Form IPM ‘Initial Proposal for Major Modification of an Existing Validated Programme’

INITIAL PROPOSALFOR MAJOR MODIFICATION

OF AN EXISTING VALIDATED PROGRAMME

(See also Quality Management Handbook Chapter 4. Initial proposals will not be submitted for APC consideration without the required signatures).

Pleaseconsulttheguidance endnotes beforecompleting thisproforma

1. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
1a. Proposing Faculty and Subject Area
1b. Name of Lead Proposer(s)
2. PROGRAMME TO BE MODIFIED
3. NATURE OF MODIFICATION
4. RATIONALE FOR MODIFICATION
5. DATE(S) OF IMPLEMENTATION
6. CHANGE TO MODULES AND PROGRAMME STRUCTURE (if applicable)
Undergraduate Level 4
Code / Title / Credit rating / Details
Undergraduate Level 5
Code / Title / Credit rating / Details
Undergraduate Level 6
Code / Title / Credit rating / Details
Postgraduate Level 7
Code / Title / Credit rating / Details
7. RESEARCH AND SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY (where applicable)
8. MARKET ANALYSIS
9. INSTITUTIONAL RESOURCES (LEARNING SERVICES, IT SERVICES AND TEACHING AND LEARNING DEVELOPMENT)
9a. Information resources
9b. Skills support
9c. E-learning
9d. Media
Dean of Learning Services or representative (signature) / Comments / Date
9e. IT resources
Director of IT Services or representative (signature) /

Comments

/ Date
9f. Teaching and Learning
Dean of Teaching and Learning Development (signature) /

Comments

/ Date
10. PLANNING AND VALIDATION
10a. Planning Team
10b. Planning Support
10c. Planning and Validation Schedule
10d. Evidence of cross-Faculty/cross-department engagement (whererelevant)
Dean of Quality Enhancement (signature) /
Comments
/
Date
11. REQUIREMENT FOR MEDICAL AND/OR INDEPENDENT SAFEGUARDING AUTHORITY CHECK
Medical? ISA?
YES / NO / YES / NO
12. SIGNATURE OF LEAD PROPOSER
I confirm that the major medication has paid due regard to ‘protected characteristics’[1], i.e. there are no implications for teaching and assessment in relation to students’ age, gender, race, sexuality, faith or disability.
13. FACULTY RESOURCES
Signature of Dean of Faculty
/
Comments
/
Date
14. PROGRAMME BOARD APPROVAL
Programme Board minute reference / Date
Signature of Chair
/ Date
15. FACULTY BOARD APPROVAL
Faculty Board minute reference / Date
Signature of Chair
/ Date
16. CROSS-INSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT (where relevant)
Signature(s) of Dean(s) of contributing Faculty/Faculties
/ Date
Signature(s) of Head(s) of contributing Departments or Subject Areas
/ Date
Signature(s) of contributing Module Leaders
/ Date
17. ACADEMIC PLANNING COMMITTEE APPROVAL
APC minute reference / Date
Signature of Chair
/ Date

INITIAL PROPOSAL FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING VALIDATED PROGRAMME - GUIDANCE NOTES

The following notes provide guidance to support proposing teams in completing this proforma. Please note that initial proposals will not be submitted to APC for consideration without the appropriate signatures as these are required to demonstrate that detailed consultation with relevant colleagues/boards of study has taken place.

This form is used to provide information for the Academic Planning Committee (APC). APC’s consideration of proposals will be informed by market intelligence and resource management information. APC will be mindful of strategic, resource and operational issues and proposing teams should ensure, as far as is possible, that their submission addresses these matters as they apply to the proposed development and as they impact on other subject areas.

PLEASE NOTE:The range of possible major modifications (indicated in note 3, below) means that it may not be appropriate to complete every section of this proforma: for example, a ‘change of award title’ would normally require sections 1-5 and 7 only to be completed while the ‘inclusion of substantial numbers of new modules’ would require all sections to be completed. Proposers should therefore complete this form selectivelyto ensure that APC receives the information that is relevant to the specific type of modification. If in doubt, please consultthe Faculty Quality Officer or the Academic Quality and Development Unit Unit foradvice.

  1. Management arrangements

1a This section should identify (i) the Faculty in which primary management responsibility for the proposal is located, or give details of the management arrangements in cases where more than one Faculty is contributing to the proposal; and (ii) the hosting subject department.

1b The name of the Lead Proposer/s (Programme Leader) should be recorded.

  1. Programme to be modified

This section should give the title of the award(s) for which approval of modification is being sought.).

  1. Nature of modification

The proposer should indicate the relevant modification(s) being proposed from the following list of possible Major Modifications to Validated Programmes (see Quality Management Handbook Chapter 4):

  • Inclusion of substantial numbers of new modules within the structure of a validated programme (typically more than 30 credits per Level per annum), or changes to -
  • award title
  • qualification
  • accreditation
  • teaching institution
  • awarding body
  • programme aims and outcomes
  • overall teaching, learning and assessment strategies (e.g. introduction of an e-learning route through the programme)
  • criteria for admissions and progression
  • significant resource requirements
  • significant learning infrastructure and support arrangements
  • non-standard assessment regulations
  1. Rationale for modification

The proposer should provide a short academic and/or vocational rationale for the proposed change(s).

  1. Date(s) of Implementation

This section should indicate the proposed date for implementation of the proposed modification(s). It must also outline any phasing-in arrangements, e.g. by Year/Level.

  1. Change to Modules and Programme Structure (if applicable)

This section should only be completed if the proposed modificationinvolves the inclusion of substantial numbers of new modules within the structure of the validated programme (see 3, above).The section should detail module codes, titles, and credit ratings. Under ‘Details’, it should be made clear which are new modules to be developed and which are modules that are already in validation. Some indication should be given of programme structure through the identification of core, compulsory and optional modules. Where appropriate, an indication of pre- or co-requisites and specific module restrictions should also be given. It is essential that this section identifies clearly any modules that are provided by another academic department and/or Faculty within the University (see also sections 1016).

  1. Research and scholarly activity

This section should be completed only where a proposal contains new modules that may require academic underpinning by additional staff research which should be indicated here (see also section 13).

  1. Market Analysis

This section should include evidence of demand for the proposed modification which may include:

  • Market research;
  • Changes to government policy/activity, national or regional agendas, funding arrangements etc.;
  • Requirements of employers and/or Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB).
  1. Institutional Resources (Learning Services, IT Services and Teaching and Learning Development)

This section should indicate clearly any changed or additional resource requirements under each of the sub-headings provided: information resources; skills support; media; Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL, formerly ‘e-learning’); IT resources (e.g. computer hardware and software); and teaching and learning to support the development and delivery of the modified programme, and how these will be managed to sustain it.

The following issues[2] should be taken into consideration when completing this section of the form:

  • Each proposal is considered on its own merits – there is no ‘off the shelf’ sum for new courses or modules;
  • Thought should be given to one-off and recurrent costs – proper costing will be provided, based upon indicative reading lists;
  • The teaching and learning approach may impact upon resources and learner support, and on Learning Services staffing requirements;
  • What skills training will be required to enable students to use resources effectively, and at what level?
  • The location for delivery of the course should be taken into account – what additional resources may be required if delivery is off-campus?
  • The intended use of VLE or other learning technology should be described, along with the identification of (or requirements for) staff who will be responsible for the development of VLE materials. Where a proposal is specified as containing Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) you should indicate clearly whether this is supportive, e.g. using VLE as a supplement to other delivery modes, or if TEL is integralto the nature and delivery of the proposal;
  • New media resources requirements should be described, distinguishing between one-off and recurrent costs.

If it is considered that the proposal requires no new or additional resources, a statement should be included to confirm that there will be no impact on the use of existing resources. The electronic signatures of the Dean of Learning Services and Director of IT Services (or their representatives) and the Dean of Teaching and Learning Development are required to confirm that the statements in this section reflect the outcome of discussions with the proposing team.

  1. Planning and Validation

The purpose of this section of the form is to ensure appropriate engagement with the planning and validation process. The proposer should:

  • Demonstrate the appropriateness (in terms of its membership) of the proposing team to develop the proposal. Consideration should be given to the inclusion of appropriately experienced and qualified members from other departments (including central services) and Faculties, and/or relevant external stakeholders (including employers);
  • Indicate the proposing team’s requirements for support or advice from the Academic Quality and Development Unit, Teaching and Learning Development or other central services, or from external sources;
  • Identify the proposed timescales for Faculty scrutiny of the completed submission document and its consideration by the Validation and Audit Standing Panel (VASP). Dates should be consistent with the institutional Validation, Review and Audit Schedule (G:/Validation and Review Schedule) and may be confirmed with the Faculty Quality Officer or the Academic Quality and Development Unit.
  • Where appropriate, provide details of any consultation that has taken place with other departments or Faculties of the University in the preparation of your proposal (see also 6 and 16).

The electronic signature of the Dean of Quality Enhancement (or representative) is required to confirm that the statements in this section reflect the required level of engagement with institutional planning and validation processes.

  1. Medical and/or Independent Safeguarding Authority Checks

A number of the University’s courses – including an increasing number of foundation degrees - require medical and/or Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) checks for students to enable them to undertake Work-Based Learning, e.g. on-site placements. These checks are processed through the Admissions unit and it is essential that the University has an early awareness of any such requirements and that proposing teams give some thought to them before proceeding to recruitment. The proposer must indicate clearly whether additional medical and/or ISA checks may be required as a result of programme modification and, if so, undertake to make early contact with Admissions following initial approval by APC in order to discuss the implications for the recruitment process.

  1. Signature of Lead Proposer

The lead proposer (programme leader) should sign this section to indicate that consultation with appropriate colleagues has taken place, that due regard has been paid to ‘protected characteristics’, and that all relevant parties have agreed the statements in the above sections.

  1. Faculty resources

This section should indicate any changed or additional resource requirements from the Faculty in support of the modification and how these will be managed, including staffing and staff development. It should also include a statement of any additional resource requirements outwith the University (e.g.,for workplace mentors) or from another academic department and/or Faculty within the University (see also sections 6,10 16).

The Dean of Faculty’s electronic signature is required to indicate that the statement in this section reflects the outcome of discussions between the Faculty and the programme team.

  1. Programme Board approval

This section should contain details of the Programme Board at which the proposal was approved, including date, minute reference and electronic signature of the Chair. It may on occasion be necessary to seek Chair's Action for approval by Programme Board.

  1. Faculty Board approval

This section should contain details of the Faculty Board (or Faculty committee with delegated responsibility) at which the proposal was approved, including date, minute reference and electronic signature of the Chair. It may on occasion be necessary to seek Chair's Action for approval by Faculty Board. However, it would not be usual for proposals approved by Chair's Action at both Programme and Faculty Board to be accepted by APC.

  1. Cross-institutional agreement

This section should be completed only where the proposal contains modules and/or resources that are hosted by another academic department or subject area and/or Faculty (see also sections 6 and 10).

  1. Academic Planning Committee approval

On approval of the proposal by APC, a hard copy will be signed by hand by the Chair of APC and the minute reference and date will be inserted by the Academic Planning Manager.

1

Latest version: August 2013

[1]

[2] Proposing teams should also refer to the aide memoir which is available from Learning Services.