University Level Committees with responsibility for Academic Standards and Quality

Faculty Level Committees with Responsibility for Academic Standards and Quality

Reporting Routes for Quality Assurance Processes

Annual Reflection Taught Programmes

Annual Reflection PGR

Periodic Review (taught programmes only)

Policy and Guidance Review (taught programmes only)

New Programme and Significant Amendment Approvals (University level)(see p6for Faculty level approval routes)

Changes to General Regulations and Exam Conventions

Changes to Programme Regulations

Approval of New Modules (Taught)

Approval of New Modules (PGR)

Council

An annual report on academic quality management activities is sent to Council. This covers external requirements, key quality management processes for taught and research programmes and a summary of enhancement activities carried out in response to quality assurance activities.

Faculty Approval Routes for new Programmes and Significant Amendments

Taught Programmes / PGR
Fac of Arts & Humanities / Fac of Engineering / International Faculty / Fac of Medicine, Dentistry & Health / Fac of Science / Fac of Social Science / All Faculties
Approval Part A: Approval in Principle / Approval from FEB (Faculty Executive Board) / Approval from FAST (FAST is a sub-group with delegated authority from FEB) / Approval from FDO (Faculty Director of Operations) and Faculty Finance officer) / Approval from FDO, Faculty Finance Officer, FDLT and Faculty Planning Support Officer / Approval from FDO and FDLT (Faculty Director of Learning & Teaching) / Approval from FDRI (Faculty Director of Research & Innovation)
Approval Part B: Full Approval / Two members of FLTC or PG equivalent are asked to review programme and lead discussion at FLTC. QSC rep and programme proposer attend FLTC. FLTC give final approval.
Where new programme proposals occur outside committee cycle, two people review and their comments are shared with each other and the Chair of FLTC. Final approval by Chair’s action. / Programme Quality and Scrutiny Group review programme and discuss at meeting of group. QSC rep and programme proposer attend. Recommend to FLTC for final approval. Where new programme proposals occur outside committee cycle, two people review and their comments are shared with each other and the Chair of FLTC. Final approval by Chair’s action. / IFLTC consider proposals for new and significantly amended programmes and give final approval. The IFLTC includes a Sheffield based member of academic staff in its membership / Sub set of FLTC asked to review new programme. Review done by correspondence and comments circulated to faculty officers and QSC rep. Final approval given by faculty officers on behalf of FLTC. / Two members of Programme Group review programme and discuss at meeting of group. QSC rep and programme proposer attend. Recommend to FLTC for final approval. Where new programme proposals occur outside committee cycle, two reviewers plus the QSC repshare their comments with each other and the Chair of FLTC. Final approval by Chair’s action. / New programmes reviewed by 2 faculty officers and QSC rep. The proposal is then discussed at a meeting which the proposer also attends. Significant amendments are approved by one faculty officer who has been delegated this role. / Reviewed and approved by Faculty PGR committees.

Notes

  • The table above covers only standard programmes. Collaborative programmes or non standard programmes follow a slightly different route involving QSC and, in the case of collaborative programmes, the QSC Sub-Group for Collaborative Developments.
  • QSC rep always comes from a different faculty from the faculty they are reviewing programme for.

Changes to University Learning and Teaching Policies

When the need for a policy to be reviewed or created is identified, action is usually taken in the following way:

  • LeTS(Learning and Teaching Services)/RIS (Research and Innovation Services) advise a LTC Sub-Committee of the need to review or develop a new policy or guidance.
  • The sub-committee will usually set up a working group to consider the policy revision. The group would usually consist of a number of academic staff plus professional service staff from the relevant area and often a student/student union officer.
  • The working group will report back to the LTC Sub-Committee, making recommendations for the revised or new policy.
  • The LTC Sub-Committee will approve (or otherwise) the recommendations.
  • This will be reported to LTC. New policies (as opposed to guidance) are generally approved by the Learning and Teaching Committee and may be reported to/approved by the Senate (for example, Principles of Feedback)
  • The new or revised policy will be disseminated to Faculties, often through FLTC or PGR Committee.
  • Some form of evaluation will usually be carried after an appropriate time and reported to the LTC Sub-Committee and LTC itself.

1