit bearing courses (NCBCs)

The process for approving to deliver category A NCBC provision where the prospective partner is not an institutionally approved partner, or a category 1 or 2 partner with permission to deliver category A NCBC articulation partner is as follows.

The school/service that is quality assuring the provision will prepare a report following the format of the template form: Appendix 3z Proposal for approval of a partner to deliver non-credit bearing courses (NCBCs) and pass the completed form



Programme validation, review and modifications Section 3to AQS who will make a recommendation to the Deputy Chief Executive who will approve all such partners. The institution will be added to the collaborative partner register as an NCBC category A partner.

3.11.1.5Monitoring of partners

Partner monitoring will be that as applied to partners delivering credit bearing programmes (as detailed in section 5).

3.11.1.6Review of partners

Partner review will be that as applied to partners delivering credit bearing programmes (as detailed in section 5), other than in the case of category 2 institutions, which will be additionally be subject to the review process as detailed in section 10 of the LQEH.

3.11.2NCBC category B and C

3.11.2.1CoursesSchools (or services that quality assure provision) must have in place appropriate mechanisms for the quality assurance of B and C NCBCs. The quality assurance of NCBCs category B and C provision will follow these local processes. These local processes must include:

an approval process for the approval of programmes - which would include:o approval by an in-house expert – who will also conduct visit to the

delivering partner to review resources and other arrangements, o a review of completed Appendix 3x Programme Proposal - NCBC

Categories B and C and the accompanying Appendix 3y Programme Details – NCBC categories B and C forms,

monitoring of provision on an annual basis, and processes to ensure that appropriate signed agreements are in place.

Schools/services must maintain accurate records relating to these processes and relevant documentation shall be made available for audit and review purposes.

3.11.2.2Partner approval

If partners are not:

institutionally approved partners, or category 1 or 2 articulation partner with permission to deliver category A

deliver non-credit bearing courses (NCBCs) – please see above, or approved to deliver NCBC category A programmes – please see above

then they must be approved to deliver NCBC categories B & C provision.

The process for approving partners to deliver category B or C NCBC provision is as follows. The school (or service if a service rather than a school is quality assuring the provision) will prepare a report in accordance with the template: Appendix 3z Proposal for approval of a partner to deliver non-credit bearing courses (NCBCs)) and permission to proceed will be through the school/service local quality assurance mechanisms. The institution will be added to the collaborative partner register as an NCBC category B/C partner.




3.11.2.3Monitoring and/or review of partners approved to deliver NCBC categories B & C provision.

In the case of partners that are not already subject to the ongoing processes of monitoring and/or review (as detailed in section 4.1 above), then the school or service quality assuring the provision will put in place a review process which will be equivalent to that for the review of category 2 articulation partners.

3.11.2.4Further adviceColleagues may obtain guidance on these matters from AQS (in the case of the procedures), and from Academic Registry (in the case of regulatory matters).

3.12Validation by correspondence

Purpose and scope

This procedure is designed for the validation of in-house provision through departments or schools, and can be used for the following occasions:

- Any new programmes to be offered in-house, particularly those using mainly existing modules, including those offered at overseas campuses which have been reviewed;

- Changes in programme status;- Modifications to existing programmes.

It is not suitable for programmes offered with collaborative partners, or programme review. It is also not suitable for any in-house programmes which require attendance by a PSRB representative unless a prior agreement has been made.

Responsibilities

Responsibilities are as per 3.3.4. The School APC (or equivalent) would manage the process at a local level.

Procedure

The relevant School Quality Enhancement Manager in AQS would draw up a timetable for the panel and programme team. This timetable would cover the following:

circulation of paperwork, and any follow up on queries raised; response by panel; circulation of conclusions to panel for confirmation, and any conditions and

recommendations; response to conditions; final clearance on the 3e form



Programme validation, review and modifications Section 3Panel for paper-based validation

The panel will consist of a Chair, a University representative, and two external assessors. The criteria for the appointment of these is as per 3.3.4.2

Documentation

The documentation for a validation by correspondence would be identical to that for a conventional validation event as set out in 3.3.4.3

3.13 Programme Operation and Management

During the life of a programme, programme teams under the direction of the Director of Programmes (or other persons as delegated by the Head of Department) will on an annual basis:

Curriculum Development: review programme content so as to ensure currency; review learning, teaching and assessment strategies so as to ensure their

continued effectiveness; where appropriate, develop new provision in the subject area

Assessment: provide assessment detail or the forthcoming year; produce a programme assessment schedule for the forthcoming year;

Programme documentation review and revise programme specifications; review and revise programme handbooks; update marketing materials review and update learning materials

Quality AssuranceUndertake other programme related quality assurance activities as specified in this handbook (e.g. that related to quality monitoring, student feedback, external examiners, articulation arrangements, publicity and marketing, quality assurance of collaborative programmes)



information systems 28 - middlesex university€¦ · web view3 programme validation, review and...

Documents