Quality Assurance and Approval of Courses and Units

2Quality assurance and approval of courses and units

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Flowchart 1 – Course approval process – faculty to University event

Flowchart 2 – New course approvals – faculty responsibilities

Flowchart 3 – New short course approvals through Short Course Approval Panel (SCAP)

Flowchart 4 – Minor changes to courses

2.1.Policy Context

2.2.Principles for the development of the course portfolio

2.2.1.Supporting faculty development

2.3.Process of approval of courses leading to University awards

2.3.1.Key development phases

2.3.2.University event outcomes

2.3.3.Purpose of scrutiny by the University level approval panel

2.3.4.Documentation for new course approvals

2.3.5.Organisation of the approval event

2.3.6.Course and Unit Information

2.4.Changes to the courses and units

2.5.Roles and responsibilities

2.5.1.Responsibility of initiating department

2.5.2.Responsibility of the Faculty Manager

2.5.3.Responsibility of the Faculty Dean

2.5.4.Responsibility of the Sub-Deans (Quality)

2.5.5.Responsibility of the Chair of the Teaching Quality and Standards Committee

2.5.6.Responsibility of the Academic Registrar

2.5.7.Responsibility of the TQSC Course Approval Task Group

2.6.The approval of courses within periodic review and the re-approval of courses

2.7.Short Course Approval Panel (SCAP)

2.7.1.Preliminary considerations

2.7.2.The approval and accreditation of short course provision

2.7.3.Aims and objectives of courses

2.7.4.Organisation of provision

2.7.5.Curriculum Design

Appendices

Level descriptors

New course proposal and approval form part 1 (NCP1)

New course proposal and approval form part 2 (NCP2)

Course information form (CIF)

Annex to Course Information Form – postgraduate (level 7) target awards

Unit information form (UIF)

Annex to Unit the Information Form – teaching schedule with activity hours for the KIS

Agreed variation to course approval process

Response to conditions and recommendations

Course handbook template

Nomination of external panel member for course approval

Indicative agenda for the University approval panel event

Proposed major modification to course form

Proposed minor modification to course or unit form

SCAP forms

SCAP 1:New course proposal and approval form (short courses)

SCAP 2:Approval of Financial Arrangements (Short Courses)

SCAP 3:External Examiner/Verifier: Approval Record Sheet (Short Courses)

SCAP4a:Partnership Approval Application (Short Courses)

SCAP 4b:Short Course Risk Assessment Tool

SCAP 5:New course proposal (short courses) CIF and UIF

SCAP 7:Short course monitoring report (credit bearing)

SCAP 8:Short course monitoring report (non-credit bearing)

Flowchart 1 - Course approval process – faculty to University event

Please see chapter 7 of the Quality Assurance Handbook for information relating to the approval of new courses or to the approval to deliver existing University courses at collaborative partners, as additional steps in this process are required depending on what is being proposed.

Flowchart 2 – New course approvals – faculty responsibilities

Flowchart 3 – New short course approvals throughShort Course Approval Panel (SCAP)

Flowchart 4 – Minor changes to courses

2.1.Policy Context

1The overall aims of course approval and review are:

1. to offer the University reassurance that it is securing for students a high quality of educational and academic experience;

1. to provide public information about the standards and quality of the University’s courses

2Course approval and review assess the quality and standards of courses and stimulate curriculum development by requiring staff to evaluate their courses and to open them to the thinking and practices of external peers.

3Responsibilities:

• The DVC(A) approves courses for development prior to approval;

• The Teaching Quality and Standards Committee (TQSC) confirms approval of courses to Academic Board;

• The Quality Directorate manages the operation of the approval process. The schedule of approval events is drawn up by the Quality Directorate in consultation with the Faculty Sub-Deans (Quality);

• The Academic Registrar approves standard panel membership;

• The Course Approval Task Group of TQSC is responsible for;

-Confirming approval outcomes on behalf of TQSC

-Reviewing approval reports and advising TQSC on the effectiveness of the approval process and any matters requiring action

-Conducting, where appropriate, CATG review panels

• The Chair of the approval panel approves the response to conditions.

4The overall aims of the course approval process are:

1. to ensure that courses are academically appropriate, sound and consistent with the University’s strategic and educational plans and regulations;

1. to provide the University with assurance that the course is likely to meet the appropriate academic standard and quality of learning experience, as defined by the University’s policies and regulations, the expectations of any relevant external professional statutory or regulatory body, and the Quality Assurance Agency’s (QAA) UK Quality Code;

1. to confirm that the human and physical resources are available to support delivery and the learner experience, and that the learning environment within which the course is offered is satisfactory;

1. to ensure that the course proposal has been carefully designed and is likely to provide students with a coherent and developmental educational experience;

1. to confirm that the quality of teaching and standards of assessment in the subject are likely to be consistent with national practice and will be continuously enhanced;

1. to confirm academic ownership and quality management of courses by teaching teams, academic departments and faculties;

1. to confirm that courses meet the expectations of learners and employers and other relevant groups in the preparation they offer for post-graduation activity;

1. to ensure External Examiner appointments have been considered by the External Examiner Committee.

5Once approved, courses are, unless otherwise specified at approval, approved for five years or until the next periodic review point, whichever is the shorter.

2.2.Principles for the development of the course portfolio

1Students choose where to study and whether to continue studying for a number of reasons, for example locality, the overall student experience, the financial support package. However, a key element is the attractiveness of the course portfolio. The portfolio is a key element in the strategic thinking and planning in every faculty. Courses cannot stand in isolation but are embedded in a wider notion of subject competence, including research and links with employers.

2The course portfolio evolves over time via a number of different processes:

• incremental development from existing courses;

• planned investment to secure entry into a new subject area;

• collaborative investment with one or more partners to secure entry into a subject area which flourishes in the partner but is new to the University

3The drivers for development include:

• changes in government policy, particularly in respect to the regulation of occupations;

• evidence of demand in local, national and international student markets and among commissioning bodies;

• local economic developments and the needs of local and regional employers, both public and private;

• the identification of new areas through staff research and enterprise;

• changes in patterns of progression and articulation in pre-degree contexts

4All new courses proposed for development mustmeet at least one of the following criteria within the resource capacity of the University:

• attract viable new cohorts of students;

• increase the conversion of applicants and potential applicants to UoB registrations in existing areas;

• increase the progression opportunities for students at UoB including CPD and other short-course populations;

• constitute a more effective and sustainable use of existing expertise than existing offerings in respect of the above

5Additional principles regarding the development of provision with collaborative partners can be found in chapter 7 of this Handbook.

2.2.1.Supporting faculty development

1The Centre for Learning Excellence and the Quality Directorate support course development through a range of initiatives and mechanisms, ensuring that course development meets sound pedagogical principles including those that form the basis of the University's Learner Experienceand related strategies, and that it reflects the standards and priorities of the QAA UK Quality Code and University regulatory structures.

2.3.Process of approval of courses leading to University awards

1Where aproposal has any element of collaborative working involved, the approval process required is fully described in chapter 7 of this Handbook, although the overarching notions included here remain applicable. The TQSC sub-committees which deal with collaborative provision (the UK or Overseas Partnerships Committees as appropriate) should be notified of any proposed collaborative venture to ensure that the appropriate procedures are followed.

2.3.1.Key development phases

1The main stages in the course approval process are:

1. Identification of a proposed course development to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)normally by the end of October in the academic year in which approval is sought

1. Preparation of the outline proposal, with a resource statement produced by the academic department, using the New Course Proposal part 1 form (NCP1)

1. Submission of the outline proposal to the relevant Faculty Executive for consideration of strategic and significant resourcing issues

1. Submission of the outline proposal to the Faculty Teaching Quality and Standards Committee (FTQSC)

1. Authorisation by the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic), on behalf of the University Teaching Quality and Standards Committee, for full development of the proposal

1. Faculty Developmental event with internal peer review; Faculty approval event of new subject areas with external peer review

1. University approval event with external peer review.

1. Identification of a proposed course development to the University's Portfolio Strategy Group

The Portfolio Strategy group reviews proposed course developments and advises the DVC(A) on the viability and prospects of proposed developments. Its deliberations are reported by the DVC(A) to the Corporate Management Team. The Portfolio Strategy Group considers proposals on the basis of confirmation from MARC of prior discussions with Faculty teams or representatives. Where possible it will discuss course developments at the start of the academic year in which approval is proposed, following Faculty discussion with MARC. Where this timing is not practical, a New Course Proposal part 1 form (NCP1) may be submitted without Portfolio Strategy Group (PSG) discussion, for approval by the DVC(A).

1. Preparation of the outline proposal with resource statement by the academic department:

A nominated member of academic staff prepares an outline proposal to include a resources statement using the New Course Proposal part 1 form (NCP1). This proposal must be formally discussed at a Portfolio or Department Committee meeting and must be supported by the Head of Department. The Department will nominate a Proposal Development Coordinator, to co-ordinate the development of the proposal through to approval. The Proposal Development Chair will also liaise as appropriate with collaborative partners, FE colleges, employers etc.

Where a course has not been placed on the development schedule of the Portfolio Strategy Group by the end of October in the academic year prior to proposed introduction of the course:

• the NCP1 form must be accompanied by confirmation from MARC of the projected viability and prospects of the proposed development, on the basis of discussion with the relevant Faculty;

• An approval event will be scheduled no less than three months after the submission of the NCP1. A successful event must be held no less than three months before the proposed start date of a new course.

1. Submission of the outline proposal to the relevant Faculty Executive for consideration of strategic and resource issues:

The Faculty Manager is responsible for submitting the NCP to the Faculty Executive for consideration of strategic issues and any significant human and physical resource implications. Following approval by the Faculty Executive, the Dean will sign the NCP.

1. Submission of the outline proposal to the Faculty Teaching Quality and Standards Committee (FTQSC):

Following approval by the Faculty Executive, the NCP will be passed by the Faculty Manager to the Faculty Teaching Quality and Standards Committee for consideration and approval in principle.

1. Submission of the outline proposal to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)

The Sub-Dean (Quality) will sign the NCP which will be passed to the Quality Directorate for submission to the Chair of the University Teaching Quality and Standards Committee, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic).

The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) will consider the proposal and give approval for the proposal to be placed on the list of courses offered by the University.

The Quality Directorate will then liaise with the following areas of the University:

• Head of Planning: to include the course and associated student numbers in the University’s operational plans and to set up the framework of the course on the student record system;

• Director of Marketing, Admissions, Recruitment and Communications: to obtain an UCAS, NMAS or GTTR code as appropriate and to place the course in the relevant prospectus and external website subject to approval.

1. Faculty Developmental event with internal peer review and support:

The Centre for Learning Excellenceand Quality Directorate will work in collaboration with the Faculty Sub-Dean (Quality) to facilitate course design workshops. These will be tailored to meet the needs of the course team. The Development Chair and course team members will be invited to attend.

The Faculty Sub-Dean (Quality Enhancement) arranges a faculty-level developmental event in conjunction with the Proposal Development Chair and convenes an internal peer review panel.

The purpose of the faculty-level event is to ensure that the aims and objectives of the proposed course are consistent with the faculty’s strategic plan and that the paperwork has been completed appropriately and in line with appropriate internal and external benchmarks and resources. The FTQSC must also assure itself that there are the appropriate human and physical resources available to offer the course to an appropriately high standard. The existence of appropriately robust links with collaborative partners such as FE colleges and employers are particularly important when considering foundation degrees.

Comments and recommendations made by the FTQSC must be taken on board by the course proposal team prior to submission of the final documentation to the Quality Directorate.

Portfolio Leaders provide a pool of staff from which Sub Deans draw when undertaking faculty-staged events. If there were major concerns at the Faculty event or no recognised Portfolio Leader had been present, then there would be anPortfolio Leader involved in the final approval

The faculty-level developmental event should normally take place no later than 4-6 weeks prior to the University-level approval event, bearing in the mind the requirement that for faculty-level developmental events to be held before the end of December for courses due to be introduced the following October.

The secretary of the faculty-level developmental event will be the Faculty Quality Officer (or nominee) who will make a written record of the event and advise the Proposal Development Chair of any changes/enhancements required. A copy of this report will be submitted to the Quality Directorate along with the final set of documentation for University approval.

Where the proposal is to seek approval for a collaborative partner to deliver a pre-existing University course (a franchise relationship) then a developmental event is not required, however the faculty may wish to hold a rehearsal event with the partner, particularly where they are new to the University, to ensure that the proposal is fully developed and that the partner understands the nature of the forthcoming approval event.

1. Faculty approval of new subject areas with external peer review

In certain cases – for example, subject areas new to the University, or the first Master’s courses being proposed within a subject area – the University may engage subject specialist external peers early in the process of course development and approval to allow from the outset an appropriate focus and direction of course development.

In these cases, the procedure will be that:

• the Quality Directorate commissions a specialist consultant in the area (probably a senior subject specialist academic from another university) to be present at the faculty-level approval event

• the outcome of the meeting will be a written record of the event with clearly documented requirements for the proposal to be recognised nationally as appropriate to the subject area concerned

• the internal parties to the meeting would subsequently work together to develop the course fully in the light of the external advice received

• a copy of this report will be submitted to the Quality Directorate along with the final set of documentation with final approval

1. University approval event with external peer review:

A University Course Approval Panel is set up by the Quality Directorate under the auspices of the University’s Teaching Quality and Standards Committee with delegated authority from the Academic Board, subject to CATG Chair review of outcomes.

The key functions of the panel are to satisfy itself that proposals coming before it are:

• academically appropriate, sound, consistent with the University's Strategic Plans

• appropriately resourced

• consistent with QAA’s UK Quality Code and the University regulations and policies

• appropriate to the needs of external stakeholders, including PSRBs, employers and collaborative partners

The panel must also satisfy itself on behalf of the University that the team proposing the course has the academic competence to deliver the intended learning outcomes. If these conditions are met, the panel will confirm, on behalf of TQSC, that a course is approved.

2.3.2.University event outcomes

1Courses may be approved:

1. With delivery conditions (where the additional work required is related to documentation only)

1. With approval conditions (where the additional work required is substantial and required to satisfy the panel that the course meets the University's requirements in respect of standards and/or quality)

1. With recommendations

2No commendations will be noted formally, although the panel may report on areas of strength in its feedback to the course team and note these in its report of the approval meeting.