THE SENATE
PATHWAY APPROVAL REPORT
(Franchised Provision)
A confirmed report of the event held on 26th February 2009 to
consider the approval of the following pathways:
BA (Hons) English
BA (Hons) History
BA (Hons) History and English
LLM International Business Law
Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences
for distance learning delivery by:
International Correspondence Schools Ltd, Glasgow
Quality Assurance Division
SECTION A – OUTCOME SUMMARY
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The purpose of the event was to consider the franchise of the BA (Hons) English, BA
(Hons) History, BA (Hons) History and English and LLM International Business Law for
distance learning delivery by the International Correspondence Schools (ICS) based in
Glasgow.
1.2
The BA (Hons) English pathway will be located in the English and Writing Programme
within the Department of English, Communication, Film and Media. The BA (Hons) History
and BA (Hons) History and English pathways will be located in the Humanities Programme
within the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences. LLM International Business Law
will be located in the Law (Academic Courses) Programme within the Anglia Law School.
All pathways will be located in the Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences.
1.3
The pathways under consideration will be delivered by distance learning. The planned
launch date for the delivery of the pathways by ICS is April 2009.
2.
CONCLUSIONS
2.1
The Panel recommends to the Senate the franchise of the following pathways:




BA (Hons) English;
BA (Hons) History;
BA (Hons) History and English;
LLM International Business Law.
Approval, once confirmed, will be for an indefinite period, subject to Anglia Ruskin’s
continuing quality assurance procedures.
Pathways to be delivered by distance learning. The mode of attendance will be part-time
only. The minimum intakes for BA (Hons) English, BA (Hons) History and BA (Hons)
History and English will be 60. The minimum intake for LLM International Business Law will
be 100. There will be no maximum intake for any of the above pathways.
2.2
Conditions
Approval is subject to the following conditions which were set by the Panel. A copy of the
response must be lodged with the Executive Officer by the date(s) detailed below:
2.2.1
Details of Condition
Deadline
Response to
be considered
by
The Proposal Team [Anglia Ruskin and ICS]
shall provide revised versions of the following
documents, appropriately contextualised for
delivery by distance learning, clarifying the
modules to be delivered at each level and the
delivery pattern adopted by ICS, as outlined to
the Panel [see also the Technical Report]:
 Pathway Specification Forms (PSFs) for each
pathway, to include a separate structure
diagram for ICS delivery;
 Module Definition Forms (MDFs) amended for
delivery by ICS (See Paragraph 9.1 below)
30th March
2009
Chair,
Executive
Officer &
Technical
Officer
Quality Assurance Division
2
Confirmed
2.2.2
2.3
The Proposal Team [ICS] shall provide electronic
final versions of all staff CVs and tables showing
the final allocation of staff to modules for each
pathway for inclusion in the Register of Teaching
Staff (See Paragraph 7.2 below).
30th March
2009
Chair &
Executive
Officer
Recommendations
The following recommendations for quality enhancement were made by the Panel. A copy
of the responses to the recommendations listed below must be lodged with the Executive
Officer. The Faculty Board for the Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences will consider
the responses at its meeting of 10th June 2009:
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
Details of Recommendation
The Proposal Team [Anglia Ruskin and ICS] should formulate a
staff development strategy, with particular emphasis on
developing knowledge of Anglia Ruskin quality assurance and
regulatory policies and procedures, to assist ICS staff in advance
of initial delivery of the pathways in April 2009 and throughout the
first year of delivery (See Paragraph 7.5 below);
The Proposal Team [ICS] should describe how the requirements
outlined in Appendix C [paragraph 2.3] of the Procedural
Document to accompany the Senate Code of Practice on the
Approval, Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review of Taught
Pathways have been addressed in the proposal documentation
and provide further information where such issues are not
addressed (See Paragraph 9.3 below);
The Panel recommends that the Proposal Team further develop
the Student Handbooks for each pathway, taking account of the
following:
 Anglia Ruskin University guidance on the content of Student
Handbooks;
 appropriate references to Anglia Ruskin’s Academic
Regulations;
 the comments of the Panel contained in the ‘checklist of issues’
[see Student Handbook and ‘other issues’ sections] (See
Deadline
5th May 2009
5th May 2009
5th May 2009
Paragraph 9.2 below).
2.4
Issues Referred to the Senate (or appropriate standing committee)
The Panel did not identify any institution-wide issues as requiring the attention of the
Senate or the appropriate standing committee of the Senate.
Quality Assurance Division
3
Confirmed
SECTION B – DETAIL OF DISCUSSION AND PANEL CONCLUSIONS
3
RATIONALE
3.1
International Correspondence Schools Ltd, Glasgow (hereafter referred to as ICS) and
Anglia Ruskin University have been working to develop and deliver distance learning
degrees in English, History and International Business Law. The relationship between ICS
and Anglia Ruskin is founded on the understanding that there is a need to encourage wider
access to, and greater social inclusion in, Higher Education. On 7 July 2008 Anglia Ruskin
approved the BA (Hons) International Management pathway for franchised delivery by ICS,
a top-up degree aimed specifically at international students. The additional pathways will
strengthen the existing partnership, which is based on principles that include offering a high
standard of education and an enhanced quality of student experience.
3.2
The Panel learnt that the proposed pathways and mode of delivery articulated well with the
existing provision at Anglia Ruskin. The mode of delivery was ideal for students, who
wanted to achieve a degree, but were unable to attend University to study. Distance
learning was considered to be suited to people who may not be able to study in a more
traditional face-to-face environment due to other commitments such as work, family
commitments or geographical distance from a place of study.
4
DELIVERY OF THE CURRICULUM
4.1
The Panel was interested to learn about the Higher Education and IT skills guidance that
would be provided to ICS students, particularly those students who had not been involved
in education for a considerable period or those without traditional qualifications. The
Proposal Team explained that students without traditional entry qualifications would be
offered the opportunity to enrol on the first two modules of the undergraduate pathways, up
to a maximum of 45 credits, as Associate Students. The Panel learnt that the students
would also receive additional HE skills guidance and would be permitted to register on the
full degree pathway on successful completion of the two modules. Generic HE skills
guidance provided by ICS would include report writing, note-taking, Harvard referencing
and other relevant skills for HE study. Students needing to develop their IT skills would be
enrolled on the European Computer Driving Licence Course (ECDL) by ICS. The Panel
further enquired how ICS would determine whether an Associate Student was competent to
continue their studies at HE level. The Team informed the Panel that the formative
assessment process was designed to judge a student’s aptitude to study at an early stage
and to ascertain whether additional study skills support was necessary. It was also noted
that ICS had previously delivered a voluntary skills workshop that students were invited to
attend. The Panel welcomed the strategies in place to provide both HE and IT skills support
to ICS students and was satisfied that such strategies were entirely appropriate.
4.2
It was noted by the Panel that the MDFs of the History modules, AG115003S Making of
Modern Britain 1660-1832 and AG215012S The Enlightenment in England and France,
required students to undertake fieldtrips to a local country house and the British Museum
respectively and enquired how this would be achieved by students studying the pathway by
distance learning. The Team explained that the Making of Modern Britain module would be
revised as part of the forthcoming re-approval of the History curriculum in May 2009.
Following discussions with ICS and the new module leader at Anglia Ruskin it had been
decided that the fieldtrip would still be required but no longer formally assessed. ICS would
encourage students to undertake a fieldtrip to a local country house but where this was not
possible students would be able to do a virtual fieldtrip as an alternative. Similarly for The
Enlightenment in England and France module students would be able to undertake a virtual
tour of the Enlightenment Gallery at the British Museum. The Panel was satisfied that
necessary consideration had been given to the issue of fieldtrips and that appropriate
Quality Assurance Division
4
Confirmed
alternatives were available to ensure that ICS students would not be disadvantaged in
completing the modules concerned.
4.3
The Panel asked the Team to explain the rationale for the selection of designate modules
and whether such a reduced offering would allow sufficient opportunities for students to
take alternative modules in the event of failure in a designate module. The Team
responded that the selection of designate modules resulted from discussions with staff at
Anglia Ruskin as to their popularity, breadth of coverage and attraction to students and,
fundamentally, the contribution of the individual modules to the achievement of the pathway
intended learning outcomes. The Team further explained that it was not feasible for ICS to
offer every designate module as it would be inefficient to develop learning materials for
modules that students may decide not to take. The Team did, however, state that ICS was
committed to expanding the pathways in the future and offering additional designate
modules. The Team acknowledged that the modules selected offered limited choice to
students at present but felt that the addition of further designate modules over time would
offer students increased choice and provide replacement modules in the event of failure in
a designate module. The Team informed the Panel that students would all be studying parttime and that there was, therefore, approximately two years in which to consider expansion
of the module offering before any issues of student progression might occur. The Panel
was satisfied with the rationale provided for the selection of designate modules and
welcomed the commitment to developing the pathways in future.
4.4
It was noted by the Panel that both the BA (Hons) History and BA (Hons) History [with
another subject] pathways were due to be revised and re-approved during May 2009 for
delivery from September 2009. The Panel was therefore interested to learn how it would
impact upon the proposed delivery of the pathways by ICS from April 2009. The Team
responded that ICS had discussed the issue with the Programme Leader at Anglia Ruskin
and that it was not considered to be problematic. Subject to approval the proposed
revisions to the curriculum at Level 1 of both pathways involved the addition of a new
module in Semester 1 and the movement of an existing module, AG115003S Making of
Modern Britain, from Semester 1 to Semester 2. The Team explained to the Panel that, as
ICS students would be studying part-time, the changes to the curriculum would not affect
the modules that the students would be taking prior to September 2009. ICS students
studying BA (Hons) History would take 60 credits in their first year, consisting of the
modules AG130003D Western Civilisation and AG130003S War, Power and Culture, which
were due to remain unchanged in the re-approved curriculum. Additionally, ICS students
studying BA (Hons) History and English would take 30 credits from the History half of the
degree in the first year, consisting of the module AG130003D Western Civilisation. The
Panel thanked the Team for the clarification and was satisfied that the re-approval of the
History pathways would not impact upon ICS delivery from April 2009.
4.5
The Panel noted that some of the modules for the LLM International Business Law pathway
were approved for Semester 2 delivery only and enquired whether it would impact on the
semester of delivery for ICS students. The Team explained that the modules would be
delivered in the same pattern as for the face-to-face delivery at Anglia Ruskin. The
Semester 1 modules were all compulsory with the Semester 2 modules providing students
with designated options. The Panel welcomed the clarification and was satisfied that the
structure of the pathway was appropriate for delivery by distance learning.
4.6
The Panel was interested to learn how Personal Development Planning (PDP) would be
incorporated into the on-line delivery of the pathways, particularly the development of group
working skills. The Team put forward the example of the compulsory module AD230002D
Shakespeare and His Contemporaries in which PDP was embedded, informing the Panel
that the PDP element would require students to consider vocationally oriented aspects of
Shakespeare such as a film review and a lesson plan, which could be completed on-line by
ICS students. The Team further informed the Panel that group work, if required for PDP,
could be readily achieved by ICS. Students would be put into groups, provided with each
Quality Assurance Division
5
Confirmed
others contact details by ICS and required to work together on a task. ICS Mentors would
be able to track the group collaboration on-line. The Panel thanked the Team for the
additional information and was reassured that PDP and group working could be
appropriately achieved via distance learning.
4.7
The Panel enquired about the Special Topic modules due to be available to ICS students
on both History and English pathways and whether ICS proposed to source appropriate
staff to teach the distinctive topics listed on the MDFs or propose their own topics. The
Team responded that the choice of topics listed on the MDFs were indicative with only one
topic offered per delivery of the module. It was intended that ICS would deliver the same
topic offered at Anglia Ruskin and would therefore recruit appropriate staff to teach the
topic chosen for each delivery of the modules. The Head of Department (English,
Communication, Film and Media) informed the Panel that collaborative partner institutions
were able to submit proposals for their own special topic for approval by the Department if
they wished to offer an alternative topic to those listed on the MDFs. The Panel was
satisfied with the explanation provided.
4.8
The Panel was interested to learn about the process for the development of on-line
learning materials for each module. The Team responded that ICS had significant
experience of developing learning materials and an established process that relied upon
academic colleagues who were commissioned to write such materials. Learning materials
would also be updated annually, including the most current version of the MDF, web
references and bibliographies. Newly emerging resources within the 12 month cycle could
also be added to the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) for students to access. In some
cases module authors would be required to write an addendum to the study guide for the
module to be sent to students. The Head of Discipline for each subject area would also be
required to keep ICS informed of the development of learning materials. It was noted that
module authors had been in contact with staff at Anglia Ruskin to develop the draft study
guides for the approval event. Anglia Ruskin staff members of the Proposal Team
confirmed the high quality of the study material produced by ICS module authors. The
Panel welcomed the information provided and determined that appropriate processes were
in place to ensure that study materials were of the requisite standard and made available to
students at the necessary times.
5
ASSESSMENT STRATEGY
5.1
The Panel enquired as to the role of formative assessment tasks outlined in the proposal
documentation. The Team explained that the formative assessments were designed to
allow module leaders to chart the progress of each student and to determine whether they
were adequately prepared to apply to complete the summative assessment(s) for the
module. The formative assessment tasks were also written to reflect the summative
assessments and would therefore assist students in preparing for their final assessment. If
it became apparent that a student required additional support following the completion of
the formative assessment ICS staff would be able to provide such support as was deemed
necessary before the student applied to sit the summative assessment. The Panel was
satisfied that the formative assessment process was entirely appropriate.
5.2
The Panel was interested to learn how the assessment cycle would operate for students
studying with ICS, particularly with students being able to enrol at any point in the year, and
how parity would be achieved with students at Anglia Ruskin and other collaborative
partner institutions in terms of the amount of time permitted to complete assessments. The
Team informed the Panel that although students could enrol with ICS at any point in the
year they would adhere to the current Anglia Ruskin assessment cycles of January and
June. If a student enrolled too late to apply to sit the summative assessment they would be
required to wait until the next assessment round. The Team did, however, inform the Panel
that the assessment briefs would be given to students in accordance with the timing at
Quality Assurance Division
6
Confirmed
Anglia Ruskin to ensure that ICS students were not allowed more time to complete their
assessments. Students studying at ICS would be subject to Anglia Ruskin’s Academic
Regulations and could therefore only defer their assessment should they have either an
extension agreed or mitigating circumstances accepted by the Anglia Ruskin mitigation
panel. It was also noted that the in-house Mentors at ICS would plan study time with each
student and advise them on when to apply to sit the summative assessments for each
module. Mentors would also be responsible for ensuring that students were following the
study plan leading towards the assessment. The Panel was satisfied with the explanation
provided and was reassured that the assessment strategy proposed by ICS would ensure
parity with other Anglia Ruskin students studying the same pathways.
5.3
The Panel noted that there were three modules within the LLM International Business Law
pathway that contained a presentation as an element of assessment and enquired how ICS
students would be assessed on their oral skills. The Team informed the Panel that the
presentations were not designed to test students’ oral skills but aimed to test their ability to
analyse, critique and conduct individual research. The assessment would also consider the
presentation of the information to the target audience but not, specifically, in terms of the
oral skills of presentation. The Team considered that the assessment of such presentations
in an on-line context was achievable and informed the Panel that ICS students would
submit a PowerPoint presentation along with notes of their research. This would be virtually
identical to the process of assessment for students studying on campus. ICS tutors would
be provided with some general guidance on the quantity of PowerPoint slides and evidence
of research notes that might be expected from students; whilst not unduly prescriptive it
would assist tutors in assessing the presentations. The Panel welcomed the clarification
provided and was satisfied that the assessment process outlined was appropriate for
distance learning students.
5.4
In terms of the Major Project modules on each pathway the Panel enquired how ICS
intended to support students in completing their projects. The Team responded that a
Major Project module had previously been developed by ICS as part of the delivery of
pathways franchised by the University of East London. In developing the module
consideration had been given to the key points at which students’ work in progress should
be supervised. It had subsequently been decided that five formative assessment points
would be appropriate as milestones for the completion of the major project and to act as
supervision points for students studying at a distance. All formative assessments would be
pass/fail, some prior to the student deciding on their choice of topic, others focussing on
primary research and progress through to completion. The Team considered that such a
model of supervision was also appropriate for the Anglia Ruskin major project modules as it
had already proved successful for current ICS students. The Panel welcomed the strategy
outlined to support students in the completion of their major project.
5.5
The Panel was interested to learn how ICS intended to maintain the security of the
examination process where examinations were taken at different overseas centres,
particularly if examinations occurred in different time zones. The Team responded that
examinations were predominantly administered at British Council offices and that students
would not be permitted to remove examination papers from the room. ICS would attempt,
wherever possible, to schedule examinations at the same time in all locations. It was
acknowledged that it may not always be possible to schedule examinations at the same
time and alternative examination papers would be considered as a possible solution should
it prove necessary. The Panel was reassured by the mechanisms outlined to ensure the
integrity of the examination process.
Quality Assurance Division
7
Confirmed
5.6
It was noted by the Panel that the proposal documentation stated that ICS students would
receive feedback on their assessed work following the Faculty Awards Board. The Panel
informed the Team that this was contrary to the Senate Code of Practice on the
Assessment of Students which required feedback on all assessed work to be given to
students within 20 working days, except the Major Project which is given within 30 working
days. The Team acknowledged that it had been an error in the proposal documentation
and agreed that feedback to students would be completed in accordance with the
timescales detailed in the Senate Code of Practice on the Assessment of Students.
6
LEARNING RESOURCES AND STUDENT SUPPORT
6.1
The Panel enquired about the support provided to students on how to be on-line learners
and how ICS would assess a student’s competence to learn on-line. The Team informed
the Panel that it was a pre-registration requirement for all students to have access to a PC
with internet connectivity and experience of using the internet. Students could also be
enrolled on the ECDL course if they required additional IT skills support. Mentors would
discuss any requirements for support individually with students. The Team further informed
the Panel that the VLE was simple and easy to access and that students would be provided
with detailed information in the Student Handbook on how to access it. Mentors would also
inform students on how to submit assessed work. ICS was also working with a web agency
to ensure that on-line functionality was appropriate. The Panel welcomed the support
available to students to enable them to develop as on-line learners.
6.2
The Panel was interested to learn how ICS proposed to deal with cases where a student
was demonstrating a lack of engagement with the pathway on which they were enrolled.
The Team responded that the Mentor Team were responsible for negotiating a study plan
with each student. If the student failed to submit the formative assessment tasks on time
the Mentor would contact the student to ascertain the reasons for non-submission. If nonsubmission was for academic reasons the Mentor would arrange a Tutor call to the student
concerned. The Panel also learnt that in extreme cases where a student may have become
totally disengaged the academic team at ICS would recommend that the student enrol on a
lower level course or, potentially, agree that the student should discontinue their studies.
The Team considered that the study planning and close interaction between the Mentor,
student and academic Tutor would effectively monitor the engagement of all students and
provide a mechanism to address situations where a student was not engaging fully with
their programme of study. The Panel was impressed by the mechanisms in place to
monitor student participation and the availability of additional support where required.
6.3
The Panel enquired how students would access core texts for modules, noting that the
reading lists for certain modules were lengthy. The Team explained that learning materials,
including up to two core texts per module, would be supplied directly to students. Students
would also have access to other University libraries as Anglia Ruskin students. Journals
could be accessed via ATHENS and the Anglia Ruskin Digital Library. It was noted that
students would also be expected to purchase texts for some modules. The Panel was
satisfied that ICS students would have appropriate access to texts and other library
resources.
6.4
Relating to the Student Adviser role at Anglia Ruskin the Panel enquired how ICS proposed
to manage the processes of extensions for assessment and claims for mitigation. The
Team responded that Mentors would initially consider requests for short-term extensions,
overseen by the Assessment Officer and Quality Team. Claims for mitigation would be
submitted to the Student Adviser at Anglia Ruskin in accordance with the Academic
Regulations.
Quality Assurance Division
8
Confirmed
7
STAFFING AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT
7.1
In terms of the number of students enrolled by ICS on Anglia Ruskin modules the Panel
enquired how ICS Tutors would manage more than one module with potentially large
student numbers. The Team responded that there was no fixed ratio of students per Tutor
but that additional Tutors could be employed if a particular Tutor was unable to manage the
number of students for which they were responsible. It was noted that the number of
students a tutor was able to manage varied dependant on their academic commitments
outside their teaching for ICS. Heads of Discipline were also able to cover the workloads of
Tutors, or assist where necessary, on a short-term basis should the need arise. The Panel
was reassured that appropriate strategies were in place to ensure that individual Tutors
were able to manage the number of students for which they were responsible.
7.2
It was noted by the Panel that there were currently gaps in staffing as demonstrated by the
staffing allocation tables in the proposal documentation. The Panel sought confirmation that
staff had either been appointed, or would be appointed, prior to delivery of the pathways.
The Team informed the Panel that some appointments were still to be confirmed but that
the gaps in the staffing allocations for Level 1 modules would be confirmed prior to delivery.
ICS would be discussing the recruitment of suitable Tutors with the relevant Department at
Anglia Ruskin. The Panel noted the response provided but determined to set a condition
requiring the submission of final versions of all staff CVs and final allocations of staff to
modules, for each pathway, for inclusion in the Register of Teaching Staff at collaborative
partner institutions [See Condition 2.2.2 above].
7.3
The Panel was interested to learn whether ICS had experienced any difficulties appointing
appropriately qualified academic Tutors. The Team responded that ICS currently had
approximately 175 freelance tutors who were able to teach on a number of courses. ICS
received around 5 to 10 requests a day from academics interested in becoming tutors. An
advertisement in the Guardian newspaper in 2008 had received around 1000 responses.
ICS was therefore confident that recruiting appropriately qualified tutors would not be
problematic. The Panel was reassured by the information provided.
7.4
It was noted by the Panel that the academic team at ICS was appointed on a freelance
basis but that distance learning tutorial experience was preferred, but not compulsory. The
Panel enquired whether distance learning experience was considered to be necessary to
delivery the modules effectively. The Team responded that experience of distance learning
was desirable but that tutors without such experience had been able to adapt and deliver
modules effectively in the past. Any academic wishing to become a freelance tutor would
be subject to a rigorous telephone interview process to ensure that they had the relevant
experience and, more generally, to assess their telephone manner. The Panel was
satisfied with the clarification provided.
7.5
The Panel enquired about the support and mentoring that would be provided to ICS staff
delivering Anglia Ruskin modules. The Team explained that ICS, and specifically Heads of
Discipline, would be responsible for informing and updating staff on the Anglia Ruskin
Academic Regulations and other associated quality assurance procedures. A tutor
handbook was due to be created by ICS to provide a single reference point for tutors
teaching Anglia Ruskin modules. The Panel learnt that Heads of Discipline would be in
contact with module tutors and would arrange formal meetings to act as staff development
on Anglia Ruskin policies and procedures. Such meetings would be formally recorded and
monitored by the Quality Team at ICS. The Panel considered it important that all ICS staff
due to deliver Anglia Ruskin modules be fully conversant with Anglia Ruskin quality
assurance and regulatory policies and procedures. The Panel therefore recommended that
the Proposal Team [Anglia Ruskin and ICS] formulate a staff development strategy to
assist ICS staff in advance of initial delivery of the pathways in April 2009 and throughout
the first year of delivery [See Recommendation 2.3.1 above].
Quality Assurance Division
9
Confirmed
8
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
8.1
Student feedback mechanisms and, specifically, how student views were sought, was
explored by the Panel. The Team explained that a student representative from each
course, voted for by their peers, was invited to attend Programme Study Board meetings in
January and May of each year. If a representative was unable to attend a meeting the
Mentor would gather feedback from the students on the particular course and submit any
issues to the meeting for consideration. Any issues raised by students would be dealt with
at the meeting with the minutes of the meeting and details of action taken posted on the online community for students to see. The Programme Study Board meetings would also be
included in the Annual Monitoring process. In addition, students would also be required to
complete two questionnaires per year seeking their feedback. The Panel was reassured
that sufficient opportunities were available for students to feedback on their learning
experience and that responses to any issues raised would be communicated back to them.
9
DOCUMENTATION
9.1
It was noted by the Panel that some further work was required to contextualise all MDFs
and PSFs to ensure their appropriateness for delivery by distance learning. References to
teamwork and the development of oral skills would need to be reviewed. In addition the
Panel noted that the MDFs and PSF supplied for LLM International Business Law were not
the definitive versions. It was agreed that the Executive Officer would supply the definitive
versions of the MDFs and PSFs for all pathways to be contextualised by ICS. As a result of
the inconsistencies and inaccuracies noted by the Panel, and in the Technical Report, the
Panel determined that final revised versions of each PSF, including a separate structure
diagram for ICS delivery clarifying the modules to be delivered at each level, and each
MDF be submitted as a condition of approval [See Condition 2.2.1 above].
9.2
The Panel had highlighted some minor issues with regard to the Student Handbook both
during the event and in the checklist of issues. In general, the Panel felt that the handbook
should be specific to the pathway, take account of Anglia Ruskin guidance on the content
of Student Handbooks and make appropriate references to Anglia Ruskin’s Academic
Regulations. The Panel therefore recommended that the Proposal Team further develop
the Students Handbooks for each pathway [See Recommendation 2.3.3 above].
9.3
It was noted by the Panel that the requirements set out in Appendix C [paragraph 2.3] of
the Procedural Document to accompany the Senate Code of Practice on the Approval,
Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review of taught pathways, which outlined additional
information and documentation required where pathways included elements of flexible or
distance learning, had not been explicitly addressed in the proposal documentation. The
Panel therefore recommended that the Proposal Team provide further information to
describe how the requirements had been addressed in the proposal documentation [See
Recommendation 2.3.2].
10
MISCELLANEOUS
10.1
The Panel was interested to learn whether the ICS VLE would interact with student records
and information held on SITS at Anglia Ruskin. The Team informed the Panel that the VLE
was relatively basic and would not link with SITS. Student records and details of progress
would be held on an ICS database with the Mentoring Team responsible for passing on key
information regarding ICS students to Anglia Ruskin. The Panel thanked the Team for the
additional information.
Quality Assurance Division
10
Confirmed
11
CONFIRMATION OF STANDARDS OF AWARDS
11.1
The Panel confirmed that the proposed BA (Hons) English, BA (Hons) History, BA (Hons)
History and English and LLM International Business Law pathways satisfied the
University’s Academic Regulations with regard to the definitions and academic standards of
Anglia Ruskin awards and, hence, the QAA’s Framework for Higher Education
Qualifications.
DRAFT
UNCONFIRMED
CONFIRMED
FILE REF
OFFICE FILE REF
Quality Assurance Division
11
17th March 2009
17th March 2009
26th March 2009
Confirmed
SECTION C – DETAILS OF PANEL MEMBERSHIP AND PROPOSAL TEAM
Internal Panel Members:
Jon Svensson (Chair)
Principal Lecturer (Radiography), Faculty of Health and
Social Care
Dr David Hoyle
Deputy Head, Cambridge School of Art, Faculty of Arts,
Law and Social Sciences
Jacqui McCary
Senior Lecturer (Computing) and Acting Director of
Studies, Faculty of Science and Technology
External Panel Members:
Dr George Ndi
Senior Lecture in Law (International and EU Law),
University of Huddersfield
Executive Officer:
Richard Monk
Deputy Head of Quality Assurance, Academic Office
Technical Officer:
Helen Sismey
Academic Regulations Assistant, Academic Office
Members of Proposal Team:
Dr Sarah Barrow
Acting Head of Department (English, Communication,
Film & Media) and Acting Coordinator for Quality
Assurance & Enhancement, Faculty of Arts, Law and
Social Sciences
Sheila Byrne
Senior Lecturer in Law, Faculty of Arts, Law and Social
Sciences
Kathy Daniels
Programme Leader, ICS
Dr Jon Davis
Programme Leader (Humanities), Faculty of Arts, Law
and Social Sciences
Emma Deakin
Head of Quality Assurance, ICS
Dr Tom Mortimer
Pathway Leader, LLM International Business Law,
Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences
Ruth West-Robinson
Head of Higher Education, ICS
Professor Rowlie Wymer
Head of Department (English, Communication, Film & Media),
Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences
Quality Assurance Division
12
Confirmed
SECTION D – OUTCOME DATA
Programme(s)
Department
Faculty
Collaborative Partner
New/amended Awards
Approved (nb intended awards
English and Writing / Humanities / Law (Academic Courses)
English, Communication, Film & Media / Humanities and Social Sciences /
Anglia Law School
Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences
International Correspondence Schools Ltd, Glasgow
Title(s) of Named Pathway(s)
Attendance mode
and duration
only, not intermediate awards)
BA (Hons)
BA (Hons)
BA (Hons)
LLM
English
History
History and English
International Business Law
Validating body (if not Anglia Ruskin University)
Professional body accreditation
Proposal Team Leader
Month and Year of the first intake
Standard intake points
Maximum and minimum student numbers
Date of first Conferment of Award(s)
Any additional/specialised wording to appear on
transcript and/or award certificate
Date of next scheduled Periodic Review
Awards and Titles to be deleted (with month/year of last
regular conferment)
N/A
N/A
Ruth West-Robinson
April 2009
Monthly
Minimum: English, History – 60, Law – 100.
Maximum – N/A
N/A
To be confirmed
N/A
NEW MODULES APPROVED
None.
Quality Assurance Division
13
Confirmed
FOR FRANCHISE APPROVALS ONLY: LIST OF MODULE TUTORS AND MODULE CODES & TITLES
(FOR INCLUSION IN THE REGISTER OF TEACHING STAFF)
BA (Hons) English
Module
Level 1:
AD115001S Introduction to
English Literature 1
AD115002S Introduction to
English Literature 2
AD130003D Ways of Reading
AD130002D Tragedy
AG130003D Western
Civilisation [n.b. Module designated
Module Leader
Dr Alice Eardley
Supporting Lecturer
N/A
N/A
Dr Alice Eardley
N/A
Dr Nick Bentley
Dr Deirdre Serjeantson
Dr Tom Dixon
N/A
N/A
N/A
Module Leader
Supporting Lecturer
Dr Tom Dixon
N/A
Stuart Mitchell
N/A
Marisa Linton
N/A
Dr Terence Corps
N/A
Claire Hall
N/A
Module Leader
Supporting Lecturer
Graham Melling
N/A
John Hendy
N/A
Tim Wilshire
N/A
John Hendy
N/A
Sarah Freeman
N/A
Ian Hosker
N/A
John Hendy
N/A
from BA (Hons) History – see below]
Module Tutors for Levels 2
and 3 modules to be approved
prior to delivery
BA (Hons) History
Module
Level 1:
AG130003D Western
Civilisation
AG115003S Making of Modern
Britain 1660-1832
AG115004S Citizens: The
French Revolution & Modern
Political Cuture
AG130002S The Growth of the
USA 1776-1900
AG130001S War, Power &
Culture: Europe 1660-1789
Module Tutors for Levels 2
and 3 modules to be approved
prior to delivery
LLM International Business Law
Module
Level 4:
AB415005S EU Law in the
Global Context
AB415006S International Law
Research
AB430017S Comparative
Company Law
AB430020S Corporate and
Financial Regulation
AB430022S International
Employment Law
AB430023S International
Governance
AB460999D Major Research
Project in International Business
Law
Quality Assurance Division
14
Confirmed