HANDBOOK A TO ACCOMPANY THE PRINCIPLES AND REGULATIONS. VALIDATION, PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION and MODIFICATION of ACADEMIC PROVISION

Transcription

1 HANDBOOK A TO ACCOMPANY THE PRINCIPLES AND REGULATIONS VALIDATION, PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION and MODIFICATION of ACADEMIC PROVISION

2 CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 4 GLOSSARY 5 A PROCEDURES FOR THE VALIDATION AND APPROVAL OF NEW FRAMEWORKS, PROGRAMMES AND PATHWAYS 8 B PROCEDURES FOR THE MODIFICATION OF FRAMEWORKS, PROGRAMMES, PATHWAYS, COURSES AND MODULES 16 C PROCEDURES FOR THE PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION OF FRAMEWORKS, PROGRAMMES AND PATHWAYS 20 D PROCEDURES FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL FOR ACADEMIC PROVISION 22 E INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR PURPOSES OF APPROVAL, PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION AND MODIFICATION 24 F PANELS, GROUPS AND TEAMS: MEMBERSHIP AND ROLES 28 1

3 APPENDICES A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y OUTLINE PLANNING PROPOSAL FOR A NEW PROGRAMME OR MAJOR MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY GROUP TERMS OF REFERENCE EXTERNAL ADVISER PRO-FORMA REQUEST FOR DEROGATION FROM THE REGULATIONS FORM ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ON DEROGATION FURTHER GUIDANCE TO PROGRAMME/MODULE LEADERS ON THE WRITING OF MODULES AND TO FACULTY BOARDS OF STUDIES AND VALIDATION/ REVALIDATION PANELS ON THEIR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL AIDE MEMOIRE FOR STEERING GROUP MEMBERS AIDE MEMOIRE FOR VALIDATION/PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION PANEL MEMBERS EXEMPLAR VALIDATION AGENDA GUIDELINES FOR VALIDATION AND PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION PANELS ON APPROVAL OF FLEXIBLE AND DISTRIBUTED LEARNING PROVISION GUIDANCE TO VALIDATION AND PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION PANELS ON OUTCOMES RESPONSE FORM FOR TRACKING POST-VALIDATION CHANGES RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FOR NEW FRAMEWORKS, PROGRAMMES OF STUDY OR PATHWAYS FORM PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL OF CURRICULUM DELIVERED BY AN OVERSEAS PARTNER LEADING TO AN AWARD OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHESTER WORK-BASED AND INTEGRATIVE STUDIES PANEL AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR APPROVAL OF FOUNDATION DEGREES PROCEDURES FOR THE APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATES FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION OF MODULES NEW MODULE AUTHORISATION FORM STANDING APPROVAL PANEL ACCREDITATION PROCEDURES CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF UNITS, CENTRES AND INSTITUTES PROGRAMME MODIFICATION FORM APPROVAL OF TEACHING STAFF FROM EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS MODULE MODIFICATION FORM WITHDRAWAL OF MODULE REPORT FORM Z PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION AGENDA 2

4 AA BB CC DD EE FF GG HH II RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION OF NEW FRAMEWORKS, PROGRAMMES OF STUDY OR PATHWAYS WITHDRAWAL OF PROVISION GUIDELINES FOR A DEFINITIVE DOCUMENT FOR A FRAMEWORK GUIDELINES FOR DETAILS OF PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT (TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE VALIDATION SUPPORT DOCUMENT) RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF DELIVERY AT SITES OTHER THAN THE UNIVERSITY OF CHESTER GUIDANCE FOR PANEL CHAIRS REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF EXTERNAL ADVISERS TO VALIDATION, PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION OF SPECIAL APPROVAL PANELS PROFORMA FOR APPROVAL OF EXTERNAL ADVISERS TO VALIDATION, PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION OR SPECIAL APPROVAL PANELS GENERAL GUIDELINES ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PANEL MEMBERS 3

5 INTRODUCTION This manual is intended to accompany the part of Section B of the Principles and Regulations that deals with validation, periodic review, revalidation and modification of academic provision. It contains requirements governing the validation, approval and review of academic provision falling under the Principles and Regulations of the University of Chester, derives its force from those Principles and Regulations, and shall be read in association with them. The University of Chester insists on the observance of these requirements by all those staff of the University who may be involved in the validation, approval and periodic review of academic provision. The requirements shall be applied, as appropriate, to frameworks, programmes or courses that lead to awards of validating and awarding authorities other than the University of Chester, and to professional and statutory body recognition. The requirements for approval shall also apply to franchised provision, external programme provision, and its subsequent authorisation to be delivered by a collaborating institution, and, normally, to joint and dual programme provision. In these cases, reference should also be made to the Manual on Collaborative Provision. The procedures and requirements for information shall be reviewed periodically, in the light of the University's own experience, sector-wide developments and the advice of external sources. 4

6 GLOSSARY Accelerated validation Under certain circumstances, an accelerated timescale for validation may be appropriate - for example, when funding becomes available for a new programme of study, where professional requirements change or when the proposal represents a limited extension of current provision, involving predominantly pre-existing approved modules. Accelerated validation shall be approved by the relevant Dean of Faculty or Faculty Board of Studies and the Dean of Academic Quality and Enhancement when considering the Outline Planning Proposal. Affiliated Institution Another authority whose quality assurance framework the University of Chester has reviewed and approved, under which validation, monitoring and review may occur of programmes of study that can lead to awards of University of Chester. Approval Approval of programmes of study is granted by Senate following validation, review through the revalidation process, or consideration of a proposal by the relevant Board of Studies, if the appropriate requirements have been met. Approval of modules is also granted by the relevant Board of Studies, following due consideration. Approval indicates that students may be registered to undertake study in the approved area, or via the approved mode of study. Course of Study A free-standing module, or suite of modules up to and including the value of 40 credit points are referred to as a course of study. They do not generally lead to a named award, but can be approved by the relevant Faculty Board of Studies. Curriculum Proposal The Curriculum Proposal is a document, or selection of documents, produced for the meeting of the Steering Group. It should describe the structure of the proposed framework, programme of study or pathway, including details of the rules governing progression through the programme, accompanying details of the proposed curriculum, ideally expressed in full module descriptors. Derogation A curtailing of the application of certain, specified Regulations. Any derogation must be approved by Academic Quality and Enhancement Committee on behalf of Senate, and must be supported by unambiguous written extracts from public, statutory or regulatory body regulations requiring a divergence from the University Regulations. Framework A framework of study is an approved structure, designed to accommodate a programme, or programmes of study, together with any associated pathways, which facilitates progression towards a defined award. Module A module is the standard unit or building block of study at the University of Chester. It is defined in terms of size, which at the University of Chester is based around a standard unit of 20 credit points, (reflecting the nationally agreed standard of one credit point indicating 10 notional hours of study), and in terms of level. A module can only be 5

7 placed at one level. Multiple units of a module are permissible, and fractional units exceptionally. A module is expected to demonstrate internal academic coherence and focus. A Module Descriptor is required for every module that can be studied at the University. This is a description of the purpose of the module, the curriculum studied, and the ways in which a student is assessed during or on completion of the study. It must also identify the credits, by volume and level, that are awarded to a successful student. Module descriptors must be written according to a common template and house style. Outline Planning Proposal Form The Outline Planning Proposal Form is the document that is considered initially by the Development Advisory Group on behalf of the Senior Management Team. It shall address certain aspects required in the Principles and Regulations, and shall be a statement of intention to develop a framework, programme of study or pathway (if new resources are required), if approval to proceed is granted. Pathway A pathway is an approved suite of modules with demonstrable disciplinary, interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary coherence, which is not free-standing but constitutes an element of a framework of study and/ or complements a programme of study. Periodic Review - Revalidation This is the periodic process by which a programme (and its modules) or framework is reviewed and critically appraised, and following which re-approval may be granted for a further six year period, (or other period specified by a professional body or agency). It will include a retrospective view of the programme and a forward looking rationale for change and development. It will include a critical appraisal of how successfully the programme or framework is operating and any changes to aims and objectives. The panel giving such appraisal will always include external subject experts. Programme of Study A programme of study is an approved suite of modules with demonstrable disciplinary, interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary coherence, representing the whole or part of the approved studies leading to a named award. Programme Specification A Programme Specification is produced for programmes of study or pathways, as part of the approval process. It shall have incorporated any conditions, recommendations or qualifications set against the approval, and shall act as a reference statement for the provision in question for the following academic year. Copies of all Programme Specifications are published on the University Intranet Programme Documents pages. Site Authorisation Site authorisation is an aspect of the modification of an approved programme of study, where approval is sought to deliver the validated curriculum on a site different from that for which the original approval was given. This may be an alternative campus of the University, for which a formal event is not required, or at the site of another organisation. There is a formal meeting, supported by programme documentation, with a focus on resources to support delivery, including human, learning and physical, the student experience, and programme management. 6

8 Standing Approval Panel A Standing Approval Panel is a body that is convened regularly to consider proposals to approve provision that is not a new framework or complete major programme, but may be a modest extension to an existing programme, a new programme comprising predominantly pre-validated modules, a pathway or major modification to a programme of study. It may be used, for example, to consider approval of Professional Certificates, and non-award-bearing activities that do not lead to an award of the University of Chester, or other awards that are not recognized within the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications. It forms a variant part of the formal validation process. Steering Group A steering group is a formally constituted panel of peers and external subject experts who will engage in discussion with the Programme Planning Team over a curriculum proposal presented at a formal meeting. The membership of the group is normally approved by the Faculty Board of Studies. The report of the meeting will normally list a number of recommendations derived from the discussion, which the steering group believe will enhance the quality of the proposal. It is the role of the steering group to indicate to the Faculty Board of Studies when they believe a Programme Planning Team are sufficiently prepared to present a document to a validation panel, with every expectation of a successful outcome. Validation This is the process by which a proposed framework, programme of study or pathway is recommended for approval by a panel of peers and external subject experts. The recommendation will be the outcome of a formal meeting, wherein discussion determines whether a programme designed to lead to a designated award meets the requirements of that award as determined by the University of Chester, in conjunction with, where appropriate, any professional body or agency. Validation Support Document The Validation Support Document is a portfolio of optional supplementary information, in addition to the Programme Specification and Module Descriptors, provided to a Validation Panel to help the Panel in understanding how the programme or pathway may be delivered and supported. It may describe aspects of the student experience, and features of the form of delivery, and will describe the various mechanisms that are intended to govern the quality assurance and management of the programme. It may also include a section detailing the various categories of resources that will be deployed around the programme. 7

9 A PROCEDURES FOR THE VALIDATION AND APPROVAL OF NEW FRAMEWORKS, PROGRAMMES AND PATHWAYS 1 The Senate of the University of Chester alone has the ultimate authority to approve any academic provision within the University. The process of scrutiny necessary to arrive at a decision on approval (see glossary) may be delegated to the Development Advisory Group, Academic Quality and Enhancement Committee, Boards of Studies, or other nominated body. The Senate requires all modes and forms of study leading to a University of Chester award of more than 40 credit points to undergo a formal process of validation (see glossary) prior to approval by the Senate. (Principles and Regulations section B1). 2 For frameworks and pathways generally, and all programmes a process for validation for approval must be undertaken. For modules and courses of study (see below) validation, as defined in this manual, is not required. Recommendation to the Senate for approval of courses of study and individual modules shall be made by a Board of Studies of the appropriate Faculty, or, where appropriate, by more than one Board of Studies. Validation 3 The University of Chester recognises the following structural entities in which academic provision may be organized: a) Frameworks b) Programmes of study c) Pathways d) Courses of study e) Modules Validation is the process by means of which a decision to recommend that Senate approves a framework (see glossary), programme of study (see glossary) or pathway (see glossary) is reached. It involves detailed scrutiny of a proposal document and discussion between the proposers and members of a panel that will include external advisers. The panel shall ensure that a judgement based on sound academic standards, quality support mechanisms, adequacy of resources and professional requirements is made. 4 The University has adopted a process model of validation whereby proposals must be considered in stages. In this way the University can ensure that a proposal is designed and operated in accordance with the Principles and Regulations and is consistent with the requirements of the Manual on Design of Approved Academic Provision; that it is relevant to the mission of the University; that resources including adequate staffing will be available; that appropriate internal and external advice is provided to the planning team (see paragraph 66) as the proposal develops; and that at the point where the programme is approved it is appropriate in terms of quality and academic standards. 8

10 5 Peer review is an essential element of the University's procedures for validation and is the basis for the composition of the groups charged with scrutiny of the proposal at each stage, namely the Steering Group (see glossary and paragraph 69), the Validation Panel (see glossary and paragraph 70) and the Periodic Review - Revalidation Panel (see paragraph 73). Peer review will involve colleagues from across the University and external subject experts with appropriate academic and/or professional backgrounds. Experts with knowledge in areas such as pedagogy and credit accumulation may also be invited to participate. 6 The validation process is preceded by discussion at both the departmental and Faculty levels, and culminates in a proposal in both departmental and Faculty plans. The proposal should be referenced in the Faculty s annual Business Plan, which will be discussed at the Faculty Board of Studies. Thus, for it to proceed, a proposal must first have the support of the Head of Subject (where applicable) and of the Dean of Faculty. Market research must be undertaken in order to demonstrate demand amongst prospective students or employers. 7 Once a prima facie justification for developing the proposal has been established, a Planning Team (see paragraph 68) shall be formed under the direction of a designated leader in order to take the proposal forward to approval. 8 The Planning Team, once established, shall prepare an Outline Planning Proposal Form (see glossary and Appendix A) which must conform to the criteria set out in section B2 of the Principles and Regulations, and which should be considered by the Faculty Management Group. Where the proposal, (including identification of a new pathway or a new programme title), does not involve approval of new modules nor authorization of any other resources, application to proceed can be made directly to the Development Advisory Group without the requirement to complete an Outline Planning Proposal form (see paragraph 56 for guidance on requirements in such cases). 9 The Development Advisory Group is required to consider the strategic development of the University s portfolio of programmes and awards. It will convene at regular intervals to pass recommendations concerning proposals (see Appendix B). 10 Following consideration by the Faculty Management Group, the Outline Planning Proposal Form shall be scrutinised by the Development Advisory Group (see Appendix B). In the absence of a Dean at the meeting giving consideration to a Faculty s proposal, the Faculty may be represented by another member of the Faculty Management Group for the purpose of presenting the proposal. Where the proposal affects delivery in more than one Faculty, all relevant Deans shall signal support for the proposal to the Group. Any proposal for derogation from the Regulations should be brought to the Development Advisory Group s attention, along with any necessity to appoint an External Programme Adviser in an area where the University does not have the relevant expertise. Following consideration of the Outline Planning Proposal form, the Development Advisory Group shall forward its recommendations, including a view on whether it is necessary for the 9

11 Dean to personally attend the validation event, in a note to the Senior Management Team and/ or Senate. If the Senior Management Team decides to reject the proposal, it shall not proceed. 11 The Development Advisory Group must be assured that the proposal is consistent with the strategic objectives of the University and of the relevant Faculty, and that the proposal can be resourced from within projected budgets of the University. 12 If the Development Advisory Group decides to recommend approval of the Outline Planning Proposal, a signed copy authorising development shall be forwarded by the Secretary of Development Advisory Group to the relevant Dean of Faculty, so that the proposal can be considered at a meeting of the Faculty Board of Studies. Notification of authorisation to develop the proposal shall also be passed by the Secretary of the Development Advisory Group to the Principal Assistant Registrar, Partnerships and Academic Strategic Support and to the Policy Implementation Officer, Validation. The Board shall consider approval of the proposal, and if approval is to be agreed, the steering process (which normally precedes validation) which is to be conducted within that Faculty. The Board of Studies will decide on the most appropriate scheduling and membership of a Steering Group. This shall include whether, in exceptional circumstances, written comments from an external adviser may be adequate in place of attendance at a Steering Group meeting (see Appendix C for the pro-forma on which comments must be submitted). Where a programme requires derogation from the University s Regulations, application must be made to Academic Quality and Enhancement by completing a Request for Derogation from the Regulations Form (Appendix D). Application for derogation must be made in advance of the validation event, and the signed request form presented as part of the Validation Support Document. Further guidance on the process for derogation can be found in Appendix E. The Programme Planning Team must have held an initial Steering Group meeting within six months of the Development Advisory Group approving the Outline Planning Proposal, otherwise the decision to recommend development will lapse. Under certain circumstances, an accelerated timescale for validation may be appropriate (see glossary: accelerated validation) whereby a Steering Group may be deemed unnecessary and the proposal permitted to proceed directly to a validation event. Permission for accelerated validation may normally only be confirmed by the Dean of Academic Quality and Enhancement. 13 A Steering Group may meet only after the Outline Planning Proposal has been approved by the Faculty Board of Studies (or through Chair s action). The first meeting shall be preceded by a preliminary meeting between the Secretary of the Steering Group (normally the Faculty Administrator) and the Planning Team leader in order to establish the time scale and the documentation required. 14 The Faculty Administrator should direct the Planning Team towards the Principal Assistant Registrar, Partnerships and Academic Strategic Support, the Policy Implementation Officer, Validation, or to other members of Academic Quality Support Services in order that advice on programme design, regulations and the drafting of the curriculum documents is available prior to the drafting of the Curriculum Proposal. This meeting may also identify any specific issues likely to arise during the steering process. 15 A Curriculum Proposal (see paragraph 58, Appendix F and glossary) shall be written by the Planning Team and presented to the Steering Group. The Steering Group has a wide remit to explore all issues regarding the proposed framework, programme or pathway, however the main focus of the meeting should be on the 10

12 curriculum structure, content, outcomes and assessment. (Guidance for Steering Groups is contained in Appendix G). A report shall be drawn up following each meeting of the Steering Group detailing recommendations for the development of the programme which the Planning Team must then consider. This report must be presented to the Faculty Board of Studies. No limit shall be placed on the number of Steering Group meetings. When the Steering Group decides that the Planning Team is ready and the documentation is sufficiently advanced, a final steering report shall be presented to the Chair of the Board of Studies, who shall decide whether the report should form a substantive agenda item of the Board, or whether approval can be reported to the Board. The Secretary to the Board of Studies shall recommend in a report to Academic Quality Support Services that the proposal proceeds to validation. Academic Quality Support Services will then take action to convene a Validation Panel. The Assistant Registrar Assessment, Quality, Standards and Review shall confirm the membership of each Validation Panel. 16 A validation meeting shall be informed by the Principles and Regulations, paragraph B3.2 and its deliberations shall include: the context of the proposal; quality and standards; relevance to both internal and external reference points (including the nationally-agreed Academic Infrastructure); and any potential resourcing issues that fall outside those authorised in the Outline Planning Proposal. Documents for validation, which must conform to the University s Principles and Regulations and to the Manual on Design of Approved Academic Provision, shall be presented to AQSS for consideration by the Validation Panel, normally three weeks prior to the event. In the case of programmes, the validation documents shall include a proposed Programme Specification. The aim of the meeting is to ensure that the proposal is fit for the purpose of justifying the award and title; complies with the Principles and Regulations; is consistent with external quality requirements; and can be referenced against sector best practice. (Further guidance for Validation Panels is contained in Appendix H, including an exemplar agenda, Appendix I). Additional guidance for Planning Teams and Validation Panels on programmes involving flexible and distributed learning can be found in Appendix J. The Validation Panel may choose not to recommend approval, in which case the Planning Team may choose to present revised documentation to a reconvened Validation Panel. Alternatively, the Validation Panel may choose to recommend approval of the proposal. In this case, the report of the Validation Panel will detail the conditions that the Planning Team must respond to, and the recommendations that the Planning Team shall be required to consider. The Quality Adviser or Secretary to the event shall announce to the Planning Team any conditions and recommendations that have been agreed by the Validation Panel at the end of the event. (Principles and Regulations B2.2, B2.3, B2.4, and Appendix K Guidance to Validation and Periodic Review - Revalidation Panels on Outcomes). 17 Once a Validation Panel has reached its decision, a report of the validation event shall be given to the Planning Team in order that a response to the conditions and recommendations can inform the various documents. A condition will set out a specific action that the Planning Team is required to take. A recommendation will identify an action that, if taken, may lead to an enhancement of the proposal. It is a requirement that post-validation materials be submitted by the Planning Team to the 11

13 Chair of the Validation Panel, so as to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Chair that the conditions attached to the recommendation for approval have been met. The Planning Team should complete the validation response form (Appendix L) in order to assist the Chair in identifying the changes made. 18 The report of the Validation Panel shall be presented to the Board of Studies (or exceptionally for reasons of timing to the Chair thereof) for approval, together with notification from the Chair of the Validation Panel that the conditions of approval have been met (Appendix M Recommendation for Approval of New Framework, Programme or Pathway form), a form indicating verification from the appropriate Assistant Registrar in Academic Quality Support Services that the amended Programme Specification complies with the Principles and Regulations and all appropriate institutional frameworks and the Programme Specification for the proposed new programme, amended as necessary as a result of the outcome of the validation. If additional resource requirements have been identified through the validation process, the report and any relevant post-validation documentation shall be presented initially to the Development Advisory Group, or referred to the senior management of a partner organization where the proposal deals with collaborative provision. The Senior Management Team may then authorise adequate additional resources and forward the report to the Board of Studies; or, where the Senior Management Team is not able to authorise further resources for the programme, the proposal is referred back to the Board of Studies for further consideration. AQSS shall ensure that the post-validation documentation contains all appropriate details described in the Principles and Regulations and complies particularly with Section D of the Principles and Regulations. The Board of Studies is empowered to set further conditions in order to ensure such compliance. Once it has assured itself that the documentation is in order and no issues surrounding the approval are outstanding, the Board of Studies may recommend that the Senate approves the framework, programme or pathway. If the Board of Studies accepts that a derogation from the Regulations is required, the validation report must be sent to Academic Quality and Enhancement Committee which will consider approval of derogation on behalf of Senate. If the proposed programme lies within an area where the University does not have the relevant expertise the Board of Studies is required to consider nominations for an External Programme Adviser. (Refer to procedures in Manual C: Collaborative Provision). Once the validation process is complete, the Programme Specification is submitted to AQSS by the Faculty Administrator (see paragraph 64). The approved full module descriptor(s) must be published on the University intranet by the Faculty Administrator. 19 The Senate shall receive the proposal to approve the framework, programme or pathway by means of the minutes of the Board of Studies. Senate's approval shall signify that the framework, programme or pathway may be implemented and students may be registered for any associated awards. Registrations shall not be accepted for an award before the approval of Senate has been granted. Normally, initial approval shall be for an indefinite period but with no longer than a six year period before review leading to Periodic Review - Revalidation. 20 The Validation Panel s recommendation for approval shall lapse if no proposal to approve the framework, programme or pathway is received by Senate prior to the initial student cohort registration date identified in the validation report. If the recommendation of the Validation Panel lapses, the proposal must be referred to the Development Advisory Group, and no students may be registered. 12

14 21 Joint validation of frameworks, programmes or pathways may be undertaken in collaboration with professional bodies or other validating authorities or organizations, may be considered for approval (Principles and Regulations B5.1) In such circumstances, the requirements described herein shall be adhered to, although account should also be taken of the requirements of the other validating body. A joint report shall be submitted to the Board of Studies. Where a consensual position cannot be reached, a report reflecting the views of the University of Chester members of the Validation Panel may be submitted to the Board of Studies, with an account of the unresolved issues. Where the proposal is for an overseas academic partner to collaborate in the delivery of a part of the programme of study that will lead to an award of the University of Chester further procedures shall be taken into consideration (Appendix N). 22 Where the validation event is considering collaborative provision for approval, the composition of the Validation Panel shall be such that it represents the interests of those Departments within University of Chester which are involved in such provision. (See Manual supporting Section C of the Principles and Regulations). Alternative Procedures for the Approval of Foundation Degrees 23 Foundation Degrees may follow procedures outlined in paragraphs 6 to 18 above. Such procedures would be normal for proposals for programmes of study originating within the Faculties of the University. Alternatively, the proposal for a Foundation Degree may originate with a client external to the University, leading to a process wherein the curriculum is negotiated in response to the client s requirements. In this case, the curriculum design may take place within the Work-Based and Integrative Studies framework (see Manual D, The Design of Approved Academic Provision), and approval sought via the Work-Based and Integrative Studies Approval Panel (Appendix O). Procedures for the Approval of Master by Research Programmes 24 Specific procedures apply for programmes approved under the Master by Research (MRes) framework. Each programme shall be designed by the academic department in which the programme will run, and approved by their Board of Studies. A representative of the Graduate School shall attend Board of Studies whenever and MRes is being approved or modified, and Chair s action shall not be permitted in relation to MRes approval or modification. This will ensure that the Regulations and Code of Practice relating to research are followed as appropriate. Whilst the final approval of an MRes shall be at the discretion of the Board of Studies, ultimate oversight of the admission of students will be maintained by the Graduate School. Procedures for the Approval of Professional Certificates and Courses of Study 25 The definition of a Professional Certificate is described in section D2.6 of the Principles and Regulations. The procedures for approval of a Professional Certificate, which is credit-bearing but lies outside the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (QAAHE, 2008), are described in Appendix P. 13

15 26 A module, or suite of modules which falls within the definition of a course of study (see glossary), shall be approved by the Board of Studies within whose Faculty the modules are located. The Board of Studies shall receive a rationale, full module descriptors (Appendix Q), accompanied by the module authorisation form (Appendix R), comments from the external examiner (and module leader response to the comments where appropriate) and a full and transparent resource implications statement. Once approved, the Secretary of the Board of Studies shall ensure all appropriate details are communicated to Registry Services and AQSS. The approved full module descriptor(s) must be published on the University intranet by the Faculty Administrator. Procedures for the Approval of Other Academic Provision 27 Where the academic provision does not fall within any of the structural entities identified in sections B1 and B2 of the Principles and Regulations, nor in paragraph 3 of this manual, (with the exception of Professional Certificates, pathways and extensions to current programmes), a Standing Approval Panel (Appendix S) may be convened. The Standing Approval Panel may address the following types of provision: academic provision not included within the scope of section B of the Principles and Regulations, nor covered by other requirements within this manual; new awards comprising previously validated modules; extensions to pre-existing programmes that comprise no more than 120 credits in a Bachelor s programme, or 60 credits in a postgraduate programme 1 ; provision not located within the framework for higher education qualifications; pathways within programmes of study that involve the approval of new modules; or pathways that involve the approval of a new award title; University of Chester Professional Certificates; any other certificates awarded by the University, or consortia to which the University belongs, that comprise a programme of study comprising credits that amount to less than a full level of study; provision that is non-award bearing and non-credit bearing; provision that is non-modular for which the University has delegated authority from a recognized accrediting body 2. Non-award-bearing Learning Activities 28 Non-award-bearing learning activities are described in section D1.13 of the Principles and Regulations. Proposals for such specific, structured learning activities shall be made to the Faculty Board of Studies, and shall include as a minimum a rationale, details of the activity (amounting to at least 100 notional learning hours) along with an income and expenditure account, including the input of staff and other resources required. If approved by the Board, the Faculty Administrator shall report in writing full details to Registry Services so that student registration forms can be issued and completed in order to entitle students to University facilities. 29 Where the learning activity takes the form of training offered to an organization s employees, members or clients by that organization, accreditation of the activity 1 This may include, eg. The approval of a Single Honours programme through the addition of a modest number of extra modules to a pre-existing Combined Honours subject; or the addition of a 60 credit dissertation or project to a validated Postgraduate Diploma programme in order to permit the award of a full masters degree. 2 This is most likely to incorporate City and Guilds qualifications. 14

16 may be sought from the University of Chester. Following initial scrutiny of the request for accreditation by the Development Advisory Group, a process comprising several stages, and accompanied by documentation and details supplying evidence of fitness for purpose, shall be undertaken, as described in Appendix T. 30 Academic provision may embrace a distinctive area of expertise which the University may deem appropriate to organize outside the normal departmental and programme structure. Such activity may be located within a Unit, Centre or Institute. The criteria for the initial approval and establishment of Units, Centres and Institutes are described in Appendix U. Procedures for the Approval of Affiliated Institutions 31 Senate must approve the institution as a formal partner of the University, leading to a signed Organizational Agreement. There can be no approval of a partner as an Affiliated Institution without an affiliation event. This event shall include representation from members of the University s academic community and must be chaired by a member of University Senior Management, and for the panel to be quorate, have at least a representative of Academic Quality Support Services and an independent external adviser. The panel shall receive documentation, and meet with officers of the institution, to consider the ways in which the institution manages the quality framework for delivery of its programmes of study, and reference points used to ensure the standards of awards. A report of this meeting shall be considered by Academic Quality and Enhancement Committee, on behalf of Senate, for approval or otherwise. 32 For approval of new programmes, proposal documents shall be submitted to members of the relevant University of Chester Faculty Board of Studies, which shall consider the proposal and seek commentary from an external adviser. Feedback from this consideration shall be given to the Affiliated Institution, which must agree to meet any conditions set by the Board of Studies if the programme is to lead to an award of the University of Chester. Similar procedures shall apply for the periodic review and revalidation of programmes of study. 15

17 B PROCEDURES FOR THE MODIFICATION OF FRAMEWORKS, PROGRAMMES, PATHWAYS, COURSES AND MODULES 33 Once a validated framework, programme, pathway or module has been formally approved, a number of factors may necessitate a modification of the details of the programme specification or module descriptor. Modifications to Frameworks, Programmes and Pathways 34 Where the modification of any framework, programme or pathway has significant resource requirements or implications, and Outline Planning Proposal Form must be completed and submitted to the Development Advisory Group for authorisation. Once the Outline Proposal has been authorised, the Programme Team may proceed to the next step, as set out in paragraphs below. AQSS shall determine which of these procedures is appropriate, in specific cases. 35 Where modifications of a conceptual, modal or structural nature affecting the whole, or greater part of a framework, programme or pathway are proposed, a new validation is required. Where changes to curriculum amounting to a replacement of a third or more of the programme modules are proposed, a new validation is required. Such an event is to be distinguished from periodic revalidation undertaken according to the University's schedule. No programme modified through validation may be delivered unless approved no later than the start of the academic session in which it will be delivered. The proposal to modify the framework, programme or pathway, including the authorised Outline Planning Proposal Form where appropriate, shall be forwarded to Academic Quality Support Services for inclusion on the validation schedule. The procedures shall be those described herein for the validation of a new programme of study. Where modification, (including identification of a new pathway), does not involve approval of new modules nor authorization of any other resources, application to proceed can be made directly to the Development Advisory Group without the requirement to complete an Outline Planning Proposal form (see paragraph 56 for guidance on requirements in such cases). 36 Where modifications are proposed to frameworks, programmes or pathways which do not change the concept, mode or the greater part of the structure of the framework, programme or pathway, but merely modify specific features other than individual modules, the modifications may be submitted on a programme modification form (Appendix V) for approval by the Board of Studies and confirmation through report and receipt of minutes by the Senate. The submission to the Board of Studies shall include: i) rationale for the change and supporting evidence, including evidence of consultation undertaken; ii) the details of the changes proposed; iii) a form including External Examiner comments (with evidence and/or explanation of the response to the comments). 16

18 If the proposed modification is supported by written evidence from a public, statutory or regulatory body requiring derogation from the Regulations, once accepted by the Faculty Board of Studies approval shall be sought from the Academic Quality and Enhancement Committee. Once approved, changes must be included in the Programme Specification, and a revised copy forwarded by the Faculty Administrator to Registry Services and sent to AQSS. 37 Where modifications are proposed to a programme, pathway or course through the addition of a new module or modules, consideration and approval of those modules shall be the responsibility of the relevant Faculty Board of Studies. Modules shall be presented to the appropriate Boards of Studies accompanied by a module authorisation form (Appendix R) bearing comments from a relevant external examiner or adviser, and shall be considered in relation to the aims and objectives of validation as described in regulations B3.1 and B3.2. (If Appendix R must be completed it is not necessary to complete Appendix V in addition). Once approved, the Secretary of the Board of Studies shall ensure all appropriate details are communicated to Registry Services. The approved full module descriptor(s) must be published on the University intranet by the Faculty Administrator. Authorisation to Deliver a Programme, Pathway or Course on a New Site 38 Modification to a programme, pathway or course may take the form of the wish to deliver an approved curriculum on a site different from that for which the original approval was given, which may or may not be a campus of the University of Chester. Where the site is an alternative campus of the University approval by the Development Advisory Group must be sought. No completed Outline Planning Proposal Form is required in this case. No proposal to deliver an approved programme, pathway or course on an alternative campus may proceed until such approval is obtained. Once approval is obtained no further consideration of the proposal is required, though the Programme Specification must be modified to reflect delivery on the new site. The approval of the Development Advisory Group must also be gained for the proposal to deliver an approved programme, pathway or course by a collaborative partner at the site of another organisation. In this case, a full Outline Planning Proposal Form need not be completed, though the costs to the University associated with the authorisation should be identified. If the delivery on the site of another organization is to be carried out by University staff a full Outline Planning Proposal Form should be completed and submitted. 39 Once approval in outline has been received for delivery at the site of another organisation, the Programme Specification must be modified to reflect delivery on the new site, and be presented to the Authorisation Panel. This Panel shall normally comprise: Chair: from another Faculty Quality Adviser: Principal Assistant Registrar (or nominee) Learning Resources representative (a written submission is permissible) Either The Programme Leader, where not involved directly in the new proposed delivery, 17

19 Or Head of Subject (or nominee), not directly participating in delivery Minuting Secretary: from Academic Quality Support Services The main emphasis of discussion between the Panel and the Programme Team will be on the rationale for delivery, market research underpinning the decision to proceed, staffing involved in direct delivery (see Appendix W for procedures for approval of partner organization staff), physical and learning resources, support for tutors and students, quality management and communications between organisations. For an event at the site of a partner organisation, the Panel may wish to additionally explore the context of the strategic development of the proposal, and its support from the partner organisation s senior management team, the proposed student numbers and the resourcing of the proposal. Further questions relating to employer contacts and involvement will be essential to the consideration of Foundation degrees. These procedures may run concurrently with the analysis of an organization as an appropriate partner of the University of Chester. Modifications to Courses and Modules 40 Modifications to modules can be made by the Module Leader and Team, and presented to the Faculty Board of Studies for approval in the academic year before they are to be implemented. The Board of Studies will ensure that the modification has correctly followed procedures. Modifications to modules will include, among other things, any change to: Module Code; (this will,per se, involve the creation of a new module) Title; Credit Value; Subject Assessment Board responsible; the mode of delivery as described in the Methods of Learning and Teaching/ Student Learning Component. A change in this last area may also affect the Contact Hours; and anything that affects, (especially increases), the resources required for the module above normal recurrent spending. Such modifications should be submitted to the Board of Studies accompanied by a module modification form (Appendix X). Changes to Module Code, Credit Value or Level will necessitate the creation of a new module. Only minor changes to module Title will be considered without the need to create a new module. Administrative updating of modules are to be expected. These might include changes to a small number of words in other sections, that do not significantly alter the emphasis of the module, or such matters as the Module Leader, the Key References and aspects of content that need to track changes in legislative or regulatory statutes. The Principal Assistant Registrar, Partnerships and Academic Strategic Support, should be consulted over any interpretation of category of the modification. Such changes do not need the approval of, nor need to be reported to, the Faculty Board of Studies. 18

20 If the proposed modification is supported by written evidence from a public, statutory or regulatory body requiring derogation from the Regulations, once accepted by the Faculty Board of Studies approval shall be sought from the Academic Quality and Enhancement Committee. The updated, and approved if necessary, full module descriptor must be published on the University intranet by the Faculty Administrator. 41 Where a validated module is to be withdrawn, it shall be reported to the Board of Studies, using the Module Withdrawal Form, (Appendix Y), and via the minutes to the Senate. Where the withdrawal is due to a new module or programme being offered in its place, the withdrawal should be considered in parallel with the validation of the proposed replacement. The module leader shall notify Registry Services, so that the withdrawn module can be properly archived, and any replacement module descriptor published. It shall be made clear to the Board of Studies whether a module is being withdrawn in toto, or simply from a specific programme or pathway of study. (See also paragraphs 50 to 52 on the procedures for the withdrawal of academic provision). 19

21 C PROCEDURES FOR THE PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION OF FRAMEWORKS, PROGRAMMES AND PATHWAYS Periodic Review - Revalidation 42 Prior to the end of its period of approval, unless it is to be withdrawn by the University, Faculty or responsible Department at that point, a framework, programme, pathway and their constituent parts or modules must be subject to revalidation. Periodic Review - Revalidation (see glossary) shall take the form of a review of the provision in question. There shall be no re-approval of provision without a review. The maximum length of period for which re-approval shall normally be recommended is six years. The purpose of reviewing provision is to ensure its continued viability, appropriateness and consistency with best practice. The Periodic Review - Revalidation Panel shall assure Senate that the objectives identified in the Principles and Regulations B3.2 and B3.3 are met. 43 In an academic session prior to that in which the Periodic Review - Revalidation falls, the Academic Quality and Enhancement Committee shall approve a schedule which identifies those parts of the University's academic provision that are to undergo review and revalidation. 44 Once this schedule is published, the scope of the provision to be reviewed shall be agreed jointly by the Principal Assistant Registrar, Partnerships and Academic Strategic Support, and the Dean(s) of Faculty or delegated nominee(s) in whose subject area most of the provision is expected to lie. In unitary Faculties or for certain modes of delivery, the agreement is likely to be between the Principal Assistant Registrar and Programme Leaders. 45 The Assistant Registrar Assessment, Quality, Standards and Review shall confirm the membership of each Periodic Review - Revalidation Panel. 46 In a Periodic Review - Revalidation event, the University will rely heavily on specialist External Advisers, particularly so where new modules are presented for validation; (see Appendix Z for an exemplar agenda). Panel members will also meet students from all the programmes being presented for revalidation, along with any other relevant collaborators. 47 The focus of the Periodic Review - Revalidation event shall be on: the student experience; compliance with appropriate aspects of the national quality agenda; confirmation that nationally recognized standards are being met; the sharing of best practice; a critical reflection on the performance of the programmes, linked to an assessment of future development; staffing and other resources. If an existing derogation is in place for a programme, the Programme Team must complete and present a new Request for Derogation from the Regulations Form (Appendix D). 20