UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK
Checklist of Issues to be Considered in the Approval of New Modules
This document provides a checklist for academic departments of the issues that should be addressed
in the consideration of proposals for new and revised modules to ensure that the quality of the
students’ learning experience and academic standards are maintained. In approving a proposal the
committee or individuals responsible are confirming that the following have been satisfactorily
addressed.
1.
The content and learning outcomes of the proposed module are consistent with the those of
the courses on which it will be offered and the overall module offering of the Department.
2.
The module proposed does not unnecessarily duplicate the content of other modules offered
either by the Department or other departments. Where there is some overlap in subject
matter a sound justification for this has been provided and the relevant departments have
been consulted.
3.
If other departments are affected because the module is offered on course for which they
are responsible, confirmation should be provided that these departments have been
consulted, and a list of departments given.
4.
The correct version of the form has been used.
5.
The title of the module is acceptable.
6.
The proposed level is appropriate. Modules can be offered at the following levels:
4 (previously C): normally equivalent to first year full-time undergraduate
5 (previously I): normally equivalent to second year full-time undergraduate
6 (previously H): normally equivalent to third/final year of full-time undergraduate
7 (previously M): equivalent to Masters and fourth year of full-time integrated Masters
degrees.
8 (previously D): doctorate
Qualification descriptors of the levels can be found at
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/FHEQ/EWNI08/default.asp#p4
7.
If the module is to replace an existing module, the correct title and module code of the
existing module together with the dates on which the change will occur have been provided.
8.
If this is a new module the date on which the new module will be introduced is correct. For
modules to be offered on courses which start at the beginning of the academic year, the
academic year of introduction will be sufficient. For modules to be offered on courses that
start throughout the academic year, the month of introduction has been given.
9.
The departments given as being responsible for teaching the module are correct and, where
this is divided between departments, the percentage split is an accurate reflection of the
teaching load. This data is used to inform internal resource allocation and it is important
therefore that it is fair and accurate. If more than one department is contributing to the
teaching, the approval of the Heads of other relevant Departments has been given. This data
is used to inform internal resource allocation and it is important therefore that it is fair and
accurate.
10.
The name of the module leader has been provided. If this is not a member of Warwick staff, a
CV has been submitted which demonstrates that the module leader has sufficient expertise
and experience to teach the module. Resources are also available to fund and support such
external teaching. This is of particular relevance if the module is core or optional core.
11.
The names and course codes of all degree courses on which the module is to be taught have
been provided and it is clear whether the module is a core module, optional (if so, on which
list), or optional core. It should be ensured that the introduction of new modules complies
with existing Course Regulations unless these are also to be changed.
12.
The CATS weightings of the modules should be consistent with the CATS scheme used within
the department or other departments on whose courses the module is offered.
13.
The minimum number of registered students required to run the module has been given and
is consistent with the standard expectation of the Department. If a minimum number of
registered students has not been given, a satisfactory explanation has been given as to why
this is the case.
14.
The teaching and learning activities listed should specify the total amount of each activity
type experienced by the typical student throughout the duration of the module (e.g where
there are 2 x 1 hours lectures per week for 10 weeks, 20 hours should be entered against
lectures; for 1 hour of seminars per week for 25 weeks, 25 hours input against seminars, for a
single practical session lasting 8 hours, 8 entered against practical class/workshops); the type
and total volume of teaching and learning activities and should be of an appropriate level for
the CATS weighting and level of the module concerned and should be consistent with
comparable modules within the department and similar disciplines. If an innovative teaching
methodology is being proposed the appropriateness of this has been considered and has
been deemed satisfactory. Advice has been sought if required. If the module is to be offered
at different CATS weightings, the relevant variations in teaching and learning activities should
be specified. Information entered in this section for undergraduate level modules is used to
calculate the teaching and learning information incorporated into the course Key Information
Set (KIS).
CATS points reflect the workload the module represents for the student (including self study,
contact hours, assessments etc.). One point is expected to equate roughly to 10 hours of
‘student effort’ (i.e. a 30 CATS module should equate to 300 hours of ‘student effort’). The
University operates the following CATS structures at undergraduate level:
 6, 12, 18, 24, 48 etc.
 7.5, 15, 30, 45, 60
For postgraduate courses the following CATS structure is normally applied but variation is
permitted: 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60
15.
Assessment methods and the volume of assessment are appropriate for the level of study
and the CATS weighting of the module and are consistent with assessment methods for
similar modules within the department and cognate disciplines. The weightings proposed are
consistent with regulations covering the courses on which the module is offered. If an
innovative assessment method is being proposed the appropriateness of this has been
considered and has been deemed satisfactory. Advice has been sought if required. If the
module is to be offered at different CATS weightings, the relevant variations in assessments
methods should be specified. Information entered in this section for undergraduate level
modules is used to calculate the teaching and learning information incorporated into the
course Key Information Set (KIS).
16.
Feedback methods have been set out for the teaching and learning activities and assessment
methods set out above.
17.
Any pre- or post-requisite modules have been clearly stated. Pre-requisite modules are those
which the student must have successfully completed before registering for the proposed
module. Post requisite modules are those for which the successful completion of the
proposed module is a requirement.
18.
Module Aims: this should comprise a brief general statement explaining the purpose of the
module, how students will benefit from taking it and its role in the context of the subject as a
whole.
19.
Learning outcomes should list the skills and knowledge the student will be able to
demonstrate on successful completion of the module, the teaching and learning methods by
which these outcomes will be achieved and how these will be assessed. Outcomes should be
appropriate to the level of study of the module and should reflect the learning outcomes of
the courses on which the module will be offered.
20.
The outline syllabus provides a concise overview of the main themes of the module and the
order in which they will be covered.
21.
The bibliography contains core texts only which are considered to be the most relevant for
the module.
22.
Any significant resourcing requirements have been identified (eg staff, equipment, teaching
rooms) and can be met. Where appropriate, central administrative departments have been
consulted (eg Examinations Office, Timetabling).
23.
The final version of the module proposal has been signed off by the module leader.
Once approved, the date of approval and minute reference of the relevant committee should be
provided on the form, together with the signature of the Chair of the committee and the Head of
Department.