Quality Assurance and
Enhancement Handbook
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT HANDBOOK
PART 1:
Section
Section
Section
CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY
1
2
3
PART 2:
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
PEER GROUP
SCRUTINY
4
5
6
7
8
PART 3:
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
[Updated May 2016]
Independent Scrutiny of Taught Programmes
Dissemination of Good Practice
Department and Faculty Level
University Validation Panels and Review Panels
Appeals against Panel Outcomes
17
17
17
18
20
Curriculum Design, Award Titles and External Reference Points
Validation Processes for New Named Awards
Re-Validations
Major or Minor Modifications
Additional Named Awards
Introduction of New Modules
Replacement of Existing Modules
On-Line Learning and Distance Learning
Course Publicity
Course Records at University and School level
Module Handouts
Communication with External Agencies and PSBs
22
23
30
30
40
40
40
40
43
44
44
44
REVIEW
21
22
23
24
25
PART 5:
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
1
15
16
VALIDATION OF COURSES AND
MODULES
PART 4:
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Statutes and Principles approved by Privy Council
Academic Council
Academic Policies
Introduction
Internal Course Review
External Review
Professional and Statutory Body (Re)-Accreditation
Liaison with Professional and Statutory Bodies
45
45
51
52
52
DOCUMENTATION FOR VALIDATION AND
REVIEW
26
27
28
29
30
Presentation
Course Handbook
Programme Specification
Module Document
School Document
54
54
55
56
56
Section
31
PART 6:
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
57
MONITORING
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
PART 7:
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Critical Review Document
Responsibilities of all Teaching Staff
Heads of Department
Course Leaders
Students’ Rights and Responsibilities
Formal Student-Staff Consultation Processes [updated May 2016]
Student Surveys
Annual Monitoring
Peer Observation
Sample Protocol and Feedback Sheet for Peer Observation
60
60
60
61
62
65
65
73
74
GOOD PRACTICE IN ASSESSMENT OF
STUDENTS
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
PART 8:
Principles of Assessment
Aims and Learning Outcomes
Assessment and Marking Criteria
Design of Assessment Formats
Higher Education Skills and Abilities
Personal Development Planning
Group Work
Feedback to Students on Coursework and Examinations
EXTERNAL EXAMINER INVOLVEMENT
77
80
81
82
86
86
87
88
[Updated May 2016]
Section
Section
Section
Section
49
50
51
52
Requirement for External Examiners
Procedures for Approval of External Examiners
Criteria for Approval of External Examiners
Applications for Extension and Changes in Responsibilities of External Examiners
90
91
91
93
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
53
54
55
56
57
58
57
60
Approval of Nominations of External Examiners
Approval of External Examiner Nominations by Professional Bodies
Briefing External Examiners
Protocols for External Examiners
Role of External Examiners
Attendance at Boards
Procedures for External Examiners’ Reports
Fees and Expenses for External Examiners
93
94
94
95
95
96
96
97
Section
61
Termination of External Examiner Appointments
97
PART 9:
PARTNERSHIPS WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANISATIONS
Section
63
PART 10:
Section
Section
64
65
Partnerships
ACCREDITATION
The University of Westminster Accreditation Service
The University of Westminster Accreditation Board
99
100
100
1
Part 1: Constitutional Authority
Preamble
1.1
In June 1992, the Privy Council gave its consent on behalf of the Government for the
Polytechnic of Central London to be re-named as The University of Westminster, in
accordance with the Further and Higher Education Act, 1992. The Act encompasses
the power to award degrees, and approval of the name change signifies formal
confirmation that the University of Westminster is recognised by the Government as
competent to confer awards in its own name.
1.2
The Statutes and Principles approved by Privy Council in 1992 govern all aspects of
academic provision by the University. These are set out in full below, and the
sections which follow provide detailed guidance on the University's quality assurance
processes for taught courses, based on the Statutes and Principles.
Section 1: Statutes and Principles approved by Privy Council
A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY
1.3
The term ‘programme of study' is used to denote an approved set of modules by
which a student may obtain a specified award of the University.
The term ‘course' is used to denote a subject or one or more discipline-based sets of
modules having a single or closely-related focus, leading to a common award and
being administered as a single structure.
The term ‘module' is used to denote a discrete study element within a course.
The term ‘course scheme' is used to denote the form and content of a course as
presented to and validated and approved by the University.
The term ‘course programme' is used to denote a larger grouping of courses.
Each student of the University will therefore follow a programme of study which will
be composed of a number of modules within a course or course programme.
The term ‘academic programme' is used to denote in the widest sense academic
activities relating to a course, a subject or a discipline within the University.
MISSION STATEMENT
1.4
We will shape the future of professional life by:
 Being a diverse, vibrant and inspirational learning environment
 Establishing the University of Westminster as the leading practice-informed
teaching and research university
 Being a responsive, metropolitan and cosmopolitan university serving the needs
of diverse communities
 Embedding internationalism, employability and green-thinking in all that we do
2
AWARDS OF THE UNIVERSITY
1.5
Awards
The University will make available programmes of study which lead to awards at
levels of achievement as described below.
Certificate (sub-degree)
Diploma (sub-degree)
Foundation Degree
Bachelor’s Degree
Bachelor’s Degree with Honours
Graduate Diploma
Postgraduate Certificate
Postgraduate Diploma
Master's Degree
Research Degree
A full list of the University's awards is given in Annex 1 (Part 1, Section 1).
1.6
The University will award higher doctorates.
1.7
The University will confer honorary degrees upon persons who have

1.8
achieved distinction in public or professional life.
The University will confer honorary fellowships upon persons who have either:

provided distinguished service to education and/or the University in a voluntary
capacity;
or

1.9
1.10
provided distinguished service beyond the normal requirements of a member of
the University.
Collaboration with other awarding bodies and with other institutions
The University will act jointly with professional associations and with other awarding
bodies to make available courses leading to recognised awards of such associations
and bodies.
The University may permit other institutions to offer courses leading to an award of
the University. Such programmes of study will be validated and approved by the
University in accordance with the Statutes and Principles.
APPROVAL, MONITORING AND REVIEW OF THE UNIVERSITY'S PROGRAMMES OF
STUDY
1.11
Definitions
Validation
Validation is the process whereby a judgement is reached by a group including
external and internal peers as to whether a course designed to lead to an award of
3
the University meets the requirements for that award, as determined by the principles
and regulations of the University.
Approval
Approval is the outcome of a validation process where a proposed course scheme
has been judged to meet the University's requirements. It is the formal act of the
Academic Council on behalf of the University to confirm that a proposed course
scheme meets the University's requirements.
Review
Review is the process whereby the quality of an academic programme is critically
appraised at intervals by a group including external and internal peers in order to
confirm that an academic programme remains academically valid and that any
courses associated with that programme continue to meet the University's
requirements.
Monitoring
Monitoring is the regular, normally annual, process by which the University critically
appraises the operation of its courses and its academic programmes and ensures
that appropriate standards are maintained.
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
Academic Council
Academic Council, being charged with responsibility for ensuring the academic
standards of the University, is the final arbiter in all matters relating to validation,
approval, review and monitoring. Academic Council may designate a specially
constituted committee, sub-group or panel to act on its behalf in matters relating to
validation, approval, review or monitoring and may delegate some of its powers of
decision to that body.
Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee
The Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee (QAEC) has a general remit to
advise Academic Council on matters relating to the quality assurance and academic
standards of taught provision with a focus on the student experience and to oversee
the development of quality assurance and enhancement procedures accordingly.
Learning, Teaching and Student Support Committee
The Learning, Teaching and Student Support Committee (LTSSC) oversees the
development and implementation of the Learning, Teaching and Development vision
and the strategic priorities of the Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy. It
also considers the outcomes of student feedback gathered from external and internal
surveys of student opinion.
School Learning Teaching and Quality Committee
The remit of the School Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee includes the
development of School policies and strategies for Learning, Teaching and quality
enhancement and to monitor action plans and implementation of related University
policies within the School. It also considers student feedback at the School level and
reviews the outcomes of course approval processes.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF VALIDATION AND REVIEW
Aims
4
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
The overall aim of course validation and review is to secure for students a high
quality of educational and academic experience. Its most important function is to
assess the quality and standards of the University's academic programmes. It also
stimulates curriculum development by requiring staff to evaluate their courses and to
open them to the thinking and practices of external peers.
Objectives
The University's validation and review process will ensure that:
a)
courses meet the University's requirements for the relevant award and those
of any relevant external agency;
b)
the standards required are appropriate to that award and benchmark
statements are referred to where available;
c)
the human and physical resources available and the environment within
which the course is offered are of a standard appropriate to support the
course;
d)
the standards and quality of teaching in each subject area are maintained
and, where possible, will be enhanced;
e)
there is ongoing student involvement in course evaluation;
f)
the courses comply with University policies and codes of practice.
The University's review process will further ensure identification of:
a)
the quality of courses in operation as demonstrated by the performance of
students, feedback from students and the reports of the external examiners;
b)
the extent to which staff have updated themselves and the manner in which
they deliver their subject, and engage in relevant research, consultancy and
professional activity;
c)
the outcomes of the process of critical review in which staff have engaged;
d)
the rationale for any changes that have been made since the last validation or
review and any plans for further changes;
e)
such other performance indicators as may be determined by Academic
Council.
Monitoring
All courses leading to an award of the University will be subject to a continuing
monitoring process to ensure the academic health of the courses between formal
reviews.
Collaboration with other institutions
The University will work in close partnership with institutions which offer courses
leading to an award of the University to ensure that the University's procedures for
course validation and review are complementary to, and where possible combined
with, the collaborating partner’s own internal procedures for the scrutiny of courses.
MAINTENANCE OF ACADEMIC STANDARDS WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY
5
1.21
General principles
The University is dedicated to providing the means whereby its students can attain
the highest levels of achievement of which they are capable. To this end it
undertakes to provide adequate and appropriate facilities to ensure the continuing
quality of its courses.
1.22
The University undertakes to ensure a learning environment commensurate with the
quality of teaching and learning in its courses.
1.23
The University subscribes to the principle that the quality of the staff, their
qualifications and experiences and the calibre of leadership at all levels are of
paramount importance.
1.24
The University expects its staff to demonstrate a commitment to personal, academic
and professional development, and to engage in a variety of scholarly and
professional activities appropriate to their subject specialism, and in relation to
developments in teaching and learning in HE, with a view to maintaining and
updating their expertise.
1.25
In respect of the validation of a course the University will seek to ensure that both the
teaching and support staff are adequate in number and appropriately qualified for the
objectives of the course to be fulfilled. The University will formally agree policies for
staff development and research and will actively promote staff development and
research to support teaching and learning at all levels.
1.26
The University will provide the physical resources needed to sustain the course.
1.27
Responsibility for the maintenance of academic standards in the University lies with
Academic Council. Academic Council may delegate the execution of its policies to
committees, sub-groups and panels as may from time to time be determined by
Academic Council.
ADMISSION OF STUDENTS TO THE UNIVERSITY'S COURSES
1.28
The University will admit students to its study programmes on the basis of the
following principles:
a)
reasonable expectation that the applicant will be able to fulfil the objectives of
the course and achieve the standard required for the award;
b)
the University's requirements for admission to the course leading to a
particular award;
c)
the University’s commitment at all times to ensuring equality of opportunity for
all applicants.
1.29
In considering individual applicants for admission to a course the University will seek
evidence of personal, professional and/or educational experiences that provide
indications of ability to meet the demands of the course.
1.30
Each approved course will specify the requirements for admission to that course.
6
1.31
The University bases its admission requirements on nationally recognised formal
minimum attainment levels. Other qualifications and/or experience which
demonstrate that the applicant possesses appropriate knowledge and skills may be
accepted in lieu of the stated formal minimum requirement. The University will use its
discretion to interpret such formal minimum attainment levels in terms of equivalence.
1.32
In admitting individual students to its courses the University will have regard
principally to the applicant's ability to achieve the aims and objectives of the course.
1.33
Admission to a programme of study with advanced standing
If the University is satisfied that the applicant has fulfilled some of the progression
and attainment requirements of the course by means other than attendance on the
planned course, and will be able by completing the remaining requirements to fulfil
the objectives of the course and attain the standard required for the award, that
student may be admitted to any appropriate point in the course and be awarded the
appropriate volume and level of credit.
1.34
In exercising its discretion in this respect the University will ensure that such
admissions accord with the University's requirements relating to the standards of its
awards and with good practice throughout higher education in the UK.
1.35
The University will consider admission to a course of study with advanced standing
on the basis of accredited prior certificated learning (APCL) and/or prior experiential
learning (APEL).
1.36
Admission ‘with exemption' will be subject to the same principles as admission to the
beginning of a course. Subject to the requirements of the relevant course regulations,
the University may admit a student with exemption from certain modules of a course,
which means that the student is not required to take those modules but may, as
appropriate, be required to take alternatives; or with specific credit, which means that
the student is considered to have passed certain modules and will, where course
regulations permit, be allocated marks.
PROGRAMMES OF STUDY LEADING TO AWARDS OF THE UNIVERSITY
1.37
1.38
1.39
Definition of a programme of study
A programme of study is the approved curriculum leading to a specified and named
award of the University as followed by an individual student; the programme may be
identical with a course or may be one of a number of standard routes within a larger
course programme. The University will admit students to its courses on a full-time,
part-time, mixed-mode or distance-learning basis as appropriate. All programmes of
study will conform to the University's regulations and requirements. Throughout this
Handbook, the term course is used to denote both a single course or a larger course
programme with a number of standard routes.
Aims and objectives of the course
Every approved course will have stated aims and learning outcomes which the
curriculum, structure, teaching and learning and assessment strategy of the course,
and forms of assessment are designed to fulfil. Where available, benchmark
statements should be referred to.
The aims will include the development to the level required for the award of a body of
knowledge and skills appropriate to the field of study and reflecting academic
developments in that field: these are course-specific aims.
7
1.40
The aims will also include general educational, skills and employability objectives,
including the development of those generic skills students need in order to be
effective members of a competitive work force and for lifelong learning. The aims are
also expected to meet the University’s Learning, Teaching, and Assessment
Strategy. In addition these aims include the development of intellectual and
imaginative powers; students’ understanding and judgement; their problem-solving
skills; their ability to communicate; their ability to see relationships within what they
have learned and to perceive their field of study in a broader perspective. Each
approved course will aim to stimulate an enquiring, analytical and creative approach,
encouraging independent judgement and critical self-awareness with the ability to
reflect on attainment and plan future learning requirements.
1.41
The statement of learning outcomes will show how the programme will fulfil the aims.
The statement of course-specific learning outcomes will specify the knowledge and
skills appropriate to the field of study and identify the ways in which these will be
developed and evaluated in the students. The statement of general objectives will
identify the ways in which the students' transferable intellectual skills will be
developed and evaluated.
1.42
1.43
Course regulations
Each designated course or pathway leading to a specified and named award of the
University will be subject to course regulations approved in accordance with the
general regulations of the University. Inter alia, the Regulations will include:
a)
Regulations on the admission of students to a course
The admission regulations will describe the basis on which a student will be
admitted to the beginning or to subsequent stages of the course;
b)
Regulations on progression
Progression regulations will set out the way(s) in which students progress
through the course, and identify the elements that are compulsory, optional or
alternative;
c)
Regulations on assessment
The assessment regulations for a course of study will state the basis on which
students will be assessed for an award, relating the assessment requirements
to the aims and learning outcomes of the programme, the standard of the
award, and any special assessment requirements associated with the award.
Course management
In respect of its designated courses leading to specified and named awards the
University will establish:
a)
clear channels of accountability from course teams to Academic Council;
b)
executive and administrative structures which support the collective
processes of academic policy-making and sustain academic leadership;
c)
arrangements for staff and students to contribute in an informed way to the
formation of academic policy and priorities;
d)
effective communication which fosters internal inter-relationships and the
transmission of good practice.
8
1.44
The University will appoint a suitable member of the academic staff to be the leader
of a designated course of the University. The responsibilities of a Course Leader will
include:
a)
ensuring that the course meets its specified aims and learning outcomes;
b)
ensuring that the course is conducted in accordance with its approved
regulations;
c)
administration of the course in respect of academic matters;
d)
process.
1.45
the provision of documentation in respect of the monitoring and review
The University will establish for each designated programme a Course Committee,
membership of which will include representatives of students studying on the course.
The responsibilities of the Committee will include:
a)
serving as a formal channel of communication between staff involved in
course delivery and the delivery of associated academic and administrative
support services, and students on the course, in all matters relating to the
operation of the course;
b)
advising on and monitor the implementation of the aims and learning
outcomes of the course and its academic standards;
c)
considering provision for the welfare of students on the course, specifically
induction and the Personal Tutor system;
d)
making recommendations to the School Learning, Teaching and Quality
Committee on any matter relating to the course;
e)
dealing with any other matters referred to it by or on behalf of the Course
Leader, Head of Department, Dean of School, or Academic Council.
ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS ON THE UNIVERSITY'S COURSES
Principles of assessment
1.46
1.47
Fulfilment of course learning outcomes
One purpose of assessment is to enable students to demonstrate that they have
fulfilled the learning outcomes of the course and achieved the standard required for
the award they seek. Examiners will make their judgements on student performance
in relation to the assessment regulations approved for the course.
Confirmation of standard
Assessment will reflect the achievement of the individual student in fulfilling course
learning outcomes, and at the same time relate that achievement to a consistent
national standard of awards. It will therefore be carried out by competent and
impartial examiners, and by methods which enable them to assess students fairly.
9
1.48
1.49
1.50
1.51
1.52
1.53
1.54
Types of assessment
In respect of designated study programmes a wide variety of assessment methods
and types are used. The University will ensure:
a)
that students are assessed in accordance with the aims and learning
outcomes of their study programme;
b)
that the methods and types of assessment relate closely to the subject matter
and the methods of delivery.
Assessment regulations
Each designated course or pathway leading to a specified and named award of the
University will be subject to a set of assessment regulations specific to the course
and approved in accordance with the general assessment regulations of the
University.
External examiners
The University will appoint an appropriate number of external examiners to each of
its designated course schemes in order to ensure that the assessment process is
conducted in a manner which provides parity of judgement for all students for the
designated course and subject and that the standard of the University's awards is
maintained in accordance with national standards.
External examiners are required to report annually on the conduct of the
assessments just concluded and on issues related to assessment and the quality of
the subject or course as revealed through the assessments.
Assessment Boards
For every stage of assessment for each validated course leading to an award of the
University, there will be one or more Assessment Boards whose constitution and
terms of reference accord with the approved regulations for the course and which
includes the external examiner(s) appointed by the University. The constitution of the
Board may include provision for the appointment of subsidiary examination
committees and the same Board may be responsible for more than one course or
pathway.
The Assessment Board is appointed on behalf of Academic Council and is
accountable to Academic Council for the fulfilment of its terms of reference. For
courses operating under the University modular framework, there shall be a two-tier
system of Assessment Board, comprising a Subject Board and a Conferment Board.
The authorised Subject Board for each subject within the course has independent
powers in respect of the award of credit for individual modules.
Information for students
The University will ensure that the assessment requirements and criteria for courses
are published to students.
RESEARCH DEGREES OF THE UNIVERSITY
1.55
General
In respect of supervised programmes of research the University will award the
degrees of Master of Philosophy (MPhil) and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in
10
accordance with Regulations for the award of the Degrees of Master of Philosophy
and Doctor of Philosophy (Research Degree Regulations).
Scope: Programmes of research may be proposed in any field of study subject to the
requirement that the proposed programme is capable of leading to scholarly research
and to its presentation for assessment by appropriate examiners.
The MPhil award: The MPhil is awarded to a candidate who, having critically
investigated and evaluated an approved topic and demonstrated an understanding of
research methods appropriate to the chosen field, has presented and defended a
thesis by oral examination to the satisfaction of the examiners.
The PhD Award: The PhD is awarded to a candidate who, having critically
investigated and evaluated an approved topic resulting in an independent and
original contribution to knowledge and demonstrated an understanding of research
methods appropriate to the chosen field, has presented and defended a thesis by
oral examination to the satisfaction of the examiners.
1.56
Registration
Students may register for:

Master of Philosophy

Master of Philosophy with possibility of transfer to Doctor of Philosophy

Doctor of Philosophy (only in the most exceptional cases)
1.57
In considering applications for registration, the University will satisfy itself that
candidates are suitably qualified, that candidates are embarking on viable research
programmes, that supervision is adequate and likely to be sustained, and that a
sustainable research environment and training opportunities are available.
1.58
The normal entry requirement for registration for the degree of MPhil or MPhil with
possibility of transfer to PhD is a first or upper second class honours degree of a
university in the UK or a qualification which is regarded by the University as
equivalent to such an honours degree.
1.59
Applications from candidates holding qualifications other than those above will be
considered on their merits and in relation to the nature and scope of the programme
of work proposed and the experience of the candidate.
1.60
Supervision
All research degree candidates will have at least two and not normally more than
three suitably qualified supervisors, one of whom will be the Director of Studies.
1.61
Examination
Examination arrangements for research degrees will be approved by the Research
Enterprise and Knowledge Transfer Committee.
1.62
Examiners appointed by the University will be experienced in research in the area of
the candidate's thesis and, where practicable, have experience as a specialist in the
topic(s) to be examined.
1.63
All research degree candidates will be examined by at least two and not normally
more than three suitably qualified and experienced examiners, of whom at least one
will be an external examiner.
11
1.64
The examination for the MPhil and PhD will have two stages: firstly the submission
and preliminary assessment of the thesis and secondly its defence by oral
examination or approved alternative.
1.65
Each examiner will read and examine the thesis and present an independent
preliminary report on it to the University before any oral or alternative examination is
held. Following the oral examination the examiners will present a joint report and
recommendation relating to the award of the degree to the University.
1.66
1.67
Conferment
The Research Enterprise and Knowledge Transfer Committee shall ensure that all
examinations are conducted and the recommendations of the examiners presented
wholly in accordance with the University's regulations. The authority to confer the
award shall rest formally with the Academic Council, which may delegate such
authority to the Research Enterprise and Knowledge Transfer Committee.
Thesis
The thesis must be submitted in the form specified by the University's regulations.
The submission of the thesis for examination is at the sole discretion of the
candidate.
Re-examination
1.68 The University may permit re-examination for the award in accordance with its
regulations.
1.69
1.70
1.71
Requests for a review of examination decisions
Candidates may in certain circumstances request a review of an examination
decision in accordance with the procedures contained in the Research Degrees
Regulations.
Research Committee
Academic Council has delegated authority to the Research Enterprise and
Knowledge Transfer Committee to act on its behalf in matters relating to research
degrees, as outlined above.
Research Degrees by Submission of Published Work
Candidates may apply for the award of MPhil or PhD on the basis of published work,
subject to special regulations for such awards (Research Degrees Regulations). The
Research Enterprise and Knowledge Transfer Committee shall approve a suitably
qualified supervisor to guide the candidate in preparing the work for submission.
1.72
The submitted work will be assessed in accordance with the Research Degrees
Regulations.
1.73
Candidates may not resubmit for a MPhil/PhD by submission of published work
within a period of three years from the date of the original examination. Any further
submission must include evidence of further work.
CONFERMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY'S AWARDS
1.74
Conditions of conferment
An award of the University will be conferred when the following conditions are
satisfied:
12
1.75
a)
the candidate was a registered student of the University at the time of his or
her assessment for an award and has paid all fees and dues to the University;
b)
the candidate has completed a programme of study approved by the
University as leading to the award being recommended;
c)
the award has been recommended by an Assessment Board convened,
constituted and acting under regulations approved by the University and
involving all members appointed by the University as external examiners for
the award;
d)
the recommendation of the Assessment Board has been formally ratified on
behalf of Academic Council.
The University retains the right to rescind an award previously conferred.
13
ANNEX 1
Awards for validation and conferment by the University as at September 2009
Certificate of Competence
Certificate of Higher Competence
Diploma of Competence
Diploma of Higher Competence
Certificate of Special Study (Cert SS)
Diploma of Special Study (Dip SS)
Foundation Certificate (Fdn Cert)
Edexcel BTEC Higher National Certificate (HNC)
Edexcel BTEC Higher National Diploma (HND)
Certificate (Cert)
Professional Certificate (PCert) [subject specific title]
Diploma (Dip)
Certificate in Education (Cert in Ed)
Certificate of Higher Education (Cert HE)
Certificate of Special Study in Lifelong Learning (Certificate in Teaching in the Lifelong
Learning Sector)
Diploma of Higher Education (Dip HE)
Foundation Degree in Arts (FdA)
Foundation Degree in Science (FdS)
Bachelor of Arts (BA)
Bachelor of Osteopathic Medicine (BOst.Med)
Bachelor of Science (BSc)
Bachelor of Engineering (BEng)
Bachelor of Laws (LLB)
Bachelor of Music (BMus)
Graduate Certificate (Grad Cert)
Graduate Diploma (Grad Dip)
Postgraduate Certificate of Special Study (Pg Cert SS)
Postgraduate Diploma of Special Study (Pg Dip SS)
Postgraduate Certificate (Pg Cert)
Postgraduate Diploma (Pg Dip)
Professional Graduate Certificate in Education
Professional Graduate Certificate of Education (Diploma in Teaching in the Lifelong Learning
Sector)
Erasmus Mundus European Masters
Master of Arts (MA)
Master of Engineering
Master of Laws (LLM)
Master of Music (MMus)
Master of Osteopathic Medicine (MOst.Med)
Master of Public Health (MPH)
14
Master of Research (MRes)
Master in Science (MSci)
Master of Science (MSc)
Master of Business Administration (MBA)
Master of Philosophy (MPhil)
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
Professional Doctorate
Final degree awards at undergraduate and postgraduate level and research degree awards
accord with the Framework for Higher Education Qualification (FHEQ) published by the
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) (2008) and the academic credit
guidance published by the QAA (2008).
15
Section 2: Academic Council
2.1
The Terms of Reference of Academic Council, revised with effect from 1997/98, are
as follows:
"Subject to the overall responsibility of the Court of Governors and to the
responsibilities of the Vice-Chancellor and Rector, the Academic Council shall be
responsible for:

general issues relating to research, scholarship, teaching and courses at the
University, including: criteria for the admission of students; the appointment and
removal of internal and external examiners; policies and procedures for
assessment and examination of the academic performance of students; the
content of the curriculum; academic standards and the validation and review of
courses; the procedures for the award of qualifications and honorary academic
titles; and the procedures for the exclusion of students for academic reasons

consideration of the development of the academic activities of the University and
the resources needed to support them and the provision of advice thereon to the
Vice-Chancellor and Rector and to the Court of Governors; and

provision of advice on such other matters as the Court of Governors or the ViceChancellor and Rector may refer to the Academic Council".
2.2
Responsibility for the conduct of quality assurance processes is delegated by
Academic Council to specific postholders and formally constituted groups. Executive
responsibility for Academic Quality at central University level is held by the Deputy
Vice-Chancellor , who is both a member of the University Executive Board (UEB) and
of Academic Council. Formal responsibility for the academic regulations, and the
accountability of the proper conduct of the University's quality assurance processes
for taught courses and research degrees, is held by the University Director of
Academic Services and Academic Registrar, who is Secretary to Academic Council.
2.3
In 2009-10, an Executive Dean has been given a University-wide responsibility for
Quality Assurance and will chair the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee
and the Partnerships Committee. The Dean will be involved in all Quality Assurance
processes except where they relate to their own School. The Deputy Vice Chancellor
will approve External examiner nominations from the Dean’s School and a Deputy
Chair will be appointed to QAEC to consider issues arising from the Dean’s School.
2.4
Responsibility for the initial consideration of new course proposals or significant
changes of content or changes to the title of the award is held by the UEB. Authority
for the detailed consideration of the proposals and their approval or non-approval, is
delegated to University Validation Panels.
2.5
Annual monitoring of all taught courses and modules, and periodic review for courses
in continuous approval, is delegated by Academic Council to the Quality Assurance
Enhancement Committee, which reports to Academic Council.
2.6
The audit and monitoring processes for research degree students are undertaken by
the Research Office in the Academic Services Department for report to the
University-wide Research Enterprise and Knowledge Transfer Committee, which
reports to Academic Council.
16
Section 3: Academic Policies
3.1
The policies, approved by Academic Council, which govern the design and delivery
of taught courses and the registration and supervision of research degree students
are as follows:

Admissions Policy for Taught Courses

Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures for Students

Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy

Personal Tutoring Policy

Induction Policy

Employability Strategy

Code of Practice on Supporting Students with Mental Health Problems

Code of Practice for Students with Disabilities

Technology Enhanced Learning Policy

Research and Knowledge Transfer Strategy

Ethics Code of Practice.
3.2
These policies are available on the Academic Services website. Please check this
site for updates to these policies and procedures during the year.
3.3
The processes in this Quality Assurance and Enhancement Handbook are
complemented by the following publications which are updated regularly:

The Handbook of Academic Regulations
(including the Assessment Regulations, and the Modular Frameworks)

Essential Westminster
(including those extracts of the Assessment Regulations defined as Essential
Regulations for Students, together with module information and guidance on
student finance, and registration; the Complaints Procedure for Students, the
Disciplinary Procedure, Regulations Governing Student Conduct and Codes of
Conduct is also published here)

Student Representatives' Handbook

Regulations for the Award of the Degrees of Master of Philosophy and
Doctor of Philosophy

Guidelines for Research Degree Students.
17
Part 2: Peer Group Scrutiny
Section 4: Independent Scrutiny of Taught Programmes
4.1
The principle of peer scrutiny is central to the University’s quality assurance processes.
Independence of judgement is of paramount importance; the style of communication
also plays a significant part. A developmental approach based on dialogue rather than
inspection allows the course presenters to reflect on and revise their ideas, as
appropriate.
4.2
The critically evaluative comment of subject specialist peers from outside the
University contributes directly to curriculum updating. Detailed consideration of and
advice on syllabuses, academic levels, credit weightings, assessment, regulations and
student feedback methods is more appropriately undertaken by colleagues within the
University.
4.3
While new course proposals and existing courses which are being presented for revalidation or review would normally involve external advisers who have no prior
connection with the Faculty, in the case of single additional modules, which are
considered through the minor modifications process, the involvement of a current
external examiner is justified by their familiarity with the whole course scheme.
Section 5: Dissemination of Good Practice
5.1
Faculty-based peer observation processes aid dissemination of good current practice.
Individuals share expertise and identify issues for academic development within a
collaborative framework. See Part 6 for guidance on peer observation.
5.2
The Educational Development team in the Department of Leadership and Professional
Development give presentations and lead workshops for University staff on good
practice models within the University and across the F&HE sectors, in the UK and
internationally.
Section 6: Department and Faculty Level
6.1
The continuing professional development of academic staff as teachers is a core
requirement of the University’s quality management system. Staff development
sessions which focus on specific aspects of teaching and learning are provided within
the University and at other HEIs. The Leadership and Professional Development
Department lead the Professional Recognition and Enhancement Scheme for
Teaching (PRESTige), and deliver the Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education
which can lead to the Postgraduate Diploma or MA in Higher Education. The
Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education is mandatory for all staff at a 0.5
appointment or above new to the University who are also new to teaching in HE.
6.2
Some of the most valuable development is initiated within the subject specialist peer
group at Department or Faculty level. The opportunity for reflection on teaching and
assessment just completed (e.g. during staff conferences) is highly valued because it
is contemporaneous and collective. It informs ongoing curriculum revision and
adjustment of assessment methods.
18
6.3
Peer observation is organised at Department and Faculty level. This is a collaboration
between individuals, who share good practice, encourage reflection, exchange
constructive criticisms and debate approaches to teaching and learning, based on
observation of each other’s classes. Arrangements are made to identify issues for
academic development for the Department and/or Faculty.
Section 7: University Validation Panels and Review Panels
7.1
New course proposals and courses with time-limited approval are scrutinised by
University Validation Panels, and courses in approval are reviewed by University
Review Panels. Both Panels hold delegated authority on behalf of Academic Council.
7.2
Chairs and members of Panels are nominated to represent a particular constituency
which is published in the Panel list and in the Panel’s report. All individuals involved in
the work of the Panel must be wholly independent of the course(s) under consideration.
7.3
Validation Panel Chairs, Panel Secretaries and Faculty Learning, Teaching and
Quality Committee representatives are briefed annually in groups to provide updates
on the process, compare notes on best practice, ensure consistency of approaches to
validation and recommendations to Academic Council, and to keep under review
University policy in respect of awards for taught courses.
7.4
University Validation and Review Panel Chairs represent Academic Council. They are
nominated by the Quality and Standards Office for formal approval by the Dean with
executive responsibility for Academic Quality. The Panel Chair will not be a member
of the Faculty proposing or reviewing the course. Other Validation or Review Panel
members are also from a different Faculties and must be independent of the courses
and subjects under consideration. Normally, a Validation or Review Panel will consist
of at least four members: the Panel Chair representing Academic Council, two School
Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee representatives and the Panel Secretary.
However, additional members may be needed for more complex Panels, such as those
considering a group of courses.
7.5
External advisers contribute to the scrutiny of new course or re-validation proposals or
course/subject reviews by providing current subject specialist expertise and/or
knowledge and experience of modular
credit accumulation schemes, and/or accreditation of prior and experiential learning AP(E)L. They are advisers to the University members of the Panel, and in the case of
joint University/Professional or Statutory Body Panels, they hold full membership.
7.6
External advisers should be independent of the University and be able to offer
constructive criticism of the submission, particularly the course content and teaching
methods. As a group they should have the required subject expertise and provide
experience of:

higher education at the appropriate level

industry, commerce, public service or the professions (as appropriate)

validation and/or quality assurance procedures

credit accumulation and/or modular schemes.
They must not be either current or recent (i.e. within the previous six years) external
examiners at the University or staff members of the Faculty and should not previously
19
have contributed to the design or delivery of the course or a cognate course within the
University.
7.7
For Validation or Review Panels, the host Faculty for the proposal should nominate at
least one of two or two of three external advisers. Dependence on a single adviser
should be avoided wherever possible. The remaining advisers may be nominated by
the Panel Secretary in consultation with the Panel Chair and the relevant
Faculty/Department. For Review Panels, there will be at least one external adviser,
who will be nominated by the Dean of Faculty/Head of Department. Nomination forms
for external advisers must always be used.
7.8
The Dean of Faculty may propose that the University should not draw external advisers
from institutions identified as being in direct competition with the University of
Westminster in the subject area concerned: in this context direct competition normally
implies geographical proximity. The Dean of Faculty should inform the Panel Secretary
prior to the Initial Validation or Review Meeting which institutions operate courses in
direct competition and provide brief reasons for her/his concern.
7.9
The Panel Chair approves the external adviser nominations and, where appropriate,
determines an order of preference, in consultation with the Panel Secretary. Where
possible this is undertaken at the Initial meeting. Although the diary availability of
individuals is the primary factor which influences the final selection of external advisers,
as far as possible the total group of nominations should achieve a balanced
representation in terms of gender, background, ethnicity, academic expertise,
professional expertise, and validation experience.
7.10
The involvement of external advisers who are independent of the Faculty/Department
is an essential characteristic of the peer scrutiny process for new course approvals,
courses being re-validated following time-limited approval or courses being reviewed.
The Dean of Faculty attests to this independence in signing the nomination form. All
contact with nominees once accepted and agreed must be conducted by the Panel
Secretary in the Quality and Standards Office.
7.11
External advisers to Panels convened at the University of Westminster receive a
standard fee in recognition of their contribution to the Validation or Review process
and will be reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred. Their involvement in the
scrutiny of new or ongoing courses is regarded as a key commitment to the wider peer
group of subject/education specialists. While direct reciprocation must always be
avoided, the general principle that academics, senior administrators and practising
professionals are prepared to give their time to contribute constructive criticism to
course provision is central to the UK’s quality assurance processes in HE.
7.12
Student Advisers contribute to the scrutiny of course reviews by sharing their
experience of different practices, providing a student perspective on the teaching,
learning and assessment within the course(s) and offering advice on how effectively
the course documentation enables students to understand what they will be studying.
7.13
To be considered for the role of Student Adviser, candidates must have experience of
being a student or course representative. Student Advisers will be confirmed by the
Quality and Standards Office and University of Westminster Students’ Union (UWSU).
On successful appointment Quality and Standards will allocate the Student Adviser to
a panel.
20
7.14
Student Advisers must be independent of the course(s) proposed or under review and
be able to contribute constructively and meaningfully to the process by attending
meetings and commenting on documents.
7.15
The participation of Student Advisers in the Validation and Review process is intended
to support enhancements to the student experience for the course(s) being proposed
or reviewed and directly involve students as partners in a learning community.
7.16
Student Advisers to Panels convened at the University of Westminster receive a
standard fee in recognition of their contribution to the validation and review process
and will be reimbursed for any reasonable expenses incurred. The general principle
that students should be directly involved and can contribute constructively and
meaningfully to quality assurance processes is increasingly central to the UK’s quality
assurance processes in HE.
7.17
Observers are occasionally invited to Validation or Review Panel meetings with the
approval of the Panel Chair and Secretary. This may be for staff development reasons
(that is, a course developer designate or potential external collaborator), or for
professional or statutory body reasons. In most cases, observers are welcomed as
participative rather than silent observers, but in cases where a professional or statutory
body observer is in attendance normally the protocol agreed at the beginning of the
meeting should prohibit their active inclusion in the agenda-setting and the dialogue
with the presenters. Alternatively, agreement between the Quality and Standards
Office and the professional or statutory body may be secured for a Panel “shadowing”
role.
7.18
The remit of University Validation Panels is set out in Section 10.10 and the remit of
University Review Panels is set out in Section 22.10. A written protocol provides the
framework for the conduct of Validation and Review Panels. Copies are used in
development and updating workshops for Panel Chairs and Secretaries. The protocol
is available from the Quality and Standards Office.
7.14
The work of University Validation and Review Panels is continuously reviewed by the
Academic Services Department. Evaluation questionnaires, which are distributed
following a Panel meeting to elicit written feedback for all Panels, are collated and
reviewed annually.
Section 8: Appeals against Panel Outcomes
8.1
The University has a formal procedure for considering an appeal against the outcome
of course validation, re-validation or review, whether conducted by a University
Validation or Review Panel. The only ground for appeal is that there has been material
irregularity in the conduct of the process. Academic judgements are not an allowable
ground for appeal.
8.2
An appeal must be received by the Academic Registrar, in writing, within fifteen
working days of the conclusion of the validation or review process, that is, the final
meeting. The appeal must be submitted by the Dean of Faculty, and must state clearly
the grounds for application and the circumstances on which it is based. The application
will be referred to a Validation Appeals Panel comprising three members of Academic
Council, from Faculties not responsible for the course(s) under consideration. Although
the Appeals Panel should include staff with validation expertise, no member of the
Validation or Review Panel concerned may be party to the deliberations of this Appeals
21
Panel. The membership of the Appeals Panel will be determined by the ViceChancellor, in his role as Chair of Academic Council.
8.3
The Academic Registrar or his/her nominee (provided that they have had no
involvement in the Panel), will act as Secretary to the Validation Appeals Panel. The
Panel will meet within fifteen working days of receipt of the application. A meeting may
only be deferred by agreement between the Vice-Chancellor and the Dean concerned.
The Secretary will provide the Panel with a copy of the appeal and any supporting
documentary evidence, the report of the Panel against which the appeal has been
lodged, and any documents which were presented to the Validation or Review Panel
which are of direct relevance to the appeal.
8.4
The Validation Appeals Panel will determine its own procedure. The Dean and the
Chair and Secretary of the Validation or Review Panel will have the right to appeal and
speak before members of the Panel. Other members of the Panel may also appear.
External advisers would only be called in exceptional circumstances.
8.5
The Validation Appeals Panel may determine:

that the original recommendation of the Validation or Review Panel should be
presented to Academic Council in the normal way

that the report should be referred back to the Validation or Review Panel for further
consideration

that a Validation or Review Panel with a different membership should be convened
to re-consider the course(s).
8.6
If the course in question is also under consideration by a professional body or other
external agency, the professional body will be formally advised by the Academic
Registrar that the recommendations of the Validation or Review Panel await
confirmation and publication.
8.7
The outcomes of any appeals against University Validation Panel or University Review
Panel decisions will be fully reported to the next meeting of Academic Council.
22
Part 3: Validation of Courses and Modules
Section 9: Curriculum Design, Award Titles and External Reference Points
9.1
The academic level of any course is determined by its aims, learning outcomes,
syllabus content and its assessment formats and criteria for judging student
achievement.
9.2
The structure and content of the curriculum must explicitly support the subject-specific
title of the award. The general award title, for example, whether it is an Arts or a
Science award, will be determined by the subject content relative to cognate courses
within the University. Courses would normally be validated with either an Arts or a
Science award; these would not normally be presented as alternatives within the same
course scheme.
9.3
All courses validated for conferment as University of Westminster awards must have
clear subject specific aims and learning outcomes, which inform the definition of aims
and learning outcomes for each module.
9.4
All courses which lead to awards of the University must normally be academically
credit-rated, modular and semesterised.
9.5
Although courses are modular rather than linear each named pathway within a course
scheme must have academic coherence both at the point of initial validation and
subsequently through the addition and/or deletion of individual modules.
9.6
Although the admissions requirements and selection criteria provide a guide to the
level of student qualifications and subject expertise required at the point of entry to the
course, these factors do not determine the academic level of the course. For example,
a graduate may study a different subject at undergraduate, graduate diploma or
postgraduate level, or a graduate may undertake further study in the same field as their
first degree (a specialised postgraduate course).
9.7
Academic levels in honours degree work correlate broadly to the first, second and third
years of a full-time three-year undergraduate course. However, elective modules or
option elements need not necessarily be studied in a sequence determined by
progressive acquisition of subject knowledge. Therefore each module must be seen
both as a discrete unit and a component of the named pathway.
9.8
Particular care must be taken to ensure clarity of definition in learning outcomes of
Level 7 postgraduate modules, especially in terms of higher level analytical skills and
the expectation of students’ abilities to sustain advanced independent critically
evaluative work, which also underpins much Level 6 undergraduate work.
9.9
There are a range of external reference points for course teams to consider when
undertaking curriculum design. Courses seeking Professional Body Accreditation must
take into account any requirements of the relevant external body in their curriculum
content and design, and make those requirements clear when presenting their
course(s) to a University Validation Panel where the external requirements need
Course Specific Regulations to be approved. In addition, the QAA has published the
“Quality Code” as a set of reference points for maintaining academic standards and
quality.
23
9.10
Subject Benchmark Statements (SBS) provide a means for the course team and the
wider academic community to describe the nature and characteristics of degrees in a
specific subject area. They set out expectations about the standards of awards. They
describe what gives a discipline its coherence and identity, and define what can be
expected of a graduate in terms of the abilities and skills needed to develop
understanding or competence in the subject. Interdisciplinary awards may need to
reference more than one SBS.
9.11
The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) is based on the premise
that qualifications should be awarded on the basis of achievement of outcomes rather
than years of study. Qualification descriptors set out the generic outcomes and
attributes expected for the award of individual qualifications. These are embedded into
the University’s Undergraduate and Postgraduate Frameworks set out in the
Handbook of Academic Regulations.
9.12
The QAA Quality Code is set out in three parts; it provides guidance on maintaining
quality and standards in Higher Education Institutions. The University takes the
guidance set out in each section of the Code into account when developing its own
policy and procedures in the relevant areas. Programme Specifications also form part
of the Academic Infrastructure and the QAA provides guidance to institutions on
producing specifications.
Section 10: Validation Processes for New Named Awards
10.1
Clearance is required at University senior management level prior to the consideration
by University Validation Panels of new course proposals. Planned course
developments are normally included in the Faculty Plan and proposals for new named
award proposals are scrutinised by the Academic Portfolio Review Group on behalf of
the University Executive Board (UEB) prior to inclusion of new named award proposals
in the University Validation Panel (UVP) schedule.
ACADEMIC PORTFOLIO REVIEW GROUP
10.2
The Academic Portfolio Review Group (APRG) was established as a replacement for
the First Filter Group following agreement by Academic Council in June 2010.
10.3
The remit of the APRG is to:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
review the proposals for new course provision as included in Faculty Plans;
satisfy itself that the financial, planning, marketing and quality aspects of new
course proposals included in the Faculty plan have been considered and
signed off and recommend that the course may either proceed to validation or
require additional information;
develop a University-wide portfolio perspective to ensure the avoidance of
duplication of course provision across Faculty s;
receive and approve proposals for changes to existing award titles;
review and agree arrangements for the revalidation and periodic review of large
scale existing courses over the forthcoming two years of the Faculty plans;
review trends in recruitment and progression for existing courses at University
level and make recommendations to UEB on the overall academic portfolio;
identify the potential for development of new subject areas and modes of
delivery in the light of HEFCE/Government level initiatives and pan-European
or international developments;
24
h)
10.4
define and oversee cross-Faculty protocols on the management of courses in
cognate subject areas, and joint inter-Faculty programmes and activities.
Membership of the APRG comprises an independent peer group of 12 members
including:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
l)
A Dean (Chair)
Director of Westminster Exchange
A Head of Department
A Faculty Director of Learning, Teaching and Quality
A Faculty Registrar
A Faculty Finance Manager
A Bachelors level Course Leader with multi-pathway delivery experience
A Masters level Course Leader
A representative of Estates and Facilities
A representative of Information Systems and Library Services
Associate Director Academic Quality and Standards Office
Director of Planning.
10.5
Following submission of the Faculty Plans, the APRG will invite submission of
proposals for new named awards. The APRG will scrutinise the written proposals and
will question the Dean of Faculty at individual Portfolio Review meetings to be
scheduled for inclusion in the University Calendar each year.
10.6
Each new course proposal includes statements covering the three aspects listed
below:
Planning Context
a)
the academic and professional rationale for the new course;
b)
a summary of the unique features of the proposed course and the subject
team’s expertise in the specified level and subject, with reference to existing
University’s courses and/or modules. Where the course is significantly similar
to an existing course delivered by another Department/Faculty within the
University, the rationale must highlight the similarities and differences,
clarifying the differing markets for the courses and the rationale for introducing
another similar, cognate course;
c)
confirmation that the proposed course has been discussed with the Planning
Office and a summary of the outcome of the discussion;
d)
identification of relevant external body involvement in the development of the
course and whether Professional Body accreditation will be sought.
Market
e)
confirmation that the proposal has been discussed with Marketing,
Communications and Development, a summary of the advice given and
confirmation that the Faculty is satisfied that there is a viable and sustainable
market for the course;
25
Resourcing
g)
confirmation from the Faculty Finance Manager that the course has been
approved and signed off as financially sustainable both in terms of its budgeted
income and its direct and indirect costs;
h)
HEFCE and HESA details including cost centres, qualification aim and
expected major source of funding.
NEW COURSE DEVELOPMENT
10.7
The Dean of Faculty will establish a formal course development team to prepare each
new course for validation. All Course Leaders should hold full-time or fractional
contracts of employment with the University; Visiting Lecturers cannot normally be
appointed as Course Leaders. It is recommended that responsibilities are clearly
designated to identify issues relevant to the proposal and to identify a realistic
timescale for the validation of the proposal.
10.8
The Dean of Faculty must ensure that course development is informed by consultation
and s/he is responsible for initiating any necessary external consultations with other
Faculty, collaborating institutions, employers, subject specialists, professional bodies
and external examiners. The Dean of Faculty must also ensure that the course
conforms to the requirements of the University and of any external validating and
professional bodies.
CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT ENHANCEMENT WORKSHOPS
10.9
These workshops are intended to support Course Teams in planning their curriculum
in preparation for course validation or review. The workshops will put an emphasis on
considering how to deliver the curriculum to support student learning and achievement
and to fulfil the University’s aspirations of the Learning, Teaching and Development
vision and the current Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy. The Faculty is
responsible for scheduling these workshops with the Westminster Exchange. Each
workshop will be tailored to meet the needs of the Course Teams participating to take
account of the identification of current strengths and areas for further development.
These workshops take place before the Initial Validation or Review meeting.
INITIAL VALIDATION MEETING
10.6
Once a course has been included in the University Validation Panel schedule, the
Panel membership is identified, and the Initial Validation meeting is convened. The
purpose of this meeting is to provide the Panel with information about the scope of the
course and to determine the most appropriate means by which the proposal(s) should
be scrutinised, thereby planning the approval process and determining which Panel
members and independent subject specialist advisers should be involved at each
stage. The initial meeting is normally of 60-90 minutes’ duration. Relevant information,
including papers received by the APRG a draft Programme Specification, proposals
for any Course Specific Regulations and nominations for External Advisers, are
circulated to the participants who include: the Panel Chair, the Panel Secretary,
Learning, Teaching and Quality Representatives from another Faculty , the Head of
Department, and the Course Leader (designate). The Dean of Faculty is invited to
attend but the meeting will proceed if they are unable to be present.
26
Initial Meeting Agenda
10.7
There is a standard agenda for all Initial meetings. Each agenda is customised by the
Panel Secretary to take account of the characteristics of the individual proposal. The
standard agenda items are set out below:
BACKGROUND TO THE COURSE PROPOSAL
a)
to discuss the background to the proposal including any developments since
the original submission of the new course proposal and to agree if any further
submission to the APRG is necessary;
b)
to discuss the relevant external context for the course, including the
implications of any external body involvement in the course approval process;
c)
to discuss the market for the course, as presented in the new course proposal
form, including consideration of any competitor courses;
DRAFT PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION
d)
to consider the draft programme specification for the course(s) under
consideration including:
(i)
any proposed course specific regulations;
(ii) any changes to standard modular framework;
(iii) admissions to the course including English Language requirements and
AP(E)L and APCL;
(iv) course management;
(v) student feedback arrangements;
(vi) consistency with relevant University policies;
(vii) employability;
(viii) PDP;
(ix) support for students with disabilities.
PLANNING FOR FINAL VALIDATION EVENT
e)
to determine whether the Developmental Steering Group process should be
used, or whether a single stage meeting would be more appropriate;
f)
to discuss and agree the involvement of and nominations for external
advisers to the Panel;
g)
to agree provisional dates, membership and locations of the validation
meeting(s);
h)
to agree the format, submission dates and number of copies of
documentation required for validation. Two submission dates will be agreed,
the first for internal circulation and agreement within the Faculty, and the
second for submission to the Panel;
i)
to note that once the final validation date has been agreed, the Panel
Secretary will advise the Course Team of the date by which conditions set at
the validation meeting must be responded to, normally within 4-6 weeks of the
meeting, and to confirm the deadline for completion of the validation process
which includes submission of a definitive course handbook, no later than 31
May;
27
j)
to confirm that the course may be advertised with immediate effect with the
caveat “subject to approval”
NB Normally, course approval must be secured at least three months before the
planned start date for the course, for clearance to be given for enrolment to proceed
and by 31 May for courses starting in Semester 1 and by 31 October for courses
starting in Semester 2.
10.8
The agenda for the first meeting of the University Validation Panel with the presenters
should give precedence to curriculum content relative to course structure, and to the
teaching and learning strategy for the course/subject. Course teams are encouraged
to submit their own suggestions for the agenda.
10.9
Issues identified at the Initial Validation meeting which do not fall within the remit of the
University Validation Panel should be referred to the appropriate body.
UNIVERSITY VALIDATION PANEL - REMIT
10.10 The remit of a University Validation Panel approved by Academic Council is as follows:
Validation Panels are convened to ensure that proposed courses are of an academic
and professional standard appropriate to the level and nature of the proposed award,
are consistent with the University’s academic regulations and are supported with
appropriate resources. To do this the Panel will, through consideration of the
documentation presented to it:
a)
assess the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed delivery for new
courses; this will involve consideration of:
 overall philosophy, aims and objectives of the course
 admissions policy and selection criteria
 curriculum content, balance and relevance of the course(s), with reference
to the appropriate QAA Subject Benchmark Statement(s) where available
and the requirements of the Professional Body where appropriate
 teaching and learning strategy (including consideration of how the course
encourages student centred active learning)
 skills policy and provision for Personal Development Planning (PDP)
 assessment strategy, criteria and methods
 course output and level of award (in the context of the QAA Framework for
Higher Education Qualifications and the QAA Academic Credit level
descriptors)
 expertise, leadership and development of the teaching team(s)
 resource provision and facilities for the course scheme(s)
 course management arrangements
 student involvement in quality assurance and enhancement of the
course(s);
b)
evaluate the level and credit weighting of each module within the course, and
the level of the course as a whole within the context of the QAA Framework for
Higher Education Qualifications;
c)
to consider the rationale for proposals for variants to the University's Modular
Framework, and, in consultation with the University Academic Registrar and
28
Dean with responsibility for Academic Quality, to recommend approval to
Academic Council;
d)
seek clarification from the Dean of Faculty in the first instance, and
subsequently from the appropriate resource manager, of any issues which do
not appear to have been resolved in the context of the agreed resource
provision;
e)
set conditions of approval and recommendations for further actions required at
the end of the validation meeting;
f)
agree the period of approval for the course(s);
g)
agree the report of the meeting for consideration by the Faculty Learning,
Teaching and Quality Committee, and for onward reporting to Academic
Council.
10.11 At its final meeting, the Panel will make one of the following decisions:

approval without time limit (with a review within six academic sessions)

approval for a specified period (up to six academic sessions)

non-approval, possibly with encouragement to resubmit after suggested revision.
10.12 The aspects which should be given the closest attention in discussions between the
Panel, its advisers and the presenting team must include the following:

the aims and learning outcomes for the subject at the specified level cross-mapped
to the aims and learning outcomes for all the core modules and course specific
options

the subject-specific syllabus content of modules

the rationale for the assessment methods specified in the documentation

assessment criteria for each module to demonstrate how they are used to measure
the attainment of the learning outcomes

the processes of subject-specific peer scrutiny at Departmental and Faculty level
applied to the design of modules and assessment formats, and moderation of
assessed work

the involvement of students in ongoing course development and review.
10.13 Particular emphasis should be given to the need to ensure the inclusion of skills,
knowledge and aptitudes which help to enhance students’ employability and career
management skills and, where appropriate, these key transferable skills and subject
knowledge should have an international focus. Self-reliance and the potential for
continued development through lifelong learning are key characteristics which the
University must develop in its students.
29
STEERING GROUP PROCESS
10.14 This is intended to be an overtly developmental process and the Panel will conduct its
work through a sequence of meetings. Normally at least two and not more than three
meetings will be held. The schedule of meetings, the members of the University
Validation Panel who will be required to be present at each meeting, and the
documents to be considered at each meeting will be agreed at the Initial Validation
meeting. If the Panel considers that insufficient progress has been made on the
proposal and/or if course approval is judged unlikely, the Panel Chair and Secretary
will advise the Head of Quality and Standards and the Dean with executive
responsibility for Academic Quality. Following discussions between key staff at
University and Faculty level the Panel may either continue its scrutiny of the proposal,
although the planned start date for the course may be delayed, or the Panel may
adjourn until such time as the proposal has been sufficiently re-developed to facilitate
further discussion.
SINGLE STAGE PROCESS
10.15 A Single Stage validation would normally be appropriate for:



a new course proposal with a number of modules already in approval
a collaborative proposal for the external operation of a course currently approved
for delivery within the University
a re-validation of a course in time-limited approval where extension of approval is
likely, with few modifications to the course.
DOCUMENTATION
10.16 The Dean of Faculty, in consultation with the Head of Department, is responsible for
ensuring that the documentation for presentation to the Panel and its external advisers
is of a high standard. Validation documents must be checked and approved at Faculty
level prior to transmission to the University Validation Panel. The signature of the Dean
of Faculty is required on the standard form confirming that documents are approved
for circulation to the Panel and its External Advisers.
10.17 The following documents will normally be produced for the validation of a new course:

Course Handbook (see Section 27)

Faculty document with staff CVs (see Section 30)

Programme Specification (see Section 28).
10.18 If the course replaces any existing course a Critical Review document in respect of the
current course should be produced (see Section 31).
10.19 If a group of courses is proposed it is recommended that a Module Document should
be produced.
10.20 Submission dates for this documentation, and the number of copies required, will be
agreed at the Initial Validation Meeting.
REPORT OF THE VALIDATION
10.21 Summary conclusions, conditions and recommendations should be made available to
relevant participants within five working days of the final meeting. A draft outcomes
report on the validation process should be circulated to all participants within ten
working days of its completion. A confirmed and agreed report should then be
30
submitted to the Head of the Quality and Standards Office for report to the Faculty
Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee and for the annual overview report to
Academic Council.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
10.22 All conditions of approval specified by the Panel must be satisfied by the date agreed
at the (Re)Validation Panel meeting, normally a date no later than three months prior
to the start date for the course. The Panel must identify the means by which the Course
Team’s response to the conditions of approval will be considered, e.g. by the Panel
Chair, or full Panel, with or without one or more of the external advisers. It is the
responsibility of the Dean of Faculty to ensure that conditions of approval set by a
Panel are fulfilled by the date(s) specified.
Section 11: Re-Validations
11.1
The same validation processes for validation of new awards are used for the revalidation of courses in time-limited approval. It is expected that courses which may
have been given limited approval at the point of initial approval will be re-validated
without time-limit if the review demonstrates that the courses have run satisfactorily in
all respects.
11.2
Courses offered in collaboration with a partner institution always require re-validation.
11.3
A revised Course Handbook is required, together with a Critical Review document as
described in Sections 27and 31 respectively.
Section 12: Course and module modifications
12.1
Following the Validation or Review of a course there is still an expectation that courses
and modules may require modifying to respond to advances in the academic discipline,
research, improved technology enhanced learning opportunities, student feedback,
Professional Statutory Body and external examiners feedback. In order to ensure the
approved course outcomes are maintained, avoid ‘validation drift’ and to ensure
appropriate actions identified through annual monitoring the University operates a
proportionate course and module modifications process.
12.2
The modifications process recognises that there is a balance between the
transparency of information provided to applicants and students and the need for
curriculum, assessment and learning outcomes to be continuously enhanced in line
with best practice. Those proposing and approving the modifications do so on the
basis of a shared responsibility and shared goal for improving the quality of the course
in the interests of staff, students and applicants.
12.3
There are four categories of modification Minor, major, structural and exceptional
retrospective this is to ensure proportionality in the approval process. In addition
annual updates to module proformas are expected.
i) Minor modifications will normally be expected to have no impact on the overall
course aims, course outcomes, objectives, philosophy, balance of the course, subject
benchmarks and Professional Statutory Body requirements and are normally a single
or very small number of changes to linked modules.
31
ii) Major modifications are more extensive changes often across multiple modules
where a courses overall outcomes, balance and overall philosophy may potentially be
affected. This category requires additional evidence over and above that required for
a minor modification. Such modifications are normally expected to form one coherent
clear proposal.
iii) Structural changes are those that impact on the overall structure of an award.
iv) Retrospective changes In highly exceptional circumstances a module or course
may be required to change for the current academic year. Such changes can only be
approved by the University Quality Review Committee Chair or nominee.
The modifications table provides full details of the approval mechanism, a
summary of the information and evidence required and examples.
12.4
Those proposing and approving the changes have a shared responsibility to ensure
that the impact on the learning outcomes, assessment rationale, assessment criteria
have been articulated to national expectations, for example appropriate level learning
outcomes. In proposing minor, major or structural changes it is expected that
consideration of the potential impact at course level is considered by the course leader
or equivalent e.g. course outcomes, Professional Body expectations, subject
benchmarks, and Franchise implications prior to submission.
External points of reference:
threshold academic standards
Quality Assurance Agency Setting and Maintaining
12.5
Minor and major modifications are considered on behalf of the Faculty Quality
Committee. Each Faculty Quality Committee establishes the process for consideration
of the proposals. Approval by the Faculty Quality Committee Chair is normally
expected, except where there may be a potential conflict of interests.
12.6
Structural modifications must be approved by a University Validation Panel Chair,
member of Academic Council or Faculty Quality Committee Chair from outside the host
Faculty. This level of approval ensures such modifications are proportionate with the
independent peer review Validation and Review process.
Where changes are
occurring to a course validated or Reviewed within the last two academic years, where
possible the proposal should be considered by the relevant UVP Chair.
12.7
The University will set deadlines each academic year for the consideration of
proposals. The deadlines take account of the opportunities for student feedback, staff
reflections, discussions with external examiners and to allow for a rigorous approval
process, whilst balancing the need for other necessary requirements which help
improve the student experience e.g. timetabling and the communication of accurate
published information.
i)
Minor modifications to modules taught within semester 1 and yearlong modules
should be submitted no later than the academic staff year end preceding the
change (mid July). Semester 2 modules can be submitted up to the end of the
first week in September, such modifications made just prior to the start of the
academic year can potentially result in inaccuracies in published information
e.g. course handbooks; course teams will be expected to ensure the
documentation will be updated for the start of term. Normally, proposals for
minor modifications will be considered within 10 working days of receipt of the
full set of required evidence.
32
ii)
There is an expectation that major and structural changes will be submitted no
later than the end of the spring term, allowing for appropriate communication.
It is recognised that continuing students may however have been required to
register for modules prior to the deadline and applicants may already have
accepted a place based on the current published information, course teams are
therefore strongly encouraged to submit proposals earlier where feedback
opportunities have already taken place and consultation with the relevant
external examiner has been possible.
Proposals for major modifications should normally be considered within 20
working days. Structural modifications should normally also take approximately
20 days however may take longer depending on the scale of the proposed
changes and potential requirement for a face to face meeting with the course
representatives. In all cases, formal written approval must be secured before
the proposed changes are communicated as approved.
iii)
The principles outlined for modification deadlines should also apply to nonstandard starting courses e.g. January start courses should where possible
allow for student feedback following one semester of teaching.
iv)
Credit-bearing modules which are not part of a University of Westminster award
can be approved by the Faculty Quality Committee. There is an expectation
that the relevant external examiner or a specialist external advisor for the
subject discipline will be consulted regardless of the credit level and this
evidence is submitted as part of the proposal.
12.8
In exceptional circumstances it is recognised that changes to courses and modules
may be required during the academic year and are therefore considered retrospective.
It is anticipated that at course level these will be exceptionally rare. In such cases these
must have the approval of the Faculty Dean and Chair of the Quality Review
Committee, discussions with students and the external examiner will also be expected.
Where changes to modules are felt required during the academic session these are
also presumed to be exceptional and must be approved by the Chair of the Quality
Review Committee or nominee.
12.9
The Quality and Standards Office are expected to formally communicate approval of
any changes to the relevant Faculty and Registry staff. In addition, it is important that
communication with Recruitment, Marketing and Admissions and the Planning Office
(where applicable) takes place to ensure the accuracy of published information e.g. on
web pages, prospectuses, course promotions. Records will be kept by the Faculty
Quality and Standards Officers on behalf of the Faculty Quality Committee.
12.10 Following approval of modifications, it is the responsibility of the Course Leader or
nominee to ensure students and the external examiner are informed of the changes.
Students should be informed at the earliest opportunity following approval. In the case
of structural changes communication should be explicitly to applicants and students
affected.
12.11 Changes to modules which take account of individual students disability needs are
also expected, in such cases these are normally approved by the Disability Learning
Support Unit and/or Student Welfare Panel on a case by case basis. In the case of
Collaborative partners this decision making will be the responsibility of the partner
institution.
33
12.12 Changes to courses and modules run by a partner institution follow the same
modifications process. All collaboration modifications should be submitted directly to
the relevant Liaison Tutor for onward approval on behalf of the Faculty Quality
Committee. It is fully expected that the partner institution engages fully with the
approval process.
12.13 Changes to award titles and proposals for additional named awards must be submitted
to and be approved by the relevant University Committee; these cannot be approved
by the modification process.
34
Summary
Annual
updates to
module
proformas
that do not
require
approval.
Annual updates to modules
proformas are expected in some
areas to ensure information is
accurate and up to date.
List of examples
Evidence
expected
Indicative syllabus, module
leader changes, reading
N/A
lists, articles and other
learning resources.
Approval
Other action
No approval
required.
The Academic Liaison
Tutor/Library should
be informed of
updated reading lists.
Where a Module
Leader changes the
Faculty Registry Office
and Quality and
Standards Office
should be notified to
update the student
record system
Changes to student learning and
teaching hours table
1)Module proformas are expected to
be updated where there has been an
adjustment to the hours between
differing types of teaching methods
as described in the indicative student
learning and teaching hour’s table,
but where there is crucially no
change to the total hours of nonindependent study.
An example is a move from
20 hours of lecturers to 18
hours of lectures and two N/A
hours of seminars, i.e.
there is no change to the
overall ‘time spent in
classes’ hours.
No approval
required because
this does not
impact on the
‘total scheduled
teaching hours’
No other University
level action required.
35
2) Changes to total hours of
scheduled learning and teaching.
In the case of Undergraduate
provision where the total hours of
scheduled activity in a module is
changing this is not considered a
modification as the hours are not
subject to approval. However the
summary data for Undergraduate
courses is publicly available as part
of the Key Information Set (KIS) as
‘time spent in classes’ and therefore
there is important associated action
outside the modification
requirements.
2013/14 total independent
study 120 hours
2014/15 total independent
study 130 hours
No modification
approval required.
However:
If the proposed
change is for the
forthcoming year
please ensure that the
new hours are
recorded in the annual
KIS data collection
exercise via your
Faculty Registry
Office.
It is important that the
hours advertised to
students in the module
proforma match those
collated for the KIS
exercise.
In the case of
Postgraduate courses
the information simply
requires updating in
the module proforma.
36
Formal Modification process
Modification
type
Minor module
modifications
Description
Minor modifications will normally be
expected to have no impact on the
overall
course
aims,
course
outcomes, objectives, philosophy,
balance of the course, subject
benchmarks
and
Professional
Statutory
Body
requirements.
Examples of these types of
modifications are provided.
Examples
Changes to Module
Learning outcomes,
assessment methods,
assessment weightings,
pre or co requisites ,
qualifying marks/sets,
assessment criteria, the
way the module is
delivered (teaching and
The potential impact of ‘minor Learning methods),
changes’ on course outcomes is module titles.
however recognised. An example
might be the removal of a The addition of an extra
presentation on a core module, that already approved option
may result in a course outcome module with no associated
aligned to ‘verbally communicating’. withdrawal of modules is
The course leader or equivalent is considered a minor
expected
to
ensure
minor modification.
modifications are not impacting on
the overall course outcomes. Where
the course outcomes are changing
please refer to major modifications.
Evidence to support proposal
Approval required.
1) A brief and clear explanation
describing the proposed
changes, and the date from
which they would be
implemented. E.g. change from
exam to coursework.
1)Module Leader
2) Academic rationale E.g. the
academic purpose for the
change from exam to
coursework.
3) A list of the courses to which
the amended module
contributes, as either a core or a
named option,
3) Old and new proforma,
4) In the case of existing option
modules being added the
Programme Specification must
also be updated.
2)*Course leader (s)
or equivalent.
In signing the course
leader or equivalent is
also confirming there
is no impact on the
overall course
outcomes.
*where the module is
core across more than
one named award it is
expected that approval
on behalf of each
course is provided
3) Approval on behalf
of the Faculty Quality
Committee
4) Endorsed by the
Faculty Quality and
Standards Officer or
nominee.
37
Modification
type
Major
Description
Examples
Major modifications are more 
extensive changes often across
multiple modules where a courses
overall outcomes, balance and
overall philosophy may be affected.
This category requires additional 
evidence over and above that
required for a minor modification. .
Such modifications are normally
expected to form one clear proposal.


Extensive changes to
assessment, learning
outcomes, across
current modules.
Changes to overall
course aims, course
outcomes, objectives,
philosophy.
Changes to
admissions
requirements.
The adding or deleting
of existing option
modules within a
wider suite of
modules.
In the case of credit
bearing short courses with
no named award or
associated structure, these
can be approved by the
Faculty Quality Committee
as long as there are
comments from an
external examiner or
examiner advisor from the
relevant subject discipline.
Evidence to support proposal
Approval required.
1) A very brief explanation
outlining what the changes are,
normally from the course leader
or equivalent and when they will
be implemented.
As above
2) Academic Rationale – this
describes in more detail the
academic purpose of the
changes.
3) Old and new proforma(s)
4) Updated Programme
Specification if appropriate.
5) Consultation with students
where appropriate, determined
with shared responsibility by
those proposing and approving
the changes, the Chair of the
Faculty Quality Committee
making a final judgment. This is
normally expected to be through
the course committee, student
representatives or evidence from
student surveys.
6) External examiner
consultation where appropriate;
determined with shared
responsibility by those proposing
and approving the changes, with
38
the Chair of the Faculty Quality
Committee making a final
judgment.
7) PSB reports or guidance
where appropriate.
Where an accumulation of minor
modifications results in
significant changes across a
named award in one academic
year the Chair of the Faculty
Quality Committee can ask for
the above information to be
provided. In determining if the
changes are extensive the
overall course structure number
of credits involved, extent of the
course outcome changes will be
considered.
Formal modification process which requires approval from outside the Faculty
Modification
Description
Examples
type
Structural
Structural changes are those that
Changes to:
changes
impact on the structure of the
 core and optional
course.
choices
 credit value
The only exception is where an
 credit level
additional option module(s) are
 mode of study
being proposed, such modifications
Evidence to support proposal
The required evidence is as per
a major modification; however an
updated Programme
Specification, student and
external examiner consultation
are requirements.
Approval required.
Approved by the
1) Faculty process,
2)Approved by a UVP
Chair, academic
Council member or
39
can be dealt with under the major
modification process as the
expectations of students are not
being impacted.
Retrospective
exceptional
modifications
In highly exceptional circumstances
a module or course may be required
to change for the current academic
year. Such changes can only be
approved by the University Quality
Review Committee Chair or
nominee.


Changes to course
specific regulations
The approval of new
modules on a named
award.
Examples may include
urgent external examiner
comments identified after
the start of term.
Where a mode of study is being
introduced or changed this must
be approved by the Dean of
Faculty, a statement from the
course leader will be required to
confirm how students on the new
mode of study will be supported.
The evidence is the same
dependent on the type of
modification being proposed; in
addition confirmation of what has
been published in the course
handbook may be required.
Director of Quality
from , outside the host
Faculty.
The scrutiny of the
proposal(s), will
normally take place by
correspondence
however a meeting
may be required for
more complex
proposals.
Note: Course specific
regulations must be
approved by the
Associate Director of
Quality and
Standards.
University Quality and
Review Committee
Chair, Head of
Department and
Faculty Quality
Committee Chair.
40
Section 13: Additional Named Awards
13.1
Proposals for the approval of additional named awards to an existing course scheme
have to secure approval from the Academic Portfolio Review Group and are normally
considered by a University Validation Panel.
13.2
Where proposals for new awards are developed as part of the course review process
their scrutiny will normally be undertaken by the University Review Panel.
Section 14: Introduction of New Modules
14.1
Proposals for new modules (up to a maximum of 5% of the course scheme) are
considered for approval under the arrangements for minor modifications. Modules
must be presented in the standard format, with a covering paper justifying their
introduction in the context of existing modules within the course scheme and in the
University. The comments of an External Adviser from outside the University must also
be appended to the proposal; a currently appointed external examiner may be the most
appropriate person to comment, given their familiarity with the aims and objectives and
modular structure of the whole course.
Section 15: Replacement of Existing Modules
15.1
Where new modules have been approved to replace existing modules, care must be
taken at validation and in records kept at Faculty level to use titles and codes which
differentiate the new from the old, and the existing modules should be retained on the
Student Records System until such time as all students undertaking reassessments
have had the opportunity to complete them.
15.2
It is University policy that wherever possible, duplication of modules should be avoided.
Therefore it is the responsibility of Course Development Teams to check whether there
is a risk of duplication with existing modules. Where duplication is unavoidable a clear
justification must be presented at the new course proposal stage (see Section 10.1)
for subsequent verification. The Panel Secretary should ensure that the existence of
similar modules is checked before any approval decision is taken.
Section 16: On-Line Learning and Distance Learning
16.1
The inclusion of distance learning material, in both paper and electronic form in parttime and full-time courses is positively encouraged. Staff preparing such material
should consult models of mixed mode and distance learning courses available within
the University and in other HEIs.
16.2
A University Validation Panel for a distance or mixed mode course must assure itself
that the provision of the study packs or other supporting material for the first calendar
year of course operation is at an appropriate standard. Material for at least one module,
plus representative sections of other modules must be scrutinised by the Panel and its
External Advisers. In addition, Subject Specialist Assessors with distance or on-line
learning experience must provide detailed scrutiny of and comment on the content of
the materials and their delivery. The nominations of such Subject Specialist Assessors
must be considered for approval by the Panel. The written comments of the Subject
Specialist Assessors must be submitted to the Panel while it is in progress. Following
approval for a course to be delivered in distance learning or on-line learning, the written
41
comments of the Subject Specialist Assessors on the remaining module materials must
be submitted to the Faculty Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee for reference
in the annual monitoring process.
16.3
External subject specialists or distance/on-line learning specialists are nominated by
the Faculty s developing the proposal for consideration and approval by the University
Validation Panel Chair. Contracts for payment of fees by the Faculty and detailed
briefing notes for the Subject Specialist Assessors may only be issued once their
nominations have been recorded and approved on behalf of the University Validation
Panel. Guidance on the contract (which must include clauses on the level and quality
of assessors’ comments and specify sanctions against missed deadlines) is available
from the Academic Services Department and the Finance Department.
16.4
The material to be reviewed by the External Assessor:
16.5

outline for one or more modules

sample material for one or more modules

second draft of one or more modules.
The aim of the scrutiny of the materials is to ensure that they are technically accurate,
up to date and cover the learning outcomes at the required level. In giving feedback to
the developer of the module, the assessor should look for:

recognition of knowledge and skills of the user

suitability of style

relevance of items covered

coverage at the appropriate level of all relevant items

accuracy

clear presentation of text features (activities, assignments, feedback, projects)

variety of activities, assignments and projects to support students’ active learning

appropriateness and suitability of feedback

currency of content.
ON-LINE DELIVERY
16.6
Many University staff make use of the centrally supported virtual learning environment
(VLE) Blackboard as well as other Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)
in course delivery. Blackboard will increasingly be used to:

add extra dimensions to on-campus face-to-face delivery

support students on distance learning courses.
Staff are encouraged to explore the quality enhancement opportunities that Blackboard
and ICT present. Where the use of ICT, and particularly Blackboard, leads to an
alteration in the extent of planned face-to-face contact with students, this needs to be
explicitly addressed in course design and approval procedures. The reduction in faceto-face contact will vary in extent and from subject to subject. However, achieving the
42
stated learning outcomes for the module/course is paramount and should inform staff
who are introducing the ICT based or VLE component.
16.7
The use of ICT, including Blackboard, can either be used for an entirely new course or
an adaptation of an existing course, so that a course or module may contain a mix of
face-to-face and on-line or virtual activities. Where for new courses the extent of the
face-to-face contact with students is proposed to be lower than that typically found on
a traditional, wholly face-to-face course, of similar length and level, the Faculty
proposing such a course is asked to take a range of issues into account (see below).
These are critical to the successful delivery of such a hybrid course (part face-to-face,
part on-line or virtual). University Validation Panels will include these issues in their
scrutiny of such new courses. These include:

how far the proposed course has taken into account how other courses have
successfully used ICT to change to a hybrid delivery

clarity about what outcome should result from the use of ICT

the balance of face-to-face versus on-line contact/activities

the way that ICT support students’ active learning

management of the demands of on-line contact delivery such as student
communications and student contact

structure of the course: which aspects will be on-line; information provision;
discursive elements; group work; assessments/examinations

support for the course team: technical, pedagogic, ICT resources

how students will access materials or essential communication tools placed online

student access off-campus via their own computer and Internet connection

induction and support for students to use the required technology

how far targeted students will be familiar with working on-line, have taken on-line
assessments, or be familiar with the type of on-line activities planned

on-line activities or materials must take due account of the requirements of the
Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA).
16.8
A University Validation Panel will assure itself that the intended on-line learning
activities, when combined with the face-to-face contact opportunities, will enable the
overall delivery of the course learning outcomes. In addition the Panel should be
satisfied that the way in which the course team intend to manage the on-line learning
activities match the need to deliver the learning outcomes with the resources available.
In addition the University Validation Panel must be clear that the course team have
considered the implications of the SENDA for the delivery approach that they intend to
take.
16.9
It is possible for a hybrid course to distribute materials but not to rely on those materials
in the same way that a truly distance learning course might. For example materials
may be distributed on-line in a hybrid course in order that students prepare for a faceto-face classroom based activity. This is in contrast to materials that might be
considered to be self-standing, i.e. contain carefully designed exercise and review
opportunities so that the materials themselves become more than an information
delivery mechanism. Materials to be used substantially in a hybrid course in the latter
43
way are subject to the same requirements as outlined in Sections 16.1 -16.5 for
distance learning courses.
16.10 Many existing University modules and courses will shift progressively to a hybrid
pattern of delivery that mixes face-to-face activity with on-line approaches. In some
instances the only change to an existing course or module delivery will be the inclusion,
for example, of on-line as opposed to paper based short answer testing. In other
circumstances a tutor or course team may decide to replace lectures with on-line
materials and/or introduce on-line methods for discussion that could replace previously
classroom-based seminars or tutorials. In either circumstance, any change which
results in a reduction of previously published hours of face-to-face contact (i.e. the
number of contact hours included when the curse or module was first validated) must
be approved through the minor modification procedure (see Section 12).
Section 17: Course Publicity
17.1
Normally, clearance for publicity for a proposed new course will be given following the
Curriculum Assessment and Enhancement Workshop and confirmed at the Initial
Validation Meeting.
17.2
If Faculty s wish to publicise courses prior to confirmation at the Initial Validation
Meeting, they should provide the Panel Secretary with confirmation of the following:
a) the course title as approved by the APRG and assurance that this will not change
prior to entry;
b) that the course intends to recruit for entry in the upcoming academic year;
c) the wording for each programme that needs to appear on the University course
search pages. NB: this will need to be approved by the Head of the Quality and
Standards Office to ensure it meets external requirements and that it is as
approved by the APRG;
d) that there is sufficient course structure and content to provide potential applicants
with suitable information that will accurately describe the nature of the course.
17.3
Publication of new courses at this stage will have been agreed by the Quality
Assurance and Enhancement Committee subject to the understanding that Faculty s
must fully consider the implications and potential
risks of the early publication of
new courses.
17.4
All proposed new courses which are advertised must include the caveat "subject to
validation"
until the award has been approved by the Validation Panel, and, if
conditions are stipulated by the Panel, until all validation conditions of approval have
been satisfactorily fulfilled.
17.5
It is the responsibility of the Dean of Faculty to ensure that course publicity is accurate
and conforms to
the University’s house style as determined by the Marketing,
Communications and Development Department, and to check that any course or
module not yet approved is advertised with the caveat "subject to validation".
44
Section 18: Course Records at University and Faculty Level
18.1
The Panel Secretary will complete and circulate a formal course record form once
validation approval of the new course or re-validated course has been confirmed on
behalf of the Panel. This form will be circulated to the following:








18.2
Dean of Faculty
Head of Department
Course Leader
Faculty Registrar
Faculty Learning, Teaching and Quality Director
Head of Quality and Standards Office
Admissions
Marketing, Communications and Development.
It is the responsibility of the Quality and Standards Office and the Faculty Registrar to
ensure that an appropriate course code is allocated for the new award and that the
code, award title, mode, duration, and start date are entered correctly on the Student
Record System. It is the responsibility of the Academic Registrar to ensure that the
same details are entered on the University’s Conferment Record.
Section 19: Module Handouts
19.1
Minor modifications are made to syllabuses and their assessment in the period
between validation and subsequent review. It is the responsibility of the Head of
Department to ensure that all members of teaching staff in his/her subject area update
their module handouts and ensure that students are issued with the currently approved
version within three weeks of the start of the module, with a copy lodged with the
Faculty Registry.
Section 20: Communication with External Agencies and PSBs
20.1
All formal correspondence with external agencies concerning validation approval of
courses, award titles, modules, external examiners and student registration must be
conducted by the Academic Services Department.
45
Part 4: Review
Section 21: Introduction
21.1
All taught courses leading to validated University of Westminster awards are subject
to annual monitoring, and periodically (within six years of the last approval date) the
cumulative outcomes of monitoring inform a longer term review of the course and the
named awards within the course at undergraduate and postgraduate level.
21.2
Formal course reviews are conducted by Review Panels, organised by the Quality
and Standards Office and with delegated powers from Academic Council for courses
with unlimited time validation approval for which such review is due in the sixth year
of the period of approval of the course.
21.3
The student experience of the course must be central to the review process, and all
programmes of study must be included, irrespective of whether students are
registered for an award. All taught courses and programmes of study are subject to
review irrespective of whether they are subsidised by the Higher Education Funding
Council for England (HEFCE).
21.4
Since 1998 the UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) has held responsibility for the
quality assurance processes formerly conducted by Higher Education Quality
Committee (HEQC) and HEFCE respectively since 1992.
Section 22: Internal Course Review
PROCESSES
22.1
Reviews of full-time, part-time, short courses and semester or year-long courses
should be conducted at least once in each six-year cycle. Externally validated and
franchised courses and some new courses are given time-limited approval and revalidation is conducted by a University Validation Panel.
22.2
The material for the review should be cumulatively produced through the annual
monitoring process; no new documents or data should be needed apart from a
succinctly drafted cover document, which provides a critical self-evaluation by the
subject team (see Section 31). A Course Handbook and Programme Specification
which incorporates the changes proposed in the Critical Review must be presented.
22.3
The review will be conducted by a University Review Panel which will be organised
by the Quality and Standards Office. The Chair of the Review Panel will be
nominated by the Quality and Standards Office for approval by the Dean with
executive responsibility for Academic Quality and will be from another School. At
least two representatives of another School’s Learning, Teaching and Quality
Committee will be Panel members; they must be independent of the courses and
subject under review. Normally External Subject Specialist Advisers will also
participate (see Sections 7.5-7.11).
22.4
The grouping of courses by subject for the purpose of review is determined centrally,
by the Quality and Standards Office, in consultation with the relevant Deans of
School and Heads of Department. Determining factors include the HEFCE and the
Quality Assurance Agency's academic subject groupings, the Joint Academic
46
Categories of Subjects (JACS) codes used for HEIs, admissions through UCAS,
external reporting purposes and Professional and Statutory Body (PSB)
accreditation.
22.5
The process of review will normally start with a Curriculum and Assessment
Enhancement Workshop, followed by an Initial Review meeting and will normally
include meeting(s) between the Review Panel, the External Subject Specialist
Advisers and the Head of Department and Course Team, with or without the Dean of
School, and a meeting with a representative group of students (who must be selfselected), and, where possible, recent graduates.
INITIAL REVIEW MEETING
22.6
Once a course has been included in the University Validation and Review Schedule,
the Panel membership is identified, and an Initial Review meeting is convened (once
the Curriculum and Assessment Enhancement Workshop has been held). The
purpose of this meeting is to consider the initial findings from the Critical Review of
the course; to confirm the extent of changes proposed for the course(s) under review,
and to determine which Panel members and independent subject specialist advisers
should be involved at each stage. The Initial meeting is normally of 60-90 minutes'
duration. Relevant information to be circulated in advance includes the report of the
previous validation, the Critical Review document, a draft Programme Specification,
any proposals for new Course Specific Regulations, and nominations for External
Advisers. The participants will normally include: the Panel Chair, the Panel Secretary,
the School LTQC Representative(s), the Head of Department, and the Course
Leader. The Dean of School is invited to attend but the meeting will proceed if they
are unable to be present.
INITIAL MEETING AGENDA
22.7
There is a standard agenda for all Initial Review meetings. Each agenda is
customised by the Panel Secretary to take account of the characteristics of the
courses. The standard agenda items are set out below:
CRITICAL REVIEW
a) To consider the Critical Review of the course(s);
b) To discuss the degree of anticipated change to the course(s) including:
(i) any proposed course specific regulations
(ii) any proposed deviation from the standard Modular Framework;
c) To discuss the current external context for the course, including the implications
of any external body involvement in the course review process;
d) To discuss the ongoing market for and recruitment to the course(s) including
consideration of any competitor courses;
e)
To discuss Transitional arrangements.
PLANNING FOR REVIEW EVENT
f)
To determine whether the Developmental Steering Group process should be
used, or whether a single stage meeting would be more appropriate;
47
g) To discuss and agree the documents to be provided for the final review event;
h) To discuss and agree the involvement of and nominations for external advisers to
the Panel;
i)
To agree provisional dates, membership and locations of the review meeting(s);
j)
To agree the format, submission dates and number of copies of documentation
required for review. Two submission dates will be agreed, the first for internal
circulation and agreement within the School, and the second for submission to
the Panel);
k) To note that once the final review date has been agreed, the Panel Secretary will
advise he Course Team of the date by which conditions set at the review meeting
must be responded to, normally within 4-6 weeks of the meeting, and to confirm
the deadline for completion of the review process which includes submission of a
definitive Course Handbook, no later than 31 May.
22.8
The agenda for the first meeting of the Review Panel with the course presenters
should give precedence to curriculum content relative to course structure, and to the
teaching and learning strategy for the course/subject. Course teams are encouraged
to submit their own suggestions for the agenda.
22.9
Issues identified at the Initial Review meeting which do not fall within the remit of the
Panel should be referred to the appropriate body.
UNIVERSITY REVIEW PANEL - REMIT
22.10 The remit of the University Review Panel approved by Academic Council is as
follows:
Review Panels are convened to ensure that courses are of an academic and
professional standard appropriate to the level and nature of the award, are consistent
with the University’s academic regulations and are supported with appropriate
resources. To do this the Panel will, through consideration of the documentation
presented to it:
a)
assess the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed delivery for new
courses; this will involve consideration of:
 overall philosophy, aims and objectives of the course
 admissions policy and selection criteria
 curriculum content, balance and relevance of the course(s), with reference
to the appropriate QAA Subject Benchmark Statement(s) where available
and the requirements of the Professional Body where appropriate
 teaching and learning strategy (including consideration of how the course
encourages student centred active learning)
 skills policy and provision for Personal Development Planning (PDP)
 assessment strategy, criteria and methods
 course output and level of award (in the context of the QAA Framework for
Higher Education Qualifications and the QAA Academic Credit level
descriptors),
 expertise, leadership and development of the teaching team(s)
 resource provision and facilities for the course scheme(s)
 course management arrangements
48

student involvement in quality assurance and enhancement of the
course(s);
b)
evaluate the level and credit weighting of each module within the course, and
the level of the course as a whole within the context of the QAA Framework for
Higher Education Qualifications;
c)
consider the rationale for proposals for variants to the University's Modular
Framework, and, in consultation with the Director of Academic Services and
Academic Registrar and Dean with responsibility for Academic Quality,
recommend approval to Academic Council;
d)
seek clarification from the Dean of School in the first instance, and
subsequently from the appropriate resource manager, of any issues which do
not appear to have been resolved in the context of the agreed resource
provision;
e)
set conditions of approval and recommendations for further actions required at
the end of the validation meeting;
f)
agree the period of approval for the course(s);
g)
agree the report of the meeting for consideration by the School Learning,
Teaching and Quality Committee, and for onward reporting to Academic
Council.
22.11 The aspects which should be given the closest attention in discussions between the
Panel, its advisers and the presenting team must include the following:

the aims and learning outcomes for the course at the specified level crossmapped to the aims and learning outcomes for all the core modules and coursespecific options

the subject-specific syllabus content of modules

the rationale for the assessment methods specified in the documentation

assessment criteria for all modules to demonstrate how they are used to
measure the attainment of the learning outcomes

the inclusion and assessment of employability and career management skills

the processes of subject-specific peer scrutiny at Departmental and School level
applied to the design of modules and assessment formats, and moderation of
assessed work

the involvement of students in ongoing course development and review.
22.12 Particular emphasis should be given to the need to ensure the inclusion of skills,
knowledge and aptitudes which help to enhance students' employability and career
management and, where appropriate, these key transferable skills and subject
knowledge should have an international focus. Self-reliance and the potential for
continued development through lifelong learning are key characteristics which the
University must develop in its students.
22.13 At its final meeting, the Panel will make one of the following decisions:
49

continuation of approval without time limit (with a review within six academic
sessions)

withdrawal of approval without time limit, with limited approval granted instead for
a specified period (up to six academic sessions)

withdrawal of approval, possibly with encouragement to resubmit after suggested
revision.
REVIEW MEETING AGENDA
22.14 Typically this is based on a list of types of evidence; the agenda of the Review Panel
might include checks for:

the extent to which the teaching programme for the semester matches the official
syllabuses for the module

quality and standards in coursework and/or examination requirements and
student work

the extent to which the content, organisation and design of the curriculum have
been updated

induction and staff development of all staff involved in delivery

consistency between the course or subject aims and learning outcomes and the
aims and learning outcomes defined at module level

an appropriately wide range of teaching, learning and assessment methods
which correspond to the aims and learning outcomes

clear assessment criteria published for students and all staff

clearly articulated and assessable HE and career management key transferable
skills

the integrity of the admissions process in consistency between the published
entry requirements and the background and qualifications of those admitted

consistency in the application of APL

statistical evidence of progression and completion

evidence of an effective academic and personal tutorial system

evidence of effective quality assurance and enhancement mechanisms

means for gathering, recording, and responding to student feedback.
DOCUMENTATION FOR REVIEW
22.15 The Dean of School, in consultation with the Head(s) of Department, is responsible
for ensuring that the documentation for presentation to the Panel and its external
advisers is of a high standard. Review documents must be checked and approved by
the Dean of School prior to delivery to the Review Panel.
22.16 The following documents will normally be required for a Review:
Critical review document (see Section 31)
50
Programme Specification (see Section 28)
Course Handbook (see Section 27)
Module Document (where applicable) (see Section 29)
REPORT OF THE REVIEW
22.17 Summary conclusions and recommendations should be made available to relevant
participants within five working days. An outcomes report on the review process
should be circulated to all participants within ten working days of its completion. A
confirmed and agreed report should then be submitted to the Head of the Quality and
Standards Office for report to the School Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee
and for the annual overview report to Academic Council.
SUBJECT SPECIFIC AIMS AND LEARNING OUTCOMES
22.18 The review of aims and learning outcomes for course schemes and named award
pathways should ensure that they are subject specific rather than just educational.
The aims and learning outcomes should be:

written succinctly and with clarity

specific to separate academic levels

consistent with the University's mission and strategic objectives

up-to-date and judged relevant by external subject specialists

owned by staff in the delivery team

familiar to students

demonstrably achievable.
22.19 There are many ways of reviewing existing aims and learning outcomes.
Teaching staff should:

cross-map the subject aims and learning outcomes to course aims and learning
outcomes and module aims and learning outcomes to ensure consistency within
the matrix

ensure that Visiting Lecturers are involved as well as permanent members of
staff

identify strengths and articulate them well

elicit comments from a good cross-section of students from the courses at each
level and ask them to help identify possible areas for enhancement

emphasise the input from former students and external subject specialist advisory
groups

make good use of the research and consultancy activities of staff within the
School in contributing to the review

involve academic support staff - technicians, librarians,
administrators - in the review process at the appropriate point.
careers staff,
51
CUMULATIVE SELF-MONITORING
22.20 Annual monitoring by Departments and Schools ensures a structured and continuous
review of all taught courses and modules. While there may be some local variation in
each School to take account of the scale and character of the courses and modules,
there are standard University-wide requirements for monitoring, which are set out in
Section 38. The cumulative annual monitoring documentation provides the base
documentation for course or subject review and/or re-accreditation by a professional
body.
EXAMPLES OF STUDENT WORK
22.21 Evidence of the quality and standards of achievement on a course or modules is
provided by examples of student work accompanied by marks and written feedback
to the student, in the context of the specific requirements for assessment. Exemplars
of student work at each level should be made available to internal and external
reviewers both as part of the process of self-evaluation (i.e. when preparing the selfassessment) and for discussion with peer reviewers during the review event or visit.
Section 23: External Review
23.1
The UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) conducts audits which take place at
institutional level on a six-year cycle.1 Following the Institutional Audit, institutions will
be subject to a three-year mid-point visit to review progress since the previous audit
and to discuss the institution’s intentions in respect of managing quality and
standards in the three years until the next audit.
23.2
The Institutional Audit methodology is evidence-based and will examine the
effectiveness of an institution’s quality assurance structures and mechanisms and the
way in which the quality of courses and the academic standards of awards are
reviewed and resulting recommendations are implemented. Institutional Audit will
also consider the effectiveness of arrangements for the maintenance of academic
standards on postgraduate research programmes and will examine the accuracy and
completeness of the information that an institution publishes about the quality of its
courses and the standard of its awards.
23.3
Collaborative provision will be included within the audit process unless the provision
is large or complex enough to warrant a separate collaborative audit.
23.4
The evidence base for the audit will include the information on the Unistats website,
previous QAA and other external body reports. Much of the evidence base consists
of existing documentation available within the Institution. However, some documents
are written specifically for the audit, the institutional Briefing Document, a Student
Written Submission (SWS), although this is not compulsory, prepared by the
Students’ Union and other documentation identified as necessary.
23.5
Central to the audit process is how an institution manages the security of the
academic standards of its awards and the quality of the learning opportunities which
it provides to students to achieve those standards. It also considers the approach to
A new institutional audit method will apply from 2011 to 2012. This will involve “greater flexibility so that
[the QAA] can respond to issues as they arise; a dual approach in which each institution will receive the same
“core audit but [with] the auditors [able to] look at a greater range of aspects called ‘themes’...and student
members in all audit teams.”
1
52
quality enhancement. The Audit Team will conduct Sampling Trails which follow the
implementation of institutional policies and procedures form institutional to course
level and back again.
23.6
There are three visits to the University in the audit process. The Preliminary visit
takes place 36 weeks before the Audit Visit. The QAA Assistant Director will visit the
University and provide a briefing on the process, guidance on the Briefing Document
and the SWS and confirm the size and scope of the provision. Following submission
of the University’s Brieifng Document and the SWS, the Audit Team conduct a three
day Briefing Visit to meet with staff and UWSU representatives five weeks before the
audit visit. At this Briefing Visit the Audit Team will identify the Sampling Trails for the
visit, confirm the programme for the visit and identify additional documentation
required before or during the visit.
23.7
The Audit visit will last five working days and will include opportunities for the Audit
Team to meet with staff and students and to read the documentation that has been
provided. The report of the Visit will set out the Team’s judgement of confidence.
There will also be recommendations for consideration by the University and areas of
good practice may be highlighted.
Section 24: Professional and Statutory Body (Re)-Accreditation
24.1
Named awards within specific course schemes may be accredited by one or more
Professional and/or Statutory Body (PSBs). Such bodies usually have a quinquennial
review and re-accreditation process and they normally provide detailed guidance on
the format for the presentation of documentation. This may correspond closely with
the University's requirements in terms of course documentation. However, evidence
of annual monitoring and of student achievement may need to be formatted
separately to accord with PSB requirements.
Section 25: Liaison with Professional and Statutory Bodies
25.1
The first point of contact between the University and a Professional and/or Statutory
Body is located within the School which holds responsibility for the courses which are
the subject of accreditation. Normally this would be the Dean of School, Head of
Department or Course Leader. At University level, the formal contact is the Head of
the Quality and Standards Office for all correspondence relating to accreditation and
the annual review of courses in accordance with PSB requirements.
25.2
The nomination and appointment of external examiners for professionally accredited
courses must be conducted through the Quality and Standards Office.
25.3
Preparation for PSB visits is organised jointly by the School-based contact with the
PSB, the School Manager and the Quality and Standards Office.
25.4
The dates of visits by PSB representatives must be agreed by the Head of the
Quality and Standards Office and the Vice-Chancellor’s Office in advance of their
confirmation. The PSB panel’s schedule should include meetings with the ViceChancellor and with the Director of Academic Services and Academic Registrar or
nominee. The Dean with executive responsibility for Academic Quality or nominee
should also be invited to meet the PSB panel,
53
25.5
Arrangements should be made by the Head of Department and Head of the Quality
and Standards Office to brief all University representatives involved, as well as
students and external examiners.
25.6
The draft documentation, together with the PSB criteria and guidelines, must be
drafted by the School. Normally this stage of preparation is conducted through the
School Registry, and the submission is checked for consistency of presentation and
up-to-date references to University and School policies and procedures. All student
statistical reports and analyses will be provided by the School Manager.
25.7
The final draft documentation should then be submitted simultaneously to the Head
of the Quality and Standards Office and the Vice-Chancellor for formal approval.
Normally documentation is submitted to the PSB by the Quality and Standards Office
but this may be delegated to the School Manager or the Head of Department by
arrangement.
25.8
The draft report of the PSB panel should be submitted to the Head of Quality and
Standards Office for collation and drafting of the formal response on behalf of the
University. The draft report and School response to it will be discussed and reviewed
by the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee on behalf of Academic
Council.
25.9
All reports and an up-to-date record of PSB recognition and accreditation should be
maintained by the Quality and Standards Office, to facilitate planning visits and
approval of the prospectus and other promotional material.
54
Part 5: Documentation for Validation and Review
Section 26: Presentation
26.1
The Course Leader(s), Panel Chair and Panel Secretary should determine at the
Initial Validation/Review Meeting the most appropriate format in which to submit
documentation and the necessary number of copies. All documents submitted must
be double sided, page-numbered and have a contents list. Module descriptions must
indicate whether or not they are new or previously validated (the date of their
approval should be given). The Dean of School must ensure that copies are received
by the Panel Secretary electronically and in hard-copy, for circulation not less than
two weeks prior to the meeting. Late submission may result in cancellation of the
Panel meeting and re-scheduling within the session may not be possible. The Dean
of School or nominee must check and approve all documents prior to their
submission to a validation or review meeting. The Dean of School must sign the
approval form to indicate that the documentation has been checked before circulation
to the Panel. The Panel Secretary will advise the Course Leader of the number of
sets of papers needed at each stage.
Section 27: Course Handbook
27.1
This document will serve as the definitive approved reference document for the
course until the next validation or review event, but it is expected that modules will be
updated annually. The Course Handbook will also serve as the main reference for
students, academic staff, School Registry staff and external examiners. It must
include the following information:

General information: course title, duration, modes and all named award titles;
course aims and learning outcomes; rationale for the course; links with
professional or external validating bodies, if any; means by which the course
meets the University's general educational aims and specific policies

Philosophy/learning outcomes: a clear statement of the philosophy of the
course scheme and its relationship with cognate courses, and a summary of the
learning outcomes for students completing the course at each stage

Admissions requirements: knowledge and skills; Access arrangements; credit
transfer; APCL/APEL; selection procedures; student induction; equal
opportunities

Award Specific Regulations: these should be drafted in line with the pro forma
Course Specific Regulations included in the template. A clear diagrammatic
representation of the course structure should be appended to the course specific
regulations

Assessment: details of assessment strategies and rationale; schedule of
assessment; Assessment Board arrangements; details of penalties for late
submission of coursework; approaches to preventing plagiarism

Course delivery: teaching and learning strategies; student workload; patterns of
attendance; specialisms and pathways; teaching timetable; assignments and
project work; study or work placements; extra-University activities
55

Course management: detailed information about the course team, course
management team responsibilities and teaching commitments; arrangements for
induction, staff development and enhancement for all staff, including PT staff;
responsibilities for guidance on programme planning; arrangements for academic
and personal tutorial support, including educational and careers guidance;
information on how to contact tutors; administrative support for the course

Skills policy: skills strategy statement, an identified skills set and programme
skills map. Skills cross-referenced to subject benchmarks and any PSB
requirements, details of personal development and resources identified for skills
development and Personal Development Plan (PDP)

Student feedback arrangements: guidance on the operation of the StudentStaff Consultative Committee with details of arrangements for the election of
student representatives and approximate dates of meetings where known; other
arrangements for obtaining student views

Syllabuses: (except where separate Module Document) including information
about module leader and other teaching staff involved; aims and learning
outcomes and a description of assessment methods designed to test their
achievement; full details of subject content with an indication of time allocated;
duration; credit weighting; core/option; pre-requisites/co-requisites; teaching and
learning methods; bibliography (recommended/required with publishers and
dates). Module information must be summarised in accordance with the standard
pro forma, including information on the timetable slot. A standard template can be
found in Annex 1 (Part 5) and is available on the
Intranet at
http://www.wmin.ac.uk/page-10347.

Staff: full staff CVs drafted in accordance with the standard University format
must be provided for validation as a separate document, although only brief
summary CVs are included in the handbook for post-validation use. Where staff
have not yet been appointed, the Head of School must provide a proforma CV for
all such staff and a statement confirming the resources available to support the
appointments.
27.2
Where a group of awards form a course scheme, it may be judged more appropriate
to produce the Course Handbooks collectively in a single document to avoid
duplication of scheme-wide information. Schools may also choose to provide
common student support information in a School handbook or a Department
handbook.
27.3
A template Course Handbook is provided by the Quality and Standards Office and
includes pro-forma regulations and generic information relating to University policies
and procedures.
Section 28: Programme Specification
28.1
A Programme Specification is a course synopsis presented as section one of the
Course Handbook for each qualification conferred by the University. The University’s
standard format takes into account guidance and exemplars produced by the QAA. A
standard template is available within the Course Handbook template on the
Academic Services Department webpages.
56
28.2
Normally, Draft Programme Specifications will be considered at the initial validation
meeting for new course validations, and re-validations and reviews of existing
courses.
28.3
The primary users of these documents will be current students and applicants,
external examiners, PSBs and other external agencies, potential employers of
graduates and placement students, professional, commercial and industrial advisory
groups, Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) for training and skills surveys,
British Council, and other national agencies and QAA Teams.
Section 29: Module Document
29.1
Where a group of courses, or a course scheme with several named award pathways
is to be considered, it may be judged more appropriate to present the module
syllabuses in a separate Module Document, giving an overview of all modules and
how they are shared between the group of courses. A Module Document would
include syllabuses drafted in accordance with the standard pro-forma (see Annex
1).
Section 30: School Document
30.1
30.2
For large course schemes and/or reviews it may be appropriate for the Course
Handbook to be supplemented by a School Document. The School Document should
present an account of the School's past (since the last review) and future (until the
next review) activities related to curriculum development in the designated subject
area(s) in the context of the overall School Plan. It should include the following:

current statement of the School's work and achievements

details of the academic management structure and staffing arrangements

an outline of planned future developments including a staff development and
research plan for the following five years

a record of the staff development, research and consultancy activities undertaken
by members of the teaching teams in the subject area in the period since the last
review

specimen timetables for staff to indicate the relationship between large group and
small group teaching, and the integration of full-time, part-time and visiting
lecturers

an updated curriculum vitae for each member of staff, indicating which course
schemes/pathways/modules they are expected to teach.
The School Document must also include a statement on resources which details the
human and physical resources (including accommodation) which support its courses,
and indicate the sources of funding and student numbers.
57
Section 31: Critical Review Document
31.1
The Critical Review document comprises two elements: the monitoring material, and
the critical self-evaluation.
BASE MATERIAL FOR THE REVIEW
31.2
31.3
The cumulative monitoring material for the previous 3 years will form the basis for the
review:

Student Record System (SITS) data on student performance and progression

external examiners' reports and responses from the Dean of School or nominee

First Destination Survey Statistics on first degree graduates provided by the
Careers and Student Employment Service (CASE), augmented by information
updated at Department level

Data from internal and external student surveys, included Module Feedback
Questionnaires

minutes of Course Committee meetings or other student/staff consultative
processes

notes or outcomes reports of teaching team meetings

reports of liaison with external subject specialist advisers

outcomes reports of annual staff development and enhancement activities,
including peer observation

report from PSBs, if available.
The Head of Department in collaboration with the Course Leaders/Pathway Leaders
for the constituent awards within the subject must write a cover paper providing a
self-assessment of teaching and learning in the course subject as described in
Section 31.4 -31.8 with reference to the material listed under Section 31.2.
THE SELF-EVALUATION
31.4
The process of self-critical evaluation by the teaching team or subject group is central
to the review process whether conducted for internal University purposes in periodic
progress review (normally once every six years) or external subject review or reaccreditation by a PSB.
31.5
The format of the self-evaluation is normally that of a single written document but it
may be complemented by presentation of examples of work and/or diagrams which
illustrate the mapping of subject aims and learning outcomes to core syllabuses at
each level, or diagrams which chart the processes of course review, with examples of
modules and student work.
31.6
Recommended headings for this written self-evaluation are:

curriculum design, content and organisation
58

teaching, learning and assessment

student progression and achievement

student support and guidance

learning resources

quality assurance and enhancement.
Guidance on drafting is available from the Quality and Standards Office.
In consultation with the Chair of the Review Panel and the Panel Secretary, Deans of
School may decide to customise these headings to reflect more closely the
characteristics of the courses under review.
31.7
31.8
The principal expectations of the self-evaluation process are that there should be:

evidence of a reflective approach within the teaching team

a clear definition of aims and objectives

clearly defined assessment methods and criteria which are aligned with the
learning outcomes for the specific modules

clear and up-to-date Course Handbooks for each award pathway or the whole
course scheme

evidence of a range of teaching, learning and assessment processes relevant to
the learning outcomes and consistent with the Learning, Teaching
and
Assessment Strategy (LTAS)

effective methods of internal review which draw on current and former student
opinion and links with external organisations, i.e. industry, the commercial sector,
public sector agencies and PSBs where appropriate.
The document should be succinctly drafted and presented. It should include an
account of the achievements of staff and students related to teaching, learning and
research, with prioritised plans for continuing enhancements. The evaluative aspects
should identify strengths and weaknesses, and provide indicators of ongoing
improvements. The self-evaluation and supporting documents set the agenda for the
review exercise whether internal or external.
59
MODULE PRO-FORMA
Full Module Title: (in capital letters, large font)
Short Module Title:
(maximum 30 characters)
Module Code:
(from Quality and Standards Office )
Credit Value:
Credit Level: (3, 4, 5, 6, or 7)
Length: (1 or 2 Semesters/ Study Abroad)
School and Department:
Module Leader(s):
Extension:
Email:
Host course:
Status:
(core, subject specific option or Westminster Elective)
Subject Board:
Pre-requisites:
(short module title and code and details of if the module must be passed or condoned in order to met the prerequisite requirement)
Co-requisites:
(short module title and code)
Assessment:
(weightings – e.g. 50% examination / 50% coursework, deadlines for coursework submission and details of exam
length in hrs and if open or closed book, etc)
Study Abroad:
(where applicable please detail the alternative assessment that study abroad students will be required to take in
place of an examination)
Qualifying Mark(s) for Assessment(s):
(the standard qualifying mark for all final assessment is 30% however this may for example, through course specific
requirements, be 35%. Qualifying marks for individual and/or sets of assessment should be detailed here)
Special features:
(e.g. Study Abroad prior knowledge; fieldwork; placement; facilities)
Access restrictions:
(e.g. limit on student numbers; dis-requisite modules)
Summary of Module content:
(short summary with key words. Please note this text will appear on SRSWeb)
NB: Information above this line will be used for SITS.
Module Aims: (These should be specific to modules but linked to the course aims and objectives)
Learning outcomes: (see Section 45 of the QA & E Handbook)
Indicative syllabus content: (This should be general enough to allow for annual updating, while indicating the breadth and
depth of the module relevant to its academic level. A week-by-week summary is more appropriate for the Module Handout
provided for students at the start of the module)
Teaching and Learning Methods: (indicative breakdown of contact hours, including typical number of lectures, tutorials,
seminars, Guided Independent Study, laboratory sessions etc)
Assessment Rationale: (A brief summary of the justification of the chosen assessment methods relative to the module aims
and learning outcomes)
Assessment criteria: (The assessment criteria should serve as a guide to students, all FT and PT teaching staff, external
examiners and external reviewers on how achievement of the module learning outcomes will be measured and assessed.
Criteria should be balanced between being useful and informative whilst at the same time not being overly binding or restrictive)
Assessment Methods and Weightings: (This section should indicate the full range of assessment formats as well as
providing the % weightings for coursework and examinations and detail the qualifying mark for both individual and/or sets of
assessment as appropriate. The standard qualifying mark is 30% however this may be increased in line with
School/course/module specific requirements. For example this information could be set out as:
Name of assessment
Weighting %
Qualifying mark/set %)
Sources: this section should be sub-divided eg: Essential reading (author, date, publisher, volume/page), Further reading
(author, date, publisher, volume/page), Periodical references, www references, Additional references (software packages,
databases, CD-Rom, film video, audio-tape)
Date of Initial Validation:
Dates of approved modifications:
Date of re-validation/review:
60
Part 6: Monitoring
Section 32: Responsibilities of all Teaching Staff
32.1
Teaching staff hold the primary responsibility for educational quality and good
academic standards at the University of Westminster. The design and delivery of
modules provides the framework for the student experience. Continuous selfmonitoring of delivery is central to the achievement of good quality delivery.
Collaboration between colleagues at Departmental and School level enhances the
ongoing review process.
Section 33: Heads of Department
33.1
Each School is organised on the basis of complementary disciplines within the overall
subject of its title. Each subject specialist team is organised into a Department; some
are single subjects, others represent cross-disciplinary subjects.
33.2
Responsibility for providing management and leadership for the teaching and research
staff within these subject specialist units lies with the Head of Department. Specifically,
this encompasses management of academic quality of delivery, and monitoring student
achievements, within the University's framework of policies and processes for quality
assurance.
33.3
The generic job description of the Head of Department includes responsibilities for
managing and monitoring the quality assurance of courses, modules and other
educational programmes provided by the Department, and to ensure the provision of
academic and pastoral support for students studying programmes in the Department.
Heads of Department are members of the School Executive Group.
33.4
The Head of Department's specific responsibilities for taught courses will reflect the
scale and character of the courses, but would normally encompass:

assessment
(including liaison with internal and external examiners, and arrangements for the
scrutiny of all draft coursework and examination requirements)

monitoring and review
(including the aggregation of student feedback from local sources of student evaluation
and the University module feedback questionnaire for analysis by the course teaching
team; preparing the annual self-monitoring report; and coordinating the preparation for
periodic internal course review, external review and/or re-accreditation).
Section 34: Course Leaders
34.1

Within the Statutes and Principles of the University approved by Privy Council in 1992,
the appointment of a member of staff as leader of the course or named award
programme is specified, with the responsibility of ensuring that:
the course/programme meets its specified aims and objectives
61

it is conducted in accordance with the appropriate regulations and academic
administrative requirements

it meets the requirements of the University’s Skills Policy and the Learning, Teaching
and Assessment Strategy

documentation is provided for monitoring and review.
34.2
The role of the Course Leader may vary within and between Departments to reflect the
level and mode of the course. However, the responsibilities of the Course Leader would
normally encompass:

student induction and support
including course-specific induction, organisation of elections for student representatives
and Course Committee or Student-Staff Consultative meetings which should normally
be held once each semester; and overseeing the effectiveness of the Personal Tutorial
System for students registered for named awards within the course scheme in
consultation with the School Senior Tutor

course definition
keeping an overview of the consistency between subject-specific aims and learning
outcomes and the aims and learning outcomes for core and subject- specific option
modules; ensuring that assessment criteria for each module are published for reference
by students, teaching staff (PT as well as FT), external examiners and external
accrediting agencies; and updating and circulating the Course Handbook, in
accordance with the requirements specified in Section 27.
Section 35: Students’ Rights and Responsibilities
35.1
Applicants admitted to a named award at the University of Westminster are bound by
the University's regulations and codes of practice in terms of assessment, equal
opportunities and behaviour.
35.2
Students must enrol fully for the named award at the beginning of each academic
session or semester as specified, and all students have a responsibility to familiarise
themselves with the full University and Course Assessment Regulations and the
detailed contents of Essential Westminster which is part of the University’s Academic
Regulations. This is available on the University website and on request from all the
School Registry Offices.
35.3
It is the responsibility of students to ensure they are properly registered on the correct
modules and to ensure that their programme of study corresponds with the course
specific regulations.
35.4
Students have the right to receive tuition as set out in the module syllabus and to be
assessed impartially on the basis of their own work.
35.5
It is the responsibility of students to advise the relevant School Registry Office of any
disability or difficulty on the basis of which they are requesting special examination or
assessment arrangements.
35.6
Punctual arrival at classes and full participation in all aspects of the teaching and
learning activities designed for each course are expected of all students.
62
35.7
Submission of coursework for assessment must be made within the published
procedures and deadlines. Students are responsible for providing the Mitigating
Circumstances Board in advance of its meeting with any relevant information and
personal circumstances which may have affected performance and which they wish to
be taken into account in assessment.
35.8
Students should ensure that all their work submitted for individual assessment is
attributable wholly to them, with proper references to sources used. Students should
keep a copy of all coursework submitted for assessment, on disk or in hard copy.
35.9
Students should check that all coursework is returned with grades or marks and
feedback comments, check marks against those on the end of semester Student
Module Profile and advise the Module Leader of any discrepancy.
35.10 The effective operation of the student feedback system depends on timely and carefully
considered input from students through local sources of student evaluation, the annual
University-wide student survey and submission of comments to student representatives
for the Course Committee or other formal Student -Staff Consultative Committees.
35.11 Internal examiners have the right to examine any student by viva voce (oral
examination); it is the student's responsibility to ensure that they are available for an
oral examination on the day of the Subject Board or other Assessment Board meeting,
or at another time as advised by the appropriate member of staff. Oral examinations
are allowed in exceptional circumstances such as illness or concern about the
authenticity of a student’s work, or if it is a validated part of a module assessment
strategy.
35.12 Students are expected to take up any re-assessment opportunities offered to them,
notably examination resits or re-submission of coursework by the stipulated deadline
(usually a date in July).
35.13 To safeguard the interests of all students in assessment, it is a regulatory requirement
in all courses that students must provide a statement of any financial supplement(s)
related to assessed work, over and above any contributions made, directly or indirectly,
from University budgets, and that such statements be made available for reference by
both internal and external examiners.
35.14 Plagiarism and other offences defined within the University's Assessment Regulations
are subject to formal investigation. It is the student's responsibility to ensure that the
work they present for assessment as coursework or examination is wholly their own.
Source material should be suitably cited and referenced, except where governed by
group work protocols. The Academic Regulations prohibit any student gaining an unfair
advantage over other candidates by dishonesty or un- ethical conduct.
Section 36: Formal Student-Staff Consultation Processes
Section 36 was updated and approved by Quality Review Committee in May 2016.
This section should be read in conjunction with the Student Representatives’ Handbook, which
is updated annually. Additional supporting documents are available on the University website.
36.1
Students on taught courses are represented by their peers in formal meetings (usually
a Course Committee) of student and staff representatives at least once each semester.
63
36.2
Such formal meetings have the following characteristics:

the dates for the meetings are published in advance

the composition (i.e. the numbers of students and staff and the years, levels or
constituencies they represent) are agreed at Faculty level and published at the first
meeting of the academic or calendar year, as appropriate for each course

the agenda (i.e. list of issues for discussion) is published in hard copy and/or by e-mail
prior to the meeting

a minimum attendance requirement (a quorum) is set by the Faculty

separate individuals must undertake the roles of Chair and Secretary

a summary of discussions and a record of agreed decisions and actions must be
recorded in the notes or minutes of the meeting, with a list of all those present,
indicating whether staff or student representative, and the date.
36.3
Each course must have a formal meetings process for consulting with and gathering
feedback from student and staff representatives, usually in the format of a Course
Committee (see Section 35.5 below). However for part-time, postgraduate, block mode
and distance learning courses a different format may be necessary which allows the
remit defined for Course Committees to be fulfilled. Periodic meetings of the whole year
or cohort group may work well, or ‘learning sets' may be more appropriate. Consultation
by group e-mail can be very effective. Whatever the format, the primary task is to
consult actively and provide timely feedback on the outcome. Provided that a formal set
of notes or minutes records those participating in the consultation, its dates and the
outcomes, the title of each meeting need not be that of a Course Committee.
36.4
Where a Course Committee is the agreed format, good practice guidance suggests that
there are two student representatives per level and per course.
36.5
The Course Committee has responsibility for considering the effective management of
the course, including enhancement of provision. The remit of the Course Committee
covers the:

academic welfare of students, and specifically the course induction and the Personal
Tutorial system

student feedback on course operation, curriculum content, teaching, study skills,
support, assessment, facilities, library and computing support, and administrative
support

monitoring information/comment on previous year's course audits, operation of course
academic standards, i.e. the Course Leader's annual report plus ‘progress statistics' of
students enrolled, progressing, graduating (and withdrawing); summaries of external
examiners' reports; reports of University Review Panels and University Validation
Panels or external bodies which accredit the course

consultation on proposed changes to module content, assessment and/or course
structure.

The Course Committee minutes provide a formal record for the Annual Monitoring
Evidence Base, and periodic review (every six years).
64
36.6
Good practice in committee organisation indicates that:

the Course Leader should organise a pre-meeting for all student representatives in
advance of the first Course Committee meeting of the session, and provide copies of
the previous year's Course Committee minutes

agendas should be circulated one week ahead and put on course notice boards/
Blackboard

meetings should be held at least once each semester but preferably twice

a Secretary, usually a member of Faculty staff, should be appointed at the first meeting
of each academic year

the total membership of student representatives and staff should not be more than 30,
of whom 50% should normally be students

at least 40% of members must be present before formal decisions are taken

issues raised at the Course Committee should be reasonably representative of the
student and/or staff group and not just of a minority

urgent practical problems (e.g. access to IT facilities or teaching rooms) are to be
raised with the Course Leader and/or Head of Department in between Course
Committee meetings, rather than delayed

draft minutes or notes should be approved by the Chair and circulated within 3 weeks
of the meeting

the list of issues raised at the meeting and decisions taken are recorded on an ‘action
list', and reported back to the next meeting as “Matters Arising”.
36.7
All students can channel their comments through their tutor or another member of
teaching staff but the view put across by the elected course representative is much
more likely to be seen as presenting the case of the student group as a whole.
Constructive criticisms of the way the course is run or the facilities available may be
reported to the Faculty Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee, and University-wide
issues highlighted in this way are likely to be followed up at a senior level precisely
because it is recognised that they provide an overview of student opinion.
36.8
Aspects of study not covered by Course Committees are:

personal problems of individual students

academic difficulties of individual students

allegations of unfair or inappropriate treatment by staff or other students.
These sorts of issues should be handled confidentially (as private concerns) and, with
the advice of the Course Leader, they should be referred to the appropriate staff
member such as the student's Personal Tutor, the Head of Department, the Dean of
Faculty, the University of Westminster Students’ Union (UWSU) Research,
Representation and Welfare Office, or the Counselling and Advice Service.
36.9
If general student comment highlights a problem, potential or actual, it should be
reported to the Course Leader (without identifying the individual source of the
65
comments) by a student representative; the Course Leader may be in a position to
resolve the matter or may need to refer it to the Head of Department, Dean of Faculty,
or manager of the relevant service, for resolution and report back to the next meeting of
the Committee. If comments relate to the approach taken by individual staff members,
they should always be referred to the Head of Department, who will meet the students
concerned and later with the staff member. If it is not possible to resolve the issue, the
Dean of Faculty will be asked to convene a further meeting with the staff member to
identify appropriate action. Any such meetings, with staff or students, will remain
confidential as far as possible.
36.10 Obviously formal committees (and monitoring and review meetings) are not the
appropriate places for dealing with potential student complaints about an individual
member of staff; the University has a student complaints procedure for this purpose,
details of which are available on the University website.
Section 37: Student Surveys
37.1
All students are invited to complete an online Module Feedback Questionnaire (MFQ)
at the end of each module. Satisfaction scores and comments are made available to
the Module Leader to share with the module teaching team. It is expected that the
Module Leader will reflect on the outcomes of the MFQ in their Module Leaders Report
and identify necessary modifications or enhancements from the MFQ feedback. Both
qualitative and quantitative module results will be made available, beyond the module
teaching team, to the relevant academic managers in the School as determined and
formally agreed with the Deputy Vice Chancellor by the Dean of School (typically the
Dean and Heads of Department). Quantitative MFQ data will be provided to Schools to
enable this information to be reviewed and considered by appropriate University,
School, Departmental and subject groups (e.g. Annual Monitoring Sub-Committee,
School LTQE Committee, School Board).
37.2
The annual course level Student Experience Survey (SES) is issued to first and second
year undergraduates and taught postgraduates online. The SES provides equivalent
data to the externally-administered National Student Survey (NSS), which is for final
year undergraduates only. International students receive a number of tailored surveys
throughout their studies. The satisfaction scores and comments from internal and
external student experience surveys will be made available to the relevant academic
managers in the School as determined by the Dean of School (typically the Dean and
Heads of Department). Quantitative data will be provided to Schools to enable this
information to be reviewed and considered by appropriate University, School,
Departmental and subject groups (e.g. Annual Monitoring Sub- Committee, School
LTQE Committee, School Board). Schools are required to identify actions for improving
the student experience and to monitor their effectiveness in partnership with the
Learning, Teaching and Student Support Committee.
Section 38: Annual Monitoring
PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW
38.1
The purpose of annual monitoring is to provide an objective, robust and timely
assessment of the quality of taught course provision and the associated local quality
assurance and enhancement procedures.
38.2
These systems aim to provide:
66
(i) a system which recognises the transition from quality assurance to quality assurance
and enhancement with local delivery but university-wide accountability;
(ii) a risk based approach to intervention based upon clearly defined “Key Performance
Indicators”(KPIs) so that, where the University is confident in the effectiveness of local
monitoring procedures and the quality of the student experience, less formal monitoring
is required. Where there is less confidence or where issues emerge and remain
unresolved, more detailed monitoring and greater level of intervention are required;
(iii) objectivity and rigour delivered by a University level Monitoring sub-committee of the
Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee;
(iv) a lighter administrative burden.
38.3
The annual monitoring of taught course provision comprises:
(i) collation by each School of their Quality Assurance Evidence Base which will
incorporate statistical reports and other evidence;
(ii) a School managed review of the Evidence Base which is focused on the KPIs and
leads to the generation of the Annual School Monitoring Review and Planning
Document (ASMRPD);
(iii) the option of a School appointing a “Critical Friend” to support the School in the
process and the production of the ASMRPD;
(iv) presentation of the ASMRPD to the Monitoring Sub-committee of the Quality Assurance
and Enhancement Sub-committee by the Dean of School;
(v) the submission by the Sub-committee of recommendations on the outcomes of the
annual monitoring process to the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee.
RESPONSIBILITIES
38.4
The Dean of School is responsible for the quality assurance and enhancement of all
taught course provision within the School, for the operation of Annual Monitoring
procedures at School level and for the preparation of the ASMRPD. This includes the
provision of appropriate feedback on issues raised by stakeholders as part of the
Annual Monitoring process.
38.5
The Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee is responsible for the
management of the annual monitoring procedures for taught course provision at
University level.
38.6
The School is responsible for the download of statistical reports via SRSWeb which
form part of the evidence base for Annual Monitoring. Specified other parts of the
evidence based will be supplied by other administrative departments.
TIMESCALES
38.7
In order to expedite the resolution of any issues, all Annual Monitoring processes are to
be completed at the earliest opportunity and no later than six months after the
monitoring and review period;
38.8
The statistical components of the Evidence Base will be available to download from
SRSWeb by mid-August;
67
38.9
Completed Annual School Monitoring, Review and Planning Documents are to be
submitted to the Quality and Standards Officer (Monitoring and Review) no later than
15 October;
38.10 All Annual School Monitoring, Review and Planning Documents are to be considered
by the Monitoring Sub-committee no later than the start of the Christmas closure;
38.11 The outcomes of Annual Monitoring are to be considered by the Quality Assurance and
Enhancement Committee no later than 31 January and by Academic Council no later
than 28 February;
38.12 The Annual Monitoring of postgraduate taught courses will follow a similar pattern
except that the outcomes of the monitoring of project/dissertation work will be deferred
until the next academic session.
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
38.13 A range of KPIs have been developed to inform the risk based approach to Annual
Monitoring. These indicators articulate university-wide performance thresholds that are
to be applied uniformly across the University to highlight potential areas of concern over
quality outcomes or quality assurance procedures. They are used to inform the
operation of Annual Monitoring processes and to help focus effort and resources on the
activities or areas most in need of attention.
38.14 Schools are expected to consider their performance against each KPI as part of their
internal monitoring processes.
38.15 Performance against each KPI and any actions initiated or planned by the School as a
consequence will be reviewed by the Monitoring Sub-committee of Quality Assurance
and Enhancement Committee and may be used as the basis of recommendations for
remedial action by the School.
38.16 Details of the current KPIs are available on the intranet at http://www.wmin.ac.uk/page16251. Amendments to the KPIs may be made annually prior to the start of each
session by the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee on behalf of Academic
Council.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH ANNUAL MONITORING
38.17 The University values student input into the Annual Monitoring processes as a key
contribution to work to enhance the student experience, course delivery, student focus
and the general well-being of the University community.
38.18 Student feedback is sought formally through the following mechanisms:
(i) the Evidence Base which includes information derived from Module Feedback
Questionnaires, the Student Experience Survey, Course Committee minutes and may
include the outcomes of the National Student Survey;
(ii) student representation on the Annual Monitoring Sub-Committee and the Quality
Assurance and Enhancement Committee.
68
38.19 Schools are encouraged to consider additional ways of engaging the student
community as part of Annual Monitoring processes by, for example, seeking input from the
Students’ Union or the use of IT Discussion Boards.
38.20 The University is committed to providing feedback on the outcome of issues raised as
part of the Annual Monitoring process. This will be achieved by:
(i) placing the responsibility for delivering appropriate feedback with the committee, office
or individual member of staff who is first notified of the concern;
(ii) providing for the progressive escalation to more senior committees or offices for issues
that remain unresolved.
ASSESSMENT BOARDS
38.21 Assessment Boards play a key role in determining student results and in maintaining
academic standards. The detailed terms of reference for Assessment Boards are
specified in the Handbook of Academic Regulations.
38.22 Through their role in determining student results and maintaining academic standards,
Assessment Boards also make a major contribution to quality assurance and
enhancement.
38.23 The work of Assessment Boards contributes to Annual Monitoring through the inclusion
of Assessment Board Minutes and External Examiner Reports within the Evidence
Base.
EVIDENCE BASE
38.24 The Evidence Base will comprise:
(i) Statistical reports available from the University Planning Office or SRSWeb;
(ii) First destination statistical report generated by CaSE;
(iii) Other documents provided by the School;
Further details of the evidence base are attached as Appendix C.
ANNUAL SCHOOL MONITORING, REVIEW AND PLANNING PROCESSES
38.25 Schools are required to develop their own consultative and reflective approaches to
review the Evidence Base and prepare the Annual School Monitoring, Review and
Planning Document.
38.26 In order to recognise the importance of local delivery in effective quality assurance and
enhancement, these procedures are deliberately not prescriptive about the type of
approach used by Schools to complete this task. Schools are therefore free to develop
their own approach which may, for example, include:
(i) round table discussions by Course Teams;
(ii) school or departmental away days;
(iii) cognate groups;
69
(iv) focus groups;
(v) events facilitated by the critical friend or other group external to the School;
(vi) reviews of the evidence base;
(vii) discussions of good practice.
38.27 Schools are encouraged to involve representatives from Corporate Service
departments in their annual monitoring process in any issues which fall within their remit
and are encouraged to ensure ongoing liaison with Corporate Service departments to
facilitate the early resolution of issues before it becomes necessary for them to be raised
as part of annual monitoring.
CRITICAL FRIENDS
38.28 Schools can choose to appoint Critical Friends from elsewhere within the University to
support the Annual Monitoring process. This may include the facilitation of
departmental review meetings, the provision of advice or other forms of support agreed
between the School and the Critical Friend(s).
38.29 Critical Friends will be full-time staff based in a different School within the University of
Westminster. They will come from a variety of backgrounds but their profiles are likely
to include:
(i) substantial teaching experience;
(ii) an enthusiasm for innovation in learning, teaching and assessment;
(iii) experience of course validation and review;
(iv) a commitment to enhancement of the student experience.
ANNUAL SCHOOL MONITORING, REVIEW AND PLANNING DOCUMENT
38.30 Schools are required to use their own internally developed processes to review the
evidence base and prepare the Annual School Monitoring, Review and Planning
Document which will comprise:
(i) the evidence base (both the statistical reports and other documents provided by the
School);
(ii) the School Commentary.
38.31 The Annual School Monitoring, Review and Planning Document should include:
(i) confirmation of those KPIs that have been met;
(ii) details of all instances where KPIs have not been met on a course by course or module
by module basis as appropriate. Any non-compliance should include a commentary
explaining what actions are being taken, or will be taken, to address each deficiency.
38.32 The Annual School Monitoring, Review and Planning Document is to be regarded as a
“living document” which evolves from year to year. Although it is possible that the
document may be entirely re-written on occasions, there is no requirement for this to
happen each year. Many components of the Evidence Base are provided from sources
external to the School and other sections prepared by the School are likely to be
suitable for use outside the Annual Monitoring process.
70
38.33 Annual School Monitoring Review and Planning Documents are to be submitted to the
Quality and Standards Officer (Monitoring and Review) in accordance with the date
agreed by the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee.
MONITORING SUB-COMMITTEE
38.34 The Annual Monitoring Sub-Committee is a Sub-committee of the Quality Assurance
and Enhancement Committee. The role of the Sub-Committee is:
(i) to receive Annual School Monitoring, Review and Planning Documents and associated
oral presentations by Deans of School;
(ii) to scrutinize the written submission and question the Dean of School on any aspect of
the annual monitoring process and related outcomes including, in particular,
performance against the KPIs;
(iii) to formulate recommendations to the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee
identifying those schools, courses and modules that are found to be satisfactory and
those where additional specified action is required;
(iv) to identify and report upon issues requiring attention at university level and examples of
transferable good practice and quality enhancement;
(v) to report on the operation of the Annual Monitoring processes.
38.35 The Monitoring Sub-committee shall comprise:
(i) The Chair of the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee or nominee;
(ii) Members drawn from the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee.
The actual membership for each Sub-committee meeting shall be determined by
Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee to ensure that the appropriate skill set
is available and that no member is asked to consider a submission from their own
School.
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE
38.36 The Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee:
(i) is responsible for the management of the Annual Monitoring procedures for taught
courses at University level;
(ii) is responsible for determining the actual membership for each Sub-committee meeting
to ensure that the appropriate skill set is available and that no member is asked to
consider a submission from their own School;
(iii) will approve any proposed changes to the KPIs at the end of each academic session;
(iv) will, at its January meeting, consider reports from the Monitoring Sub- committee on the
outcomes of the Annual Monitoring processes and any associated recommendations;
(v) will facilitate the involvement of Corporate Service Directors before issues which fall
within their remit are reported to Academic Council;
(vi) will report to Academic Council on the outcomes of annual monitoring and, in particular,
71
on any issues requiring attention at university level;
(vii) will ensure that issues raised as part of Annual Monitoring processes that remain
unresolved are escalated to achieve resolution and that appropriate feedback is
provided to stakeholders.
ACADEMIC COUNCIL
38.37 At its February meeting, Academic Council will receive a report from Quality Assurance
and Enhancement Committee on the outcomes of Annual Monitoring for the previous
session including, in particular, any issues requiring attention at University level.
ANNUAL MONITORING OF COLLABORATIVE PROVISION
38.38 These provisions shall apply to collaborative provision unless alternative equivalent
arrangements are approved at validation or by the Quality Assurance and
Enhancement Committee on the basis of confidence in the internal systems operated
by the partner institution.
72
START OF
PROCESS
SRSWEB MONITORING DATA
Available from
Stage1: 3 August 2015
Stage 2: 28 October 2015
FACULTY BASED DOCUMENTS
Examples:
External Examiners reports
Q&S External Examiners reports
Course Leader reports
Module Leader reports
Course Committees
Previous years action plans
EVIDENCE
BASE
REVIEW OF
EVIDENCE
BASE BY
FACULTY
FACULTY
COMMENTARY
QLIKVIEW DATA
FACULTY ANNUAL
MONITORING REPORT
AND ACTION PLAN
FACULTY DEAN SUBMITS
REPORT AND ACTION
PLAN TO PEER REVIEW
GROUP
P10. National Student Survey
2014.qvw
P7. SES All Years.qvw
Deadlines
Stage1: 02/11/2015
Stage 2: 25/01/2016
FACULTY ANNUAL MONITORING
OUTCOMES REPORTED TO
ACADEMIC COUNCIL
Meeting dates
Stage 1: February 2016
Stage 2: April 2016
END OF
PROCESS
No issues identified
QRC CONSIDERS
RECOMMENDATIONS
AND CONFIRMS WHAT
ACTIONS IS TO BE
TAKEN BY THE FACULTY
PEER REVIEW GROUP
REVIEWS ALL FACULTY
REPORTS AND SUBMITS
RECOMMENDATIONS TO
THE QUALITY REVIEW
COMMITTEE (QRC)
FACULTY DEAN, DIRECTOR
OF QUALITY AND KEY
STAFF PRESENTS REPORT
AND ACTION PLAN TO
PEER REVIEW GROUP
Meeting dates:
QRC Meeting dates:
Issues identified
Stage 1: January 2016
Stage 2: March 2016
SUPPLEMENTARY OR
REVISED REPPORT
SUBMITTED TO QRC
ADDITIONAL ANNUAL
MONITORING / ACTION
INITIATED
Stage 1: November 2015
Stage 2: February 2016
73
Section 39: Peer Observation
39.1
Peer observation of teaching aims to encourage reflection on teaching activities and to
promote the collaborative dissemination, debate and exchange of good practice for
continuous academic enhancement in teaching and learning. It provides a framework
for staff feedback in parallel with team teaching and student feedback on modules. It is
a confidential process for all participants. It provides staff with a means to identify whole
school issues in teaching and learning, within their cognate disciplines, for the purpose
of the advancement of academic development.
39.2
Schools or Departments devise their own peer observation processes with reference to
the following points and the guidance document provided by the Westminster
Exchange. Whilst the observation process is confidential, Schools develop reporting
processes which provide a foundation for academic development issues and quality
enhancement. Schools evaluate their peer observation process and associated
academic development issues annually.
39.3
Peer observation is a formative process conducted by two or more participating
observers in an exchange arrangement. Subject teams could form the basis of a
grouping, though cross-subject observation is also encouraged so as to widen the
range of experiences to feed back into the teaching and learning process. Constructive
and supportive comment is integral to the process. The arrangements for peer pairs or
groups are facilitated by the School and Departments. Pairing or grouping of new and
experienced staff is encouraged. Reviews of pairs or group composition are conducted
annually.
39.4
Teaching sessions observed should include all forms of interaction with students
including lectures, seminars, laboratory sessions, studio classes, critical reviews of
student work, individual and group tutorials. The focus may often be the interest in the
subject-specific content or methodology of the sessions. This can be particularly
valuable with innovative or reflective approaches to delivery. Taught sessions which
give feedback to students on assessment are also included. Observation by individuals
or groups of video recordings of e.g. classes, presentations, interviews or oral
examinations may be included where feasible.
39.5
Arrangements for peer observation should take into account the following aspects:

staff new to teaching, researchers who teach, Visiting Lecturers and experienced
teachers may all benefit from peer observation; participants may be grouped by subject
specialist teams

the aims and objectives for the series of observations should be self-generated and not
too ambitious

an Observation Sheet should be devised by Schools/Departments (see Westminster
Exchange guide for a model)

the frequency of observation/feedback should be determined by Schools/Departments

feedback should be oral with brief written support

a brief action plan may be drawn up by the observed teacher, with comment from the
observer
74

confidentiality of both the Observation Sheet and the action plan should be
honoured by the participants.
39.6
Identification of whole school issues for academic development or enhancement should
be reported, in a confidential manner, to a School or Departmental individual/group with
responsibility for facilitating teaching and learning enhancement.
39.7
A supportive staff development workshop led either by the Westminster Exchange (or
by a group external to the School or Department) should be organised prior to the start
of the observation programme or as a periodic review of an ongoing programme. Such
a workshop would focus on purpose, criteria, and protocols of peer observation, with
advice on how to give feedback in a positive way.
39.8
An Observation Sheet is offered by the Westminster Exchange guidance document as
a model for customisation by staff. It should reflect the focus they have identified
relative to their own teaching practices. The prompt points identified may not be
relevant to every type of class. A range of Observation Sheets is reproduced in the
Staff & Educational Development Association (SEDA) Paper 79 entitled Observing
Teaching; copies are available from the Westminster Exchange.
39.9

Schools’ or Departments’ responsibilities include:
devising the specific process and operation of peer observation

facilitating the establishment and review of peer observation pairs or groups

recording the operation of peer observation for annual evaluation

providing a confidential mechanism for the identification of whole-school
development issues in teaching and learning

providing an annual review of process and outcomes.
Section 40: Sample Protocol and Feedback Sheet for Peer
Observation
40.1
SAMPLE PROTOCOL FOR PEER OBSERVATION

all interactions during the observation, and in the feedback session which follows,
should be strictly confidential

the sessions which will be observed will be agreed in advance

the lecturer giving the class will outline his/her intentions to the observer before the
start of the class

the peer observations and feedback should be undertaken with a supportive and
constructive attitude

the observer will not participate in the teaching session

the observer will be discreet and diplomatic during the session

the observer will stay for the whole session or leave at a pre-arranged point (e.g. a
coffee break) after staying for an agreed minimum period
75

no ideas or materials generated for a class should be used or disseminated by the
observer without the permission of the generator

feedback on the session will be provided as soon as possible, and no later than 48
hours after the observed session the observer's role is to help the lecturer reflect on the
achievement of his/her objectives, not to impose a different view of what should be
done.
40.2
Peer observation exists to enable colleagues to share insights into teaching. It does not
form part of a formal evaluative process although the follow-up by the individual
member of teaching staff observed may usefully contribute to the annual peer appraisal
discussion. Things to look for in observing a session are as follows:

the objectives of the session are clearly identified and expressed

the session was linked to previous and future sessions

the content is relevant and appropriate

the methods are varied and appropriate

personal skills, enthusiasm, politeness

good rapport with students

involvement of the students in their own learning

students have opportunity to ask questions

students are stimulated/challenged by the session

clear explanations

good command of the subject

checking understanding of students

student contributions valued and used

respect for student diversity

session well summarised/concluded

orderly development of session

session keeps to time

delivery and presentation:
o
o
o
o
voice – appropriate pace, clarity, audible
eye contact
use of room
well produced and useful AVA.
Obviously it will not be possible to look for all of these elements in any one session, but
76
the things which are particularly strong, or any weak points, will stand out. It might be
useful for the presenter and observer to agree any particular areas where the presenter
is uncertain, particularly if undertaking ongoing observations.
40.3
Discussion of the descriptive notes taken by the observer will help the presenter to
decide on an action plan. It may help to focus on the aspect which worked really well
and to identify other aspects to work on for the future. The action plan is confidential to
the observer and the presenter, unless all parties agree to share their discussions with
others.
77
Part 7: Good Practice in Assessment of Students
Section 41: Principles of Assessment
41.1
There are many purposes of assessment. These include those elements about
making a judgement on the student’s learning; the assessment enables students to
demonstrate that they have:

met all the learning outcomes for each module

fulfilled the objectives of the programme of study on which they are registered

achieved the standard required for the award.
It allows staff to:

determine
the
grading
which
will
contribute
to
final
degree
classification/certification

possibly ensure that the student is “fit to practise” (professional body
requirements)

indicate to potential employers or other educational institutions/organisations a
student's strengths and weaknesses in specific subjects and in generic skills and
abilities.
However, there are wider functions of assessment which are very important for
students’ learning.
These are:

the opportunity to provide feedback to students on their performance

helping students remedy mistakes, and to develop and improve

providing further opportunities for learning; these might be opportunities to work
independently, to explore aspects of learning only possible outside the
“classroom” eg. Archive-based research, work-based learning, “live” projects

developing students understanding of processes of enquiry and research relevant
to the subject

providing students with an opportunity to reflect on their own learning approaches
and abilities

enabling students to develop a wider range of skills

helping students determine their choice of options/subject specialisms.
There are also aspects of assessment which are helpful to the University in
developing and enhancing its provision. These include:
78
41.2

checking students' learning progression in order to evaluate our provision

diagnosing the further support for learning that students might need

indicating the academic standards of the learning achieved.
The following should be considered in the design of assessment at both course and
module level:

Assessment should be designed as an integral part of the teaching and learning
process, in module and course design, ensuring that students can learn through
the assessment

Assessment requirements should be valid; what the students are asked to do
should be appropriate to measure the learning outcomes of the module, and the
delivery of the module should support the student in being able to complete the
assessment (the principle of constructive alignment)

the purpose of the assessment and how it will help students’ learning must be
transparent to students

Assessment should be free of bias in both design and marking

Assessment requirements should be designed to ensure that they do not give
undue advantage or disadvantage to students from specific backgrounds, or
those with particular disabilities

Assessment criteria, determined by the learning outcomes, should be given to
students at the time the assessment task is set and should be used by all staff to
inform their marking, and in providing feedback to students

Assessment workload should be realistic and comparable between modules at
the same academic level and credit weighting

Assessment formats across a course should encompass a wide range of
methods, fit for the purpose of measuring the achievement of the learning
outcomes

Both formative and summative aspects of assessment should be included in all
modules. Formative assessment is that which is designed to give students
feedback on their learning and what they need to do to improve; this need not be
a separate assessment task but can often be embedded within the module as a
learning activity. Summative assessment is that which provides marks which
contribute to the marks for the module. Summative assessment can also have a
formative function, when it is used to provide feedback to students.

Feedback on performance in coursework can be given through a variety of
routes, and it is not sufficient to simply give marks. Routes for feedback include
comments to groups on overall performance (online or in class), the use of model
answers, the use of peer and self assessment, the use of feedback pro-formas
and individual comments on the work. Feedback should always be on the basis
79
of the assessment criteria by which the work was marked and it should always
include advice on how the student can improve

41.3
All students during the period of their studies must get at least one opportunity to
receive individual feedback on their examination performance. Again there are a
variety of routes through which feedback can be given to groups on their
examination performance.
Effective assessment may achieved by:

Explicitly providing advice to students on the assessment criteria and marking
schemes

The use of specific graded assessment criteria for each piece of assessed work

Explaining in the Course and Module Handbooks how the chosen assessment
methods support the students’ learning and how they link to the learning
outcomes

Avoidance of over-dependence on standard 2000-3000 word essays and 2-3
hour exams in favour of a more diverse range of assessment formats chosen
through a “fitness for purpose” analysis of what students must demonstrate to
pass to each particular module, and how the work will encourage students’ further
learning

Creative use of formative assessment, which ties in with the guided independent
study, and avoidance of summative only assessments

Explicit assessment of a variety of skills, which support learning and
employability, including assessment of students’ capability in the enquiry and
research approaches characteristic of learning in that discipline

Use of objective testing where appropriate to measure achievement of the
learning outcomes, e.g. multiple choice questions, numeric tests,
matching/correspondence tests. This may be particularly helpful for online
formative assessment

Pacing assessment throughout the module to test different learning outcomes
(some of which need to be demonstrated once only) to spread the marking load

In undergraduate courses, discerning use of the 30 credit modules, with a range
of formative and summative assessment points throughout the period

Using group work by students for assessment, particularly for formative
assessment where peer assessment is used, and for summative assessment
where reflection on the student’s role in a group, and the development of team
work expertise, is part of the specified learning outcomes of the module

Involvement of students in identifying the assessment criteria, with or without
attribution of marks to self or peers

Using feedback sheets which relate to the assessment criteria and using
statement banks of tutors' comments for the whole module group, so that
students can compare comments
80

Timely feedback mechanisms for performance in examinations, with reference to
model answers where appropriate

Good internal moderation processes for coursework, in line with University
Academic Regulations and clear advice to students on who marks their work and
the involvement of external examiners.
Section 42: Aims and Learning Outcomes
42.1
Each taught course leading to a named award of the University must have clear and
simply stated aims and learning outcomes, which are informed by the QAA subject
benchmarks, and which determine those identified at individual module level.
42.2
Student attainment at module level is described by the learning outcomes, and these
must identify the specific skills, knowledge, and attributes that a student will be able
to demonstrate on successful completion of the module.
42.3
The student will demonstrate achievement of the learning outcomes through the
assessment process. The learning outcomes hence describe the threshold level of
achievement. Students who perform above this threshold level are recognised by the
award of higher marks or grades.
42.4
It is also be appropriate to define the aims and learning outcomes for each academic
level for undergraduate courses, where students are expected to progress through
the levels sequentially.
42.5
All modules must have simply expressed aims which may be cross-related to the
aims of the overall subject and course scheme/named award.
42.6
The learning outcomes specified in the Course Handbook and Module pro-formas
make what is expected of students on this module at this level visible for the
students, all teaching team members (including PT/Visiting Lecturers and guest
speakers) and external examiner(s) .
42.7
Learning Outcomes should be written with active verbs to facilitate the aligned
definition of assessment criteria used to judge the students’ performance. If the
learning outcomes are not clear and specific it makes it much harder to develop
appropriate assessments. It is also important that the learning outcomes reflect the
level of study.
Examples of active verbs suitable for this purpose are:
State, Describe, List, Summarise,
Select, Compare, Apply, Explain,
Design, Construct, Plan, Develop,
Formulate, Define, Justify, Explore,
Analyse, Critically evaluate, Interpret.
Weaker phrases which should be avoided include:
81
to be familiar with
to have a grasp of
to appreciate
to understand
to acquire a knowledge of.
Bench-marked learning outcomes, i.e. those which assume progressive development
relative to (prior) levels of attainment, should be avoided except where the module
has pre-requisite requirements or where students are given diagnostic tests before
starting the module; alternatively, they could be cross-referenced to the learning
outcomes for the earlier level.
Examples include:
to develop further skills in
to improve techniques of
to demonstrate a better understanding of.
42.8
Learning outcomes must be achievable by all students admitted to the module. They
should be realistically framed for the level of work and the credit-weighting of the
module.
42.9
Students must meet all of the learning outcomes in order to pass the module.
42.10 It helps students' learning processes (and staff marking loads) if assessment tasks
are staggered through the module. Assessments may judge different learning outcomes at
different stages of the
module; there is no need for each piece of assessment to
judge all the learning outcomes, as long as overall the assessment covers all of the learning
outcomes.
Section 43: Assessment and Marking Criteria
43.1
The assessment criteria are determined by the learning outcomes for the module and
hence will reflect the academic credit level 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7.
43.2
General expectations of attainment at specific levels are defined within the QAA
Framework of Higher Education Qualifications. This defines the descriptors for
qualifications at each level which are included in the Frameworks for Undergraduate
and Postgraduate courses in the Handbook of Academic Regulations.
43.3
Assessment criteria for assessed coursework should be given to students at the
same time as the assessment task is set, and the assessment criteria must be
provided to External Examiners
43.4
Whereas learning outcomes identify what students should be able to demonstrate
they have achieved at that point or on completion of the module, assessment criteria
are statements which convey to the students, other staff and External Examiners the
82
basis on which the work will be assessed. Assessment criteria can be expressed in a
variety of ways. The main approaches are:



Threshold criteria
General criteria
Graded criteria.
43.5
Threshold criteria are more detailed statements which expand on the learning
outcomes to show what the student must do to pass the module. They relate
specifically to the learning outcomes and the content of the module. This is the most
useful approach at the module level and for the purposes of the Module Proforma.
43.6
General criteria are more general statements about what is looked for in a student’s
work such as:



Demonstrates good use of literature
Presented in the form of a scientific paper
Presents a clear and logical argument.
These can be very useful for a course in identifying what is expected from the most
common methods of assessment, but do not relate to individual modules and do not
help students and markers to determine what will be the benchmark of success in
any particular module.
43.7
Graded criteria provide a statement of the work required for each classification of
performance (i.e.. 70+, 60+, 50+, 40+, 30+, fail). Such criteria are particularly useful
for specific items of work, but can be used for categories, e.g. essay work,
presentations, practical reports. Graded criteria should take account of the level of
the work (70+ at Credit Level 6 demands a different level of achievement from a 60+
at Credit level 4). When setting graded criteria it is important to start at the pass level,
which reflects the achievement of the learning outcomes and then work up and down
from there for the other bands. This assures that the basic pass standard is securely
set. Further guidance is available from Westminster Exchange.
Section 44: Design of Assessment Formats
44.1
A good variety of assessment within a course is beneficial; it ensures that a range of
skills and abilities can be assessed, it recognises the different learning styles of
different students, and it ensures that students do not become bored by the
assessment.. The following chart indicates a range of possibilities although there are
many more methods of assessment which can be used.
TYPES OF ASSESSMENT
83
Type of assessment
Examinations:

Time constrained

Unseen paper or pre-prepared answer or
subject area

Open or closed book

Multiple choice answer/test
Range of skills, knowledge and abilities
assessed







Essays, critical review, journal article











Reports (including laboratory reports), case
studies









Seminar presentations, papers and posters
Video, audio tape, slide presentation













Critical appraisals of studio work (crits)


Work under pressure
Time management
Recalled knowledge
Lateral thinking
Organisation
Written presentation
Numeracy/quantitative skills
Research and collation of information
Time management
Organisation of material
Self-editing skills
Coherence of argument
Critical independent thinking
Written presentation
Ability to focus
Depth of subject knowledge
Breadth of perspective
Selection and attribution of sources
Research and collation of information
Time management
Organisation of material
Professionalism of presentation showing
familiarity with report format
Awareness of end user(s)
Analytical and evaluative skills
Self-editing and writing skills
Quantitative skills
IT skills
Oral presentation skills
Developed use of body language
Interactive communication skills
Use of audio-visual aids
Group work skills
Planning and time management
Problem solving
Planning and organisation
Teamwork
Editing skills
Interactive presentation skills
Imaginative breadth
Integration of image and text
Oral and visual presentation skills
Reasoned defence of own work
84






Projects (individual)














Progressive development
Awareness of current professional
practice
Planning and time management
Creativity
Problem solving
Option selection
Research and collation of information
Problem solving
Application of knowledge
Decision-making
Time management
Awareness of current professional
practice
Research skills
Collation and organisation of material
Ability to focus
Oral and written communication skills
Time management
Self editing
Presentation skills
Depth of subject knowledge
85
Group work









Logs, journals, diaries, minutes






Creative studio-based projects











Portfolio/collection of diverse material






Dissertation









Teamwork and collaborative
responsibility
Delegation
Time management
Decision-making
Leadership
Negotiation
Accountability processes
Creativity
Application
Organisation of material
Time management
Self-critical awareness
Succinct, recording technique
Ability to focus
Reflective analysis
Conceptual skills
Problem solving
Imaginative breadth
Knowledge of materials
Technical skill
Contextual knowledge
Visual aesthetics and expressiveness
Planning and organisation
Professional presentation skills
Progressive development of ideas and
their realisation
Integration of theory and practice
Progression and level of achievement
Application of theory
Self-editing skills
Presentation skills
Organisation of material
Reflective analysis
Research skills
Selection and attribution of sources
Written presentation
Collation and organisation of material
Coherence of argument
Development of a hypothesis
Critical independent thinking
Breadth of perspective
Depth of subject knowledge
86
Section 45: Higher Education Skills and Abilities
45.1
Students need to develop a range of skills, to inform their current learning, their
personal development, their future employment and their lifelong ability to study.
These form an integral part of their study in HE, to enhance their flexibility,
adaptability and autonomy in learning. As such these skills should be included in the
learning outcomes, and hence assessment, of the modules on any course. They are
more likely to be effective if delivered as part of a course where students engage in
work-related and work-integrated learning activities (such as live projects, work
placements, real-life case studies, employer input etc.).
45.2
These skills include the ability to reflect and review, to plan, to make decisions, to
use information sources effectively, to create and to take opportunities, to make
provision for lifelong learning; they form an important component of the Personal
Development Planning aspects of the course and to a great extent characterise HE
study. The precise selection of skills included in a course are defined by the team
developing the curriculum but such skills include, amongst others, the following:













gathering and evaluating information
organising and manipulating data
critical thinking
conceptualising and solving problems
effectively communication ( orally and in writing)
collaborative working
self-awareness
self-management
action planning
networking
decision making
negotiation
developing self confidence.
45.3
In selecting the skills to be embedded in any particular course, course teams will be
guided by the relevant subject benchmarks and by appropriate professional body
requirements.
45.4
Students' employability should be enhanced by their increased awareness of their
skills and abilities. Certification makes such attributes visible to prospective
employers and the opportunities for students to gain dual academic and professional
qualifications through parallel assessment processes should be maximised. Further
guidance is available from Westminster Exchange.
Section 46: Personal Development Planning
46.1
Personal Development Planning (PDP) is a structured and supported process
undertaken by individual students to reflect upon their own learning, performance
and/or achievement and to plan their personal, educational and career development.
PDP processes provide students with opportunities to reflect on their skills, acquired
through studying a course, and to formulate plans for further development. The
primary objective for PDP is to improve the capacity of individuals to understand what
and how they are learning, and to review, plan and take responsibility for their own
learning.
87
46.2
The opportunity for students to participate in PDP is a required element of all
undergraduate and postgraduate courses, supporting the students’ self-awareness,
and intellectual and skills development. In order to be effective it is imperative that
students receive feedback on their development, although this could be purely
formative. Course teams, Schools and Departments determine how PDP is delivered
and supported. PDP is likely to be most effective when it is linked to the learning
outcomes of programmes; and course documents should reflect the support for the
delivery of work-integrated learning and skills.
Section 47: Group Work
47.1
Assignments for students working in groups are beneficial at all academic levels
but the inclusion of group work must be rigorously justified.
47.2
The advantages can include:

simulation of professional practice/real work situation

development of a range of skills which would not otherwise be acquired
individually

sharing of student expertise/shared learning

broadening of perspectives

variation of learning methods away from lecturers, seminars, essays and
examinations
47.3

encouragement for organised use of learning time outside taught classes

encouragement of social cohesion

promotion of research/information collection.
Disadvantages can include difficulties such as:

ensuring quality and equality of contribution, if appropriate

balancing the range and abilities of each group

justifying a common mark for all group members

ensuring a similar level of staff support for different groups working in parallel or
consecutively

limited availability of student time.
47.4
The contribution of group work to the students' learning experiences should be
included in the module learning outcomes. It is important that as well as undertaking
working a group they also acquire an understanding of the dynamics of group work
and that they can reflection on the contribution that they individually make to the
process. This must be included in the learning outcomes, assessment methods and
assessment criteria.
47.5
In using group work as part of the assessment you might consider the following
aspects:
88

Group size should be appropriate to the volume of the task, and the nature of the
work. If there are too many students working in a group it is more likely to result
in “free-loading” by some individuals

Groups may be formed randomly (to mimic work situations), they may be selfselected, or members may be selected by the teaching team to ensure that each
group is balanced to reflect the characteristics and abilities of the semester or
year group. Although students may prefer to work in self-selected groups they
often learn more from the challenge of working with people they know less well;
this aspect could be included in reflection which forms part of the assessment

Peer assessment within the groups is a very effective learning device. However, it
is better if the students set the assessment criteria from the start, and if they draw
up a group contract from the outset, which identifies how the group will function,
how any non-engagement by students will be dealt with and states the ground
rules for behaviour within the group

Such assessment by the group work may be used as a means of formative
assessment, with self-evaluation by the students but without an allocation of
marks, or as summative assessment

It is essential that the marking system is made clear to the students from the
outset

The marking system may include allocation of a common mark to all group
members, allocation of different marks according to individual contributions,
or shared marks allocated by the group members following group evaluation of
the completed assignment, with adjudication by the teaching team or staff
member

Individual students may submit a written statement on their contribution, or all
group members may be asked to submit such statements

Students may be given a viva/oral examination to verify their contribution to the
group assignment if this is a stated part of the assessment strategy.
Section 48: Feedback to Students on Coursework and Examinations
48.1
Students benefit from timely formative feedback on their work as well along with the
marks (for summative assessment). Course teams must indicate to students when
work will be returned, and also if there has been any unavoidable delay in achieving
this. It is expected that the work is normally returned within two or three weeks of its
submission, depending on the size of the class and whether the work is doublemarked or not.
48.2
Feedback on coursework assignments justifies the mark given; consistency of
comments and marks is important for the individual student and the group, as
feedback is compared.
48.3
Feedback on coursework should be related to the assessment criteria and should
provide guidance to students on their performance and its strengths and
weaknesses. It should indicate what the student should do in order to improve his/her
performance in future.
.
89
48.4 All students must have the opportunity to receive feedback on at least one
examination, although more might be provided for those under performing.
48.5
Group tutorials can provide an effective way of giving feedback on coursework and
exams, as the advice to students is often common to the semester or year group.
48.6 The use of feedback pro-forma can be effective in use of staff and student time. Each
feedback sheet
should reflect the assessment criteria for the task.
48.7 Students do not always recognise feedback, particularly if it is oral, group-based,
delivered online or
resulting from inter-active teaching and formative assessment
integrated in the learning activities. It is
very helpful to explain to students how they will
receive feedback on any module. Guidelines on giving
feedback are available from
Westminster Exchange.
90
Part 8: External Examiner Involvement
Section 49: Requirements for External Examiners
49.1
49.2
The main purposes of External Examining are:

to verify that standards are appropriate for the award elements which the External
Examiner has been appointed to examine

to assist in the comparison of academic standards across higher education awards
and award elements

to ensure that assessment processes are fair and are fairly operated in line with
University Regulations.
External Examiners must be appointed to take part in:
assessment of all modules at Undergraduate Credit Levels 5 and 6 and Postgraduate
Credit Level 7; External Examiners are appointed to Credit level 3 and 4 for discrete
programmes leading to a University award only
progression and award of all final University of Westminster awards and all decisions
on exclusions on the grounds of academic performance.
49.3
Subject Area External Examiners are appointed to provide subject area expertise. The
size of the team should be such that each External Examiner has a reasonable and
broadly equitable workload in terms of modules/subject areas covered and student
numbers for each. Occasionally the appointment of one External Examiner to a Subject
Area will be sufficient. Each approval term covers up to four academic sessions in
exceptional circumstances this may be extended by one further year.
49.4
Module Board External Examiners will be involved in the confirmation of module
marks for a groups of modules not owned by a single academic Faculty. The External
Examiner should have familiarity with modular or credit accumulation schemes and
expertise in the assessment process.
49.5
Progression and Award Board Chief External Examiners are appointed to
Progression and Award Boards, which are normally department based. The Chief
External Examiner will be involved in progression and award decisions for all final
awards and decisions to exclude a student from a course on academic grounds. One
Chief External Examiner will normally be appointed for each Progression and Award
Board. Familiarity with course coverage (rather than detailed subject knowledge) is
required. The Chief External Examiner should have experience of modular or credit
accumulation schemes and expertise in assessment. Each approval term normally
covers four academic sessions.
49.6
Where an External Examiner is appointed to a Subject Area and subsequently to a
different Board, for example a Module Board and/or Progression and Award Board, the
total period of service should not exceed five years.
91
49.7
Where possible External Examiners for franchised or other collaborative courses
should be the same individuals as those appointed to the equivalent course (or set of
modules) taught at the University.
Section 50: Procedures for Approval of External Examiners
50.1
The Dean of Faculty is responsible for securing and submitting External Examiner
nominations (in consultation with the Head of Department and the Head of any other
Faculty which shares responsibility for the subject or course). Approval of nominations
should be sought in the semester before the External Examiner is required to be
involved in the assessment process.
50.3
Nominations for Module Board External Examiners should be made by the Deputy Vice
Chancellor (Student Experience) or nominee.
50.2
All nominations must be made on a standard form which is available from the Quality
and Standards Department’s intranet site. All sections of the form must be completed
in full. Incomplete forms will be returned to the Dean of Faculty or Head of Department.
A summary curriculum vitae (six pages or less) must accompany each nomination.
50.3
While the agreement of the individual should be sought for a copy of the CV and for
submission of the nomination, no commitment to an approval can be made prior to the
formal decision at University level being made. In no circumstances should a nominee
be involved in assessments or progression and award decisions unless notification of
the approval has been given by the Quality and Standards Officer (External
Examiners). Approvals cannot be made retrospectively.
50.4
The UK Border Agency requires all universities undertake identity checks on all those
paid via staff payment system including External Examiners, to ensure that they are
eligible to work in the UK. For this reason a photocopy/scan of the passport of each
nominee for External Examiner must be submitted along with the nomination form to
the Quality and Standards Department.
50.5
Once appointed all External Examiners are required to bring their passport when they
first visit the University so a verified copy can be made at the Faculty and passed to
the Quality and Standards Department for their records.
50.6
Decisions are normally made within a month to six weeks of a nomination having been
submitted but if extra information is required a final decision may take longer.
Section 51: Criteria for Approval of External Examiners
51.1
Criteria for approval relate both to the individual nominee and the combined expertise
of all Externals Examiners within the Subject Area. However, the overriding criteria for
all nominations are that the proposed External Examiner possesses the necessary
subject expertise at the appropriate level (Subject Areas) and an
understanding/experience of credit accumulation (Module Boards and Progression
and Award Boards), and, that s/he is wholly independent of the internal examining
team and the Dean of Faculty and Head of Department.
51.2
Within each Subject Area there should be:
92

prior experience of both internal and External Examining at the relevant level

representation from industry, commerce or professional practice (where
appropriate) alongside academic membership

a spread in the host institutions of the External Examiners: normally only one
External Examiner will be drawn from a particular institution or organisation except
where a clear justification is made at nomination.
In the case of a Subject Area which has only one External Examiner, these criteria
apply to successive appointments.
51.3
To be appointed as an External Examiner nominees must demonstrate:










51.4
knowledge and understanding of agreed reference points for quality and
standards
competence and experience in the fields of study to which they will be
appointed
relevant academic and/or professional qualifications at least to the level of the
qualification being examined, and/or practitioner experience, where
appropriate
competence and experience relating to the design and operation of a variety
of assessment tasks
appropriate standing and credibility in the field of study with academic and/or
professional peers
familiarity with the standard expected of students who achieve the award
being assessed
fluency in English and fluency in the language of delivery and assessment if
the course is not delivered in English
meeting applicable criteria set by Professional, Statutory and Regulatory
Bodies, where appropriate
awareness of current developments in the field of study
experience relating to the enhancement of the student learning experience.
A nominee will not be appointed if:
 they are a member of a governing body or committee of the University of
Westminster or one of its partners, or a current employee of the University of
Westminster or one of its partners;
 they have a close professional, contractual or personal relationship with a
member of staff or student involved in the course;
 they are required to assess colleagues who are recruited as students to the
course;
 they are, or know they will be, in a position to influence significantly the future
of students on the course;
 they are or have been significantly involved in recent or current substantive
collaborative research activities with a member of staff closely involved in the
delivery, management or assessment of the course or modules;
 they are former staff or students of the University of Westminster unless a
period of five years has elapsed and all student taught by or with the External
Examiner have completed their course;
 there are reciprocal arrangements involving cognate programmes at another
higher education provider;
93


they will succeed an External Examiner from their home institution or
department;
there are other External Examiners in the team from the same department of
the same higher education provider.
51.4
An External Examiner may be reappointed in exceptional circumstances but normally
only after a period of five years or more has elapsed since their last appointment.
51.5
External Examiners must normally hold no more than two External Examiner
appointments for taught programmes/modules at any point in time.
51.4
Lack of prior experience of External Examining does not preclude an approval so long
as other External Examiners in the relevant Subject Area do have such experience.
Where a sole External Examiner is required, lack of previous External Examining
experience should not prevent approval as long as the nominee has significant and
relevant internal assessment experience. In addition, induction can be provided by
making an early approval and so providing a period of overlap with the outgoing,
experienced examiner.
Section 52: Applications for Extension and Changes in Responsibilities of
External Examiners
52.1
Requests for extension to an External Examiner's term of approval must be made on
the standard extension request form and supported by a statement from the Dean of
Faculty. An extension into a fifth year will only be considered in exceptional
circumstances, for example, if a course is due to be discontinued, it may be
inappropriate to make a replacement nomination for one year only.
52.2
Any amendment to an External Examiner’s terms of approval (such as a proposed
move to a new Subject Area or Board, perhaps as part of a general reorganisation of
coverage of Boards, or other revision of responsibilities from that stated in an
examiner's approval letter) requires formal approval from the Quality and Standards
Officer (External Examiners) who will act in consultation with the Dean with executive
responsibility for Academic Quality.
Section 53: Approval of Nominations of External Examiners
53.1
A detailed consideration of the nomination will be undertaken with reference to the
criteria for approval, noting the External Examiners currently and previously approved
to the Subject Area or Board. The Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners)
will request further information where necessary.
53.2
Recommendations are made in writing, with a copy of the nomination form, and are
sent to the Dean with executive responsibility for Academic Quality for a decision on
whether to approve or not and comments where appropriate. Any conditions of
approval will be agreed at this stage.
53.3
Notification of approval will be sent to the Dean of Faculty, the Subject Leader, and the
relevant Faculty Registry Manager with a copy of the approval letter. In cases of nonapproval, the Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners) will write to the Dean
of Faculty to explain the reasons for non-approval and agree a profile of an External
Examiner who would be a more appropriate nominee. Conditions of approval will be
highlighted on the memorandum signifying approval.
94
Section 54:
Approval of External Examiner Nominations by Professional Bodies
54.1
Approval of an External Examiner by a professional body, for example, for a course
accredited by that body, must be sought only after a nomination has been agreed by
the University.
54.2
All such submissions to professional bodies are notified to the Quality and Standards
Officer (External Examiners) on the advice of the Dean of Faculty or Head of
Department concerned and require the signature of the Associate Director, Academic
Quality and Standards.
54.3
It is particularly important to make such nominations well in advance of the proposed
date of the first Subject Area or Board meeting which the External Examiner should
attend to allow sufficient time for the required two stages of consideration.
Section 55: Briefing External Examiners
55.1
If a nomination is approved, a letter giving details of the approval is issued by the
Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners) to the approved candidate
accompanied by a copy of the current Handbook of Academic Regulations and the
general guidance note on External Examining at the University.
55.2
The Dean of Faculty/Head of Department/ or equivalent? (in association with the
Course Leader) is responsible for ensuring that new External Examiners are briefed
on the specific subject area or course(s) which they will consider, and their role in
relation to the internal examiners.
55.3
Subject Area and Module Board External Examiners must receive full details of the
syllabuses and assessment procedures for every module within the remit of the Board
or Subject Area to which they have been appointed, with briefing on which modules
are their special responsibility. They should also receive briefing on the courses to
which these modules contribute. (Where a large number of courses have common
modules, it is best to provide a précis of details of these courses, rather than sending
each External Examiner an unwieldy set of course documents.)
55.4
New Progression and Award Board External Examiners must be sent all relevant
definitive course documents and the course and award specific assessment
regulations (including details of foundation certificate programmes where these are
part of the course scheme). University Validation Panel reports and reports from
outgoing External Examiners should also be made available.
55.5
The advantage of early approval is that good induction can be provided, e.g.
attendance at an Assessment Board as an observer and/or a more informal meeting
with staff and students.
55.6
Opportunities should be organised for External Examiners in the same team to meet
as a group at least once a year.
55.7
As well as providing initial briefing it is important to inform External Examiners of
subsequent changes to module or course content and/or assessment regulations.
Where changes are made across the whole institution, for example in University
Assessment Regulations, such updating will be provided by the Quality and Standards
Officer (External Examiners).
95
55.8
Where External Examiners are appointed to a collaborative partner based overseas
the Dean of Faculty is responsible for ensuring the expected University Health and
Safety process is undertaken prior to each trip, including ensuring the required travel
insurance process has been conducted. LINK
Section 56: Protocols for External Examiners
56.1
External Examiners should not be asked to take on responsibilities, which are outside
their original contract with the University as specified in the approval letter unless this
has been formally approved and the External Examiner has consented to the change.
56.2
Good notice should be provided of scheduled assessment dates and in particular of
days when attendance at the University will be required. Wherever possible provisional
dates should be cross-checked before being finalised to avoid a clash of Subject Area
meetings or Boards or other engagements. Faculty Registry Offices are responsible
for notifying dates of Subject Area meetings and Boards to External Examiners and
once notified to External Examiners, dates should only be changed in exceptional
circumstances.
56.3
Draft assignment briefs and examination papers as well as papers to be set for
deferred re-sits must be sent to External Examiners with adequate time for checking
and, within the overall time constraints of examination and Board schedules, every
effort should be made to give External Examiners adequate time for review of marked
scripts and other work.
56.4
The sampling methods used to decide which work will be sent to an External Examiner
must be agreed with him/her in advance; the examiner has the right to request to see
any assessed work.
56.5
The External Examiner may request any information relevant to his/her responsibilities
from the University. Depending on the nature of this information such requests should
either be addressed to the Head of Department, Course Leader or to the Quality and
Standards Officer (External Examiners).
Section 57: Role of External Examiners
57.1
The University operates a Single Tier Assessment Board process (with the exception
of modules as outlined in 49.2 and 59.1).
57.1
The roles and responsibilities of External Examiners are outlined in section 13 of the
Academic Regulations LINK.
96
Section 58: Attendance at Boards
Module Boards (see section 49)
58.1 External Examiners have the right to attend any Module Board for which they are
approved to act but the Board will not be invalidated by the unavoidable absence of an
External Examiner provided that:
58.2

the absent External Examiner has reviewed assessments for which they are
responsible and has provided comments to the Board and has signified consent
to the Chair to the continuation of the Board in his/her absence

the absent External Examiner endorses the recommendations of the Board in
writing (or gives reasons for dissent)

where possible, the External Examiners present at the Board reflect the
University’s policy in respect of balance of academic and professional experience
and gender.
Progression and Award Boards
Chief External Examiners must attend all Progression and Award Boards to which they
have been appointed considering progression and final awards, except where the
board follows referred or deferred assessment and the Chief External Examiners have
agreed that this may be conducted by correspondence and, except where intermediate
awards are being considered, where, with prior agreement that they may be involved
by correspondence; they are not required to attend Boards considering Credit level 3
or 4 only, except where a professional body may make such a requirement or where
such modules compose a discrete award.
Section 59: Procedures for External Examiners' Reports
59.1
External Examiners are required to report annually after the last relevant Assessment
Board or Subject Area meeting. However, they may submit additional reports at any
time during the session. Reports should respond to the issues listed in the University’s
Report Guidance Note.
59.2
Reports must be returned within six weeks of attendance at a Subject Area or Board
meeting to the Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners) in the Quality and
Standards Department; reports received by other staff should be passed on
immediately.
59.3
In addition to reporting annually, the External Examiner is also invited to, at the end of
their appointment, report on any changes or common themes which have emerged
during the term of office.
59.4
All reports are acknowledged on receipt and published on the University’s External
Examiner information system.
59.5
The Dean of Faculty with academic responsibility for an Assessment Board or Subject
Area is responsible for ensuring that a written reply is sent to each External Examiner
and that appropriate action is taken in response to the points raised by the External
Examiner. The task of writing responses may be delegated for example to the Head of
Department or the Course Leader. These responses must be sent to External
97
Examiners and the Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners) no later than
the end of the term following the Board meeting to which they relate.
59.6
The Dean of Faculty should identify any issues (e.g. on resources) which are outside
his/her control and refer the report to the Provost.
59.7
Reports are discussed during the relevant annual monitoring exercise and they are
included by the Course Team in Course Review documents at Review (each six years),
with a commentary from the Course Team.
59.8
The Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners) will conduct an annual audit
of all External Examiner reports for the previous session along with the responses to
them. A critical read will be undertaken to identify any general points, particularly on
assessment procedures, issues of concern and to draw out aspects of good practice
worth disseminating. The conclusions may lead to recommendations to Academic
Council for changes to policy or guidelines on external examining.
59.9
The Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners) is responsible for ensuring
that External Examiners are reminded of the need to submit their reports promptly.
Section 60: Fees and Expenses for External Examiners
60.1
Fee and expense claim forms are provided to External Examiners and completed
forms should be returned to the Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners).
Fees are subject to tax and national insurance deductions.
60.2
The fee due to each External Examiner is agreed at the point of formal approval and
is stated in the contract. A supplementary fee will be paid for necessary attendance of
more than two visits per year. Payment of the fee is conditional upon submission of
the annual report and attendance at the University at least once during the year.
Section 61: Termination of External Examiners Appointments
61.1
The University will consider the early termination of an External Examiner’s contract
where that External Examiner has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to fulfil
the standard responsibilities of the role or has behaved in a manner that does not meet
normal expectations or places the reputation of the University at risk.
61.2
Submission for consideration of early termination should be submitted to the Quality
and Standards Department. Grounds for such submission include:
 Non-submission of the External Examiner’s annual report or submission of a
report that does not meet the minimum standard required;
 Non-attendance at the University during a session without provision of an
acceptable cause;

Failure to fulfil the normal set of duties required of an External Examiner e.g.,
not responding to invitations to attend, remaining out of contact with a team or
failing to return draft question papers or marked scripts;

Changes to their personal circumstances such as losing the UKBA designation
of “right to work” or retiring from their post;

Where a conflict of interest has arisen during the term office and cannot be
resolved by other adjustments or my mutual agreement;
98

61.3
Loss of professional standing due to misconduct at work e.g., fraud or being
found guilty of a criminal offence.
External Examiners will be informed by the decision to terminate their appointment by
the Associate Director Quality and Standards.
99
Part 9: Partnerships with other Institutions and
Organisations
Section 63: Partnerships
63.1
Teaching partnerships are developed by the University in collaboration with other
institutions in the UK and internationally for the promotion of:





Student exchange
Staff exchange
Curriculum design
Scholarship and pedagogy
Research and Knowledge Transfer programmes.
63.2
The policy frameworks which govern partnerships are those which define
expectations for courses delivered internally within the University. These are the
Learning, Teaching and Assessment Policy, and the Research, Enterprise and
Knowledge Transfer Policy, whose development and implementation is overseen by
the two lead policy committees of Academic Council. The operating framework for all
Partnerships is overseen by the Partnerships Sub-Committee of the Quality
Assurance and Enhancement Committee, the third lead committee of Academic
Council.
63.3
The University’s strategic priorities for the development of transnational education
are encapsulated in the International Strategy Framework which is being
implemented in 2009/10.
63.4
The principles on which the selection of institutional partners is based are:





commonality of institutional mission
a shared commitment to student-centred active learning
an open, collegial and accountable culture
alignment with best practice models in UK and international HE
enhancement through professional development.
63.5
Due diligence in respect of the academic, financial, legal and governance status of
prospective and continuing partners is a pre-requisite for consideration of all
proposed partnerships involving programmes which lead to an academic award of
the University of Westminster. The identification and management of risks and
opportunities form part of this exercise.
63.6
Individual members of University staff are not empowered to undertake partnership
obligations with other institutions and all proposals for new or extended partnerships
are subject to formal approval processes.
63.7
The Collaborations Handbook provides a detailed summary of the relevant polices
and processes which guide the development and continuation of teaching
partnerships with other institutions both in the London region in the UK and
internationally.
100
Part 10:
Accreditation
PREAMBLE
In addition to its validated awards, the University offers an accreditation service to employers
and other training providers for identifying and assuring the academic value, in terms of
volume and level of credit, of their provision. University of Westminster Schools may also
use the Service to accredit their short course provision.
Section 64: The University of Westminster Accreditation Service
64.1
for:
The Accreditation Service is located within Westminster Exchange. It is responsible
a) Initial consultation with all queries related to quality assurance and credit-rating of
external providers courses;
b) Ensuring that a potential client is an appropriate accreditation partner for the
University;
c) Advising clients in the preparation of an application for course accreditation;
d) The management and quality assurance of all contracts for accreditation approved by
the Accreditation Board in terms of the conditions set by the Accreditation Board. The
Service will ensure that accreditation assessors, advisors and link tutors are
appropriately prepared for these roles;
e) Initial annual monitoring of accredited provision, which then feeds into the annual
monitoring processes of Westminster Exchange.
The Service will work in collaboration with Schools to ensure that the client has the
benefit of appropriate expertise that is congruent with the disciplinary focus and related
sectors.
Section 65: The University of Westminster Accreditation Board
65.1
The University of Westminster Accreditation Board is constituted under the authority
of Academic Council (approval date – 16 April 2010). The Accreditation Board, which
sits within Westminster Exchange, is responsible for the academic standards of the
credit that it awards, which must be assessed to the same standards and rigour as a
University of Westminster award. Credit is awarded for demonstrated learning and
not for time or effort alone.
In determining the level of credit consideration will be given to:
 The stated learning outcomes
 The appropriateness of resources including human resources
 The forms and criteria for assessment
 QAA generic level descriptors.
In determining the volume (number) of credits consideration will be given to the total
hours of learning effort.
101
The function of the Board is to:
 determine the credit value and volume of appropriate educational provision and to
set the terms and conditions under which successful participants on that course
may be awarded credit
 award credit to claimants who have demonstrated completion of an accredited
course that has been delivered and assessed according to the contract.
65.2
Composition of the Board
The University Accreditation Board is constituted as follows:
 Director of Westminster Exchange (or nominee) as chair
 Director of the Accreditation Service
 A practice-based learning External Examiner (appointed to the Board). Where the
learning outcomes of the course indicate specialist knowledge, an External
Examiner from that field will be appointed and attend for business related to those
programmes
 The Quality and Standards Officer (External Examinations)
 The specific advisor and assessor to any client with an application for accreditation
before the Board on the day (in attendance)
 The specific link tutor to an accredited programme with a claimant list and annual
monitoring to be considered by the Board on the day (in attendance)
 School and Westminster Exchange representation who act as assessors and
advisors for the Board. At least one representative in addition to the advisor, and
link tutor or assessor associated with business before the Board, will be present at
a Board
 An administrative secretary.
65.3
Terms of reference
1. The Accreditation Board is constituted to consider the following:
a) Applications to credit-rate the learning outcomes and assessment of
externally managed provision or educational activity in relation to the
Higher Education credit framework. Decisions will be made as to the
number and level of credits, the appropriateness of the proposed
assessment and resources including staff resources. Decisions to
accredit can be made subject to specified conditions being met;
b) Applications to credit rate internal short course (non-validated) provision
of the University
c) The award of credit for demonstrated learning achievement by claimants
in relation to programmes previously accredited by the Board;
d) Resolution of any failure to agree on a pass list between the University’s
link tutor and the client’s assessment team. This will be done through the
Chair in consultation with the members of te Board as appropriate.
2. The Board may award general credit only.
3. The Board may award credit at academic levels 4 – 7. The smallest amount of
credit awarded will be 5 credits (mapping onto approx 50hrs of learning effort).
4. Assessments for accreditation credits will be subject to scrutiny by external
examiners and University of Westminster moderators.
5. The Accreditation Board will meet at least three times per year.
102
65.4
The role of the external examiner
The generic responsibilities of External Examiners, as outline in the Handbook of
Academic Regulations 2010, apply to External Examiners for accredited provision.
Where the learning outcomes of a course proposed for accreditation identify
specialist knowledge, an External Examiner with understanding of the specialist field
will be appointed for the accreditation and for subsequent ratification of claimants
pass lists.
65.5
Right of appeal
Where an accredited programme is owned and managed by the client, the University
encourages clients to formulate a complaints process that is appropriate for their
context to resolve issues arising within the course delivery. Course participants and
claimants for credit have a right of appeal to the University’s Director of Academic
Services and Academic Registrar in respect of material irregularity in the assessment
moderation and the process of the Board.
In respect of credit award decisions for programmes owned and managed by (a
School of) the University, participants have the same rights, using the same
procedures as any other student of the University.
65.6
Annual monitoring
The Service Director is responsible for assuring the annual monitoring of clients’
provision in accordance with the Accreditation contract and with the University’s
annual monitoring cycle.
The Link tutor for each contract will support the client in the completion of an annual
monitoring statement, which must be signed by both the client and the tutor and
forwarded to the Accreditation Service. The Director, a member of the Quality and
Standards Office, and an accreditation advisor will review and report on these
statements, and relevant External Examiner reports, into the Westminster Exchange
annual monitoring cycle.