C-SAPs-Annex 13

Academic Registry

  1. THE ROLE OF EXTERNAL ACADEMIC MEMBER

Academic staff from other Higher Education Institutions are chosen for their subject expertise and can, therefore, comment on the content, learning and teaching, assessment and academic standards from that subject perspective. They may also have experience of similarly organised courses, e.g. modular schemes or modes of delivery, distance learning, or partnership arrangements. Academic staff would be expected to ask questions in these areas.

  1. ADVICE ON THE ROLE OF THE PRACTITIONER/EMPLOYER

External practitioners/employers are invited to consider the proposal in terms of whether students completing the award would have the knowledge and skills required by potential employers/the industry/professional bodies, etc., and to look at the content of the modules within their subject area/specialism, to check whether they are appropriate and up-to-date. Comments on whether the documentation has been easy to follow, particularly the Student Handbook, would also be appreciated. Any other comments, including those relating to University processes, would also be very welcome.

Please refer to the Guidance for Panel Members for the Approval of New and Periodic Review of Existing University Courses including Collaborative Provision:Issues for Discussion and Conclusion pages, which provides a list of prompts you may wish to consider asking the course team and space for you to identify issues under the various headings utilised by the University.

Panel members will be required to complete the Issues for Discussion and Conclusions pages in advance and bring them to the event to assist with the agenda setting process. Where possible comments should be presented to the Chair of the event at least 3 days in advance of the meeting.

If there are any areas of good practice we would also welcome comments on these.

Page 1 of 3

Quality Handbook Section C

C-SAPs-Annex 13

  1. THE PROCESS

The University looks in some detail at all proposals for new course, monitors courses annually and also reviews courses after a sustained period of operation (normally 6 years). The University uses a process where the course proposal is initially considered by the proposing School and, if everything is satisfactory, the proposal is then passed onto a Panel for consideration.

Modules presented to the event will either have been considered through a module approval event or School Student Learning and Experience Sub-Committee (SSLESC) prior to the event, or presented to the event for full consideration. This will be indicated in the briefing note. In either case, Panel Members are still able to comment on whether the modules presented are appropriate for the course(s) under consideration.

CourseApproval/Periodic Review events normally commence with a presentation from the proposing course team, followed by a private meeting of the Panel, at which an agenda (list of issues for discussion at the event) is drawn up. The University provides a template called Issues for Discussion and Conclusion pages which is used to structure the meeting for Panel Members that provides areas for discussion for the event and includes a summary sheet for noting Panel Members’ specific questions. Once an agenda has been set, the Panel will meet with the course team and ask the questions drawn up during the agenda setting meeting.

If the event is an approval, there may be a tour or resources available to support the course(s) under consideration if this is appropriate. If the event is a periodic review, there may be an opportunity to meet with current and/or past students of the course, or the evidence file will include feedback from such groups.

At the end of the main meeting, the Panel will draw up a set of conclusions, based on the responses made during the meeting and the documentation. The conclusions will give details of the period of approval and may make conditions and/or recommendations that the course team must address within a given time period. These responses will be submitted to the University Student Learning and Experience Committee (SLEC), who will decide whether the conditions and/or recommendations have been met, agree that any “*subject to approval” flag can be removed from the prospectus/web site for any new course, and look to gather any information relating to good practice or issues which can be disseminated to the wider University.

  1. THE PANEL

The Panel for a University event usually consists of:

  • A Chair who is a senior member of the University, experienced in the approval/review process, who will guide the proceedings and may also ask questions.
  • A senior representative of the School Student Learning and Experience Sub-Committee (SSLESC) who can report on the processes the School undertook prior to submission of the documentation to the event, including details of any module approval event(s).
  • A number of academics from across the University who will normally concentrate their questions on University policies such as: Learning & Teaching Strategy, Learning Outcomes, Assessment Criteria, Academic Standards, Regulations, etc.
  • External members appropriate to the proposal.
  • A Secretary (normally from) the proposing School who will take notes of the meeting and will prepare the report template.
  1. CHANGES TO ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS

In July 2014, University Academic Board (UAB) approved proposals to revise the Assessment Regulations governing the University’s undergraduate, foundation, and integrated master’s awards.

The implementation of the revised Assessment Regulationsresulted in a number of implications for other University regulations, policies, procedures, and processes. One implication related to the University’s quality processes which govern the approval of courses and modules. Within the Guidance for Panel Members for Course Approval and Periodic Review a document has been included to support those involved in the University’s course approval and periodic review processes. The guidance presents a series of criterion-referenced ‘prompt’ questions.

In July 2016, UAB approved proposals to revise the Assessment Regulations governing the University’s Taught Masters Awards for implementation from September 2017. In April 2017 UAB approved the new Professional Doctoral Assessment Regulations for implementation from September 2017.

  1. CHANGES TO ACADEMIC DELIVERY MODEL

In 2015, the University reviewed its Academic Delivery Model and decided to adopt a semester-based delivery model which was implemented from September 2016.

  1. FURTHER INFORMATION

If you require any further information on the process, please do not hesitate to contact the Secretary of the approval event in the first instance. They will have sent you this documentation pack.

Page 1 of 3

Quality Handbook Section C