VALIDATION OF ON-CAMPUS
PROVISION
An Introduction and Overview
LEAP DIRECTORATE
UNIVERSITY OF HULL
1. INTRODUCTION
The University has the following stages to approve programmes:
Stage 1 – The Planning Cycle which annually reviews the academic portfolio of provision
through Departments’ and Schools’ Development Plans.
Stage 2 – The Development Consent Panel and the recommendation of approval of the title
in principle to PVC Learning and Teaching.
Stage 3 – The University Validation Panel and the recommendation of the approval of the
proposed awards to the Programme Approvals Committee (PAC).
This guidance has been written to support those working towards Stage 3.
The University is committed to the approval and review of all taught provision in line with the
expectations of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA); in particular the UK Quality Code for Higher
Education Part A: Setting and Maintaining Threshold Academic Standards, and Part B: Chapters B1
Programme Design, Development and Approval, and B8 Programme Monitoring and Review.
As the QAA states, the processes of programme design, development and approval are an essential
part of higher education providers' internal quality assurance and enhancement processes. They
ensure that appropriate academic standards are set and maintained and the programmes offered to
students make available learning opportunities which enable the intended learning outcomes to be
achieved (see Part B: Chapter B1).
Programme development involves a range of skills supported by a strong understanding of the
underpinning quality and programme design processes. This guidance outlines the steps involved in
preparing an on-campus programme proposal for validation. Revalidation of provision, annual
monitoring and review and collaborative programme development are covered in separate guidance
documents.
2. VALIDATION PRINCIPLES AND EXPECTATIONS
Curriculum at the University of Hull is based on six key principles:
a. Making explicit the big ideas, concepts and/or skills developed within programmes;
b. Making explicit the disciplinary and practice-based approaches to teaching and student
learning;
c. Making explicit the rationale for our assessment choices and approaches;
d. Embedding the Hull Graduate Attributes;
e. Internationalising the curriculum;
f. Developing inclusive curriculum and assessment.
Briefing notes associated with each of these key principles are available on SharePoint.
In addition to the six key principles, programme proposals must demonstrate that they:


Meet the Standards of the University as defined by its qualification and grading descriptors;
Reflect relevant subject benchmark statements and/or professional, statutory or regulatory
body requirements;
Validation at Hull – Introduction and Overview-V1-Dec14
2




Have a curriculum design that is appropriate to the intended learning outcomes, and to the
target student body;
Employ modes of learning, teaching and assessment which will enable the learning
outcomes to be achieved by the students and for this achievement to be measured;
Have appropriate arrangements for student support for a range of student groups and needs;
Can be appropriately resourced.
3. VALIDATION EVENT, FOCUS AND PANEL MEMBERSHIP
Validation panels on behalf of Programme Approvals Committee will structure validation events
around six main themes. These should be considered during the development process, as they will
provide the basis for the engagement between the panel and each programme development team.
3.1 The Six Themes
i. The range of internal and external consultation that has informed the development process;
ii. The rationale for the proposal and information about likely demand and student entry
profiles;
iii. The curriculum, its design, content, assessment and delivery, and its relationship to the
student experience on the award;
iv. The appropriateness of the standards set for students and their match with the given award
(i.e. BA, BSc, MBus);
v. The adequacy of the management structures including those concerned with academic and
pastoral support for students;
vi. The suitability of the human, physical and other learning resources that support the
provision.
3.2 Panel Membership and Attendees
Required members
Chair (HoD from another
faculty)
Optional members
Faculty Quality representative
Invited attendees
School/Departmental Director
of Learning and Teaching (or
equivalent)
LEAP Quality Officer
(Secretary)
MARCOMMS representative
Programme Leaders for
curriculum under scrutiny
One or more External Advisors
SDU representative
Programme team
representatives
Associate Dean for the
proposing faculty
Associate Dean from faculty
not involved with programme
in the portfolio
Director of Learning and
Teaching or equivalent from
faculty not involved with
programme in the portfolio
HUU representative
Admissions Officer
Academic Services
Validation at Hull – Introduction and Overview-V1-Dec14
3
International Officer (if a
programmes is delivered
overseas or has a significant
international cohort)
A relevant member of the
Research Degrees Committee
(if the programmes contain a
significant research
component)
One or more student
representatives from the
proposing School/Department
Additional nominated
stakeholders (e.g. PSRB,
employer representative)
LEAP representative
4. THE VALIDATION PROCESS
Having successfully gained Development Consent for a new programme or programme variant,
programme teams are required to complete:
a. Nomination for an External Member of a University Validation Panel
b. Application for Validation of On-Campus Provision - Parts 1, 2 and 3
For those programmes that require exemption from the academic framework, teams are also
required to complete:
c. Application for Exemption from the University Academic Framework
Figure 1 details the activities that will accompany the completion of these forms and associated
timescales.
5. EXTERNAL INPUT
Please note, programme External Advisors (see 4a) are full members of the University Validation
Panel and as such should not be approached during the development process of a new programme
or modules. Schools and Departments may wish to use their current programme and module
external examiners, or other external academics or stakeholders, as critical friends during the
development process.
Validation at Hull – Introduction and Overview-V1-Dec14
4
Figure 1: Validation Process Map
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
•Contact your Associate Dean L&T to set a preferred date for your validation event
•Please note, wherever possible this should align with any external accrediation events
•Submit proposed validation date to LEAP (curriculum@hull.ac.uk)
•Contact your finance officer to develop the business case for the proposed programmes
•Contact MARCOMMS to discuss marketing the programmes
•Contact proposed external advisors to 'save the date' and request a CV
•Complete the external advisor nomination form and return to LEAP
•LEAP appoints external advisor
•Where appropriate, complete an exemption from the academic framework application and submit this to the Associate
Dean L&T for the lead faculty
•Once authorised by Associate Dean L&T, submit to LEAP for final approval by Chair of Programme Approvals Committee
•Access and complete the current 'Application for Validation of On-campus Provision' form
•Consult with current External Examiners and other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate
•Consult with Faculty Quality Team and LEAP as appropriate during completion
•Submit the completed application form to your HoD and Associate Dean L&T for approval
•At least six weeks prior to the University Validation Panel, the Asscoate Dean L&T should submit the approved
application to LEAP
•Four weeks prior to the University Validation Panel, completed programme documentation circulated to all panel
members
•Two weeks prior to the University Validation Panel, panel members return completed Pre-Panel Feedback to LEAP
•One week prior to the event, the Chair and Secretary of the University Validation Panel meet with the programme
leaders to consider the lines of enquiry that arise from the feedback
•Initial lines of enquiry circulated to all panel members and programme representatives
•Validation Panel meets
•Commendations, Conditions and Recommendations communicated to programme teams
•Once conditions have been met, programmes recommended to 'Programme Approvals Committee' for approval
•Following approval, places on the programme may be offered to prospective students
Validation at Hull – Introduction and Overview-V1-Dec14
5
6. FINANCIAL AND STRATEGIC CASE
In parallel with the development and validation of academic programmes, an accompanying
business case is required. For details and assistance in completing this business case, you should
contact your faculty finance officer.
7. COMMON PITFALLS
Documentation presented to the panel should be accurate, complete, clearly presented and
consistent. Differences in information may leave the panel unable to draw a reliable conclusion and
may undermine the confidence it has in the programmes proposed. Some common pitfalls are:
Programme learning outcomes that:



have little or no relation to the programme/subject
do not resonate with the University grading descriptors
are insufficiently differentiated between programmes
Module learning outcomes that are:




set at the wrong level
too vague; not indicating what learners will have achieved as a result of learning
not aligned to the assessment strategy
insufficiently related to the programme learning outcomes
Curriculum and programme design that shows:



lack of clarity in programme structure and content
inconsistencies in module titles within the documentation
insufficient evidence of the use of external reference points, for example, subject
benchmark statements, or the requirements of Professional, Statutory and Regulatory
Bodies
Learning and Teaching approaches and content that are:


under-developed with little rationale for choice of methods including the use of technology
and other modes of learning
lacking in clarity in the areas of employability, internationalisation and inclusivity
Assessment approaches that are:



poorly constructed in relation to the achievement of programme outcomes
disjointed within and across levels
lacking in clarity
8. UNIVERSITY PANEL OUTCOMES
In reaching its decision, a validation panel is tasked to make a peer judgement on behalf of the
University regarding the confidence it has in the provision under scrutiny. The judgement will involve
consideration of standards and quality of learning opportunities. Whether the decision is positive or
negative, it is crucial that it is based on sound evidence. Therefore, the subsequent written report
will clearly articulate the reasons for any decisions made in an evidence-based manner.
Validation at Hull – Introduction and Overview-V1-Dec14
6
Where the programmes under scrutiny are recommended to PAC, this will involve the setting of
conditions, recommendations and commendations. Conditions will normally be set if any regulatory
issues are likely to endanger the standards of provision, where there is a clear omission of required
information, or where aspects of the provision may cause serious concern for students. In contrast,
recommendations will normally include issues and advice not related to standards which the panel
considers would enhance the provision.
NB: Conditions must be met prior to the programme being recommended to PAC for final approval
whereas recommendation are for consideration by the programme team and will be responded to in
the first Annual Monitoring report following validation.
If the conditions placed on a programme are deemed to be sufficient to warrant a resubmission of
the full validation documentation, the proposals will be rejected by the panel. In such circumstances,
a new University Validation Panel will be convened once the conditions are fully met.
Validation at Hull – Introduction and Overview-V1-Dec14
7