APPC/11/37
(1 – 8)
CONFIRMED
UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD
SENATE
ACADEMIC PROGRAMMES AND PARTNERSHIPS COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON
11 MAY 2011
Present:
Professor C Pine (Chair)
Professor G Aouad
S Braid
Dr M Burke
C Dangerfield
Dr K Dayson
Prof N Linge
Dr G Murphy
L Puttick (Secretary)
Apologies:
Dr K Kniveton
J Lloyd
In attendance: Geoff Taylor (ref minute APPC.11.39)
Annette Cooke
Barbara Booth
David Singer
Russell Cahill (ref minute APPC.11.44)
APPC.11.37
Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 6 April 2011 (APPC/11/25)
The minutes were confirmed as a correct record of the meeting.
APPC.11.38
Chair’s Statement
The Chair reported that the QAA would be undertaking an Institutional Review of the University in
2012/13 and that this would have significance for the Committee in terms of its remit for
programme approval amendment and review and for approval of partnerships. She proposed
inviting the Associate Secretary, Governance Services Unit, Gregory Clark, to give a presentation
to the next meeting about the new methodology for Institutional Review. The Chair also advised
the Committee of 2 forthcoming affiliation visits one to ThinkLabs IIT, Mumbai, India for the partial
delivery of the MSc Robotics and Embedded Systems and one to the Paediatric Intensive Care
Unit (PICU) at the Manchester Royal Infirmary for the University’s first validation of modules
delivered by PICU.
APPC.11.39
Programme Costing Model (APPC/11/26)
The Management Accountant from Finance Division gave a presentation to the Committee on the
methodology used for costing at the programme level. He reported that the costing was a
historical exercise, based on the previous year’s accounts and comprised a number of elements:
 actual fee income which, with actual student numbers, generated values for income per
programme
37/2

direct staff costs, which generated the calculation of a cost per module to be aggregated
up to the programme level

indirect staff costs and direct non--pay costs which, using the Transparent Approach to
Costing (TRAC), were allocated to teaching, then divided by the student FTE numbers to
derive a cost per student FTE, which was then aggregated to the programme level

indirect costs, which were overhead costs such as Estates, HR, Finance calculated using
the Resource Allocation Model (RAM); these were allocated at School level; the teaching
element was extracted and applied to each programme on the basis of staff FTE or
student FTE.
He explained the difficulty of breaking down costs to module level because modules could belong
to many different programmes which might cross Schools and Colleges. A similar difficulty arose
in determining costs for joint programmes which crossed Schools or Colleges and he reported
that manual intervention and reconciliation of data derived from various sources was required.
Members of the Committee made the following comments in response to the presentation:
i)
that a more dynamic model was needed which would help programme teams
determine the cohort size at which a programme no longer became viable eg what
loss of students could the programme endure because of changes in the market or
retention
ii)
that for the purposes of activities such as Academic Portfolio Review, APME, PPRR it
was necessary to model forward based on retention and market demand projections
ie “what if” scenarios
iii)
that the current model did not take account of value added from a particular
programme which, although it might have a small cohort, resulted in reputation and
income generation elsewhere; the current units of measure only permitted flexibility in
numbers of students and staff
iv)
that the model needed to account for significant variations in indirect costs between
programmes within a School such as in Computing, Science and Engineering, for
example in the use of space;
v)
that notwithstanding the difficulties reported, the model needed to reflect the costs of
running a module across several programmes;
vi)
that with a new fees regime in 2012, the imperative for a dynamic model was even
stronger;
vii)
that there was an additional hierarchy of data, beyond the straight financial costs,
which had to be taken into account in determining the viability of a programme and
this had been identified as a requirement of Academic Portfolio Review; there was an
intention to maintain this data dynamically as input to the various ongoing approval
and review processes
2
37/3
viii)
that the standardised sizes of modules and programmes might facilitate the costing
model
The Committee resolved to establish a task group comprising:
Ms Sue Braid, Head of School and Associate Dean Academic
Dr Gai Murphy, Associate Dean Academic
Mrs Barbara Booth, Head of Progression, Student Information Directorate
A member of staff from Finance Department (a request to be put to the Acting Director of
Finance)
to scope the requirements for financial information which could support programme teams in
their determination of financial viability of programmes as part of approval, annual and periodic
review processes and to report back to APPC at its next meeting.
APPC.11.40
Report from College PARSC (Arts and Social Sciences) (APPC/11/27)
1 March 2011
The Committee considered a recommendation from the PARSC meeting of 1 March 2011 and
resolved to approve the proposed amendments to the MSc/PgDip Islamic Banking and Finance
with effect from September 2011 which comprised:


a change to entry requirements
a named Pg Certificate
The Committee noted the action taken by the PARSC with respect to PPRR reports for:
BA (Hons) Interior Design
BA (Hons) Product Design
29 March 2011
The Committee considered a recommendation from the PARSC meeting of 29 March 2011 and
resolved to approve the amendments to BA Hons Fashion: Design and BA Hons Fashion: Image
Making and Styling to take effect from September 2011.
The Committee noted the action taken by the PARSC with respect to PPRR reports for:
Chartered Institute of Marketing Professional Diploma
Chartered Institute of Marketing Postgraduate Professional Diploma
Master of Business Administration
14 April 2011
The Committee noted the action taken by the PARSC meeting of 14 April 2011 with respect to
withdrawal of the following programmes with effect from September 2010:
HND Top-up Leisure & Tourism Management (Full-time)
3
37/4
HND Top-up Leisure & Tourism Management (Part-time)
HND Top-up Ord Leisure & Tourism Management (Full-time)
HND Top-up Ord Tourism Management (Full-time)
HND Top-up Ord Tourism Management (Part-time)
HND Top-up Tourism Management (Full-time)
HND Top-up Tourism Management (Part-time)
HND Hospitality & Leisure Management
HNC Hospitality & Leisure Management
BSc (Ord) Business Decision Analysis
BA (Hons) Hospitality & Leisure Management (Top-up)
PG Action Learning & Research
PgC Gambling Industry Management
MSc Interactive Computer Graphics (Full-time & Part-time)
APPC.11.41
Report from College PARSC (Health and Social Care) (APPC/11/28)
12 April 2011
The Committee considered a recommendation from the PARSC meeting of 12 April 2011 and
resolved to approve the amendments to MSc Strength and Conditioning and MSc Sports Injury
Rehabilitation with effect from September 2011.
The Committee noted that these programmes had a common first year but for marketing and
demand reasons the programme team had decided to retain two distinct programmes with
different titles.
In view of the principle of designing programmes with a common first year the Committee
proposed that consideration be given to:
i)
amending the programme specification to demonstrate that programmes were clustered in
some way;
ii)
using terminology to reflect the relationships between programmes eg groupings for
programmes which had a common first year and generic award title on entry with pathways
leading to separate awards; linking for programmes which had a common first year and
other common modules but which had separate award titles on entry
The Committee noted the action taken by the PARSC with respect to:
Detailed Approval Pg Cert Upper Limb Orthopaedics
New module – Applied Professional Practice: Working with Adults
Module amendments – Advanced Practical and Advanced Practice 2
As a consequence of the request for an exception to the Regulations for the Masters Advanced
Practice programme the Committee considered the difficulties associated with the 60 credit
project module, on some part-time programmes, in which the 60 credits had formerly been split
into a 15 credit Research Proposal module and a 45 credit Research Project module. This had
enabled part time students to commence work on their Project in one academic year (Semester
3) and complete it in the next academic year (Semester 1). This then, did not contravene the
regulation 3.1.11, which states that a module shall be delivered within a single academic year.
4
37/5
The Committee was advised that this Regulation was designed to avoid issues of noncompletion. If a module straddled 2 academic years there would be no assessment mark
recorded at the end of 1 year and this would be reported to HESA as a non-completion and the
University would lose funding. The Committee therefore resolved to request approval for a
general exception for the 60 credit Project from the new Regulation concerning the minimum
credit size of Level 7 modules to allow flexibility in the 60 credit project module and permit it to be
split into 2 modules of 15 credits and 45 credits each.
APPC.11.42
Report from College PARSC (Science and Technology) (APPC/11/29)
21 April 2011
The Committee considered a report from the PARSC meeting of 21 April 2011 concerning the
PPRRs which had been undertaken for undergraduate physics programme. It noted that all
undergraduate physics programmes, except for the BSc Hons Physics with a Foundation Year
had met the conditions required by the PPRR.
The Committee recorded serious concern that the condition set for BSc Hons Physics with a
Foundation Year in June 2009 had not been met and that the programme had, in effect, been
running without re-approval. The Periodic Programme Review and Re-Approval procedure states
that conditions set “are regarded as items which should be acted upon as a matter of urgency as
they put either academic standards of the quality of students’ learning experience at risk; resulting
actions should normally be implemented before the start of the following academic session …..”
The Committee was advised that the programme leader had been asked repeatedly for a
response but no resolution had been received.
The Committee therefore resolved that, as the condition set had not been progressed, the
academic standards and quality of the programme were at risk and therefore could not recruit for
entry in September 2011. The Committee resolved to write to the Head of School, advising him
of the timeline which had passed and requesting him to respond to the Chair of APPC concerning
the future plans for the programme.
The Committee was advised that students who had applied for the Foundation Year in September
2011 could be diverted to other programmes in the School.
The Committee resolved to approve amendments to the MSc Accessibility and Inclusive Design
to permit a named Postgraduate Certificate with effect from September 2011.
The Committee noted the action taken by the PARSC with respect to withdrawal of the MSc
Computer Science with the proviso that the date when the last cohort of student would complete
the programme be amended to September 2012 to allow for any students required to retake parts
of the programme in 2011/2012.
The Committee noted the action taken by the PARSC with respect to PPRR for MSc Applied GIS
and Remote Sensing and the suspension of the programme for 2011 entry.
The Committee considered the amendments to the MSc Molecular Parasitology and Vector
Biology which would permit students to carry out their research project in an overseas laboratory.
5
37/6
The Committee resolved that the approval given by PARSC should be withdrawn pending further
clarification of the quality assurance arrangements proposed particularly with respect to
supervision and assessment of the project at an overseas laboratory. The programme team
should be asked to provide a report to APPC.
The Committee noted the action taken by the PARSC with respect to amendments to:
MSc Housing, Regeneration and Sustainability
BSc Housing Practice
BSc Regeneration (Neighbourhood Renewal)
BSc Community Governance
APPC.11.43
Revised Collaborative Provision Forms (APPC/11/30)
The Committee considered proposed revisions to the Preliminary Approval and Detailed Approval
forms for collaborative provision. Members of the Committee made the following comments in
relation to the proposed templates:
i)
clarification of the sequence of approvals would be helpful and it was proposed that a flow
diagram be included;
ii)
further consideration should be given to the appropriate sequence of information on the
forms;
iii) the membership of the Collaborative Provision Panel should reflect new College roles such
as Associate Dean International and Associate Head International to comment on proposals
where appropriate;
iv) the preliminary approval should include a brief summary of how the partnership had arisen;
v) Student Information Division should read Directorate;
vi) further consideration should be given to the most appropriate bodies to provide confirmation
eg on proposal in relation to University Strategy; on other relationships collaborative partner
has with University; on appropriateness of proposed partner;
vii) the forms should include identification of link tutor.
The Committee resolved that the Secretary should provide the report author with more detailed
feedback and requested further revised versions to be brought back to the Committee.
APPC.11.44
Academic Portfolio Review (APPC/11/31)
Proposed checklist
The Project Manager for Academic Portfolio Review presented a proposed checklist which would
be used by programme teams and PARSCs as a mechanism for reflecting systematically about
the design principles and learning teaching and assessment themes embedded in Academic
Portfolio Review. The checklists were based on those which had been produced in the College of
6
37/7
Health and Social Care and also incorporated some comments on earlier drafts which had been
available for consultation on Blackboard. The checklists included a rating system to aid reflection.
Members of the Committee made the following comments:
i)
the use of a rating system was not applicable for a number of items on the checklist as
some were operational or management issues which would not be considered by a
PARSC;
ii)
the preference was for a simple tick box system with the opportunity for programme
teams to explain or comment on any variations from the principles or themes;
iii)
further clarification was required for the design principle on assessment and whether the
maximum summative assessment of one in-module and one end of module was
applicable to all modules, no matter what their credit weighting;
iv)
further explanation was needed of the rationale for 30 students per module;
The Committee resolved to refer the checklist to the Associate Deans (Academic) Forum to
clarify:
i)
ii)
iii)
the purpose of the checklist (a guidance or a compliance tool)
at what point in Academic Portfolio Review it should be used and by whom
which aspects were regulatory, which were guidance and which were recommended as
best practice.
Proposed dataset (APPC/11/32)
The Research Officer, Planning and Performance, advised the Committee that the intention of the
dataset was to produce a standardised set of micro level data which would be dynamic and
designed to meet the requirements of a number of difference review mechanisms such as APR,.
APME, PPRR.
The Committee was very positive about the example outputs and commended in particular the
finance data, which would be invaluable in reviewing the viability of programmes.
APPC.11.45
Chairs and Independent Institutional Nominees 2011/2012 (APPC/11/33)
The Committee considered the proposal for Chairs and Independent Institutional Nominees for
College Partnerships and Programme Approval and Review Committees for 2011/2012.
The Committee proposed that Associate Heads Teaching should be nominated as IINS rather
than Chairs, because of their very heavy workloads.
The Committee resolved to approve the proposal for the nomination of 3 Chairs and 4 IINS from
each College to be approved by the Chair of APPC.
7
37/8
APPC.11.46
Developmental Engagement Report for St Helen’s College (APPC/11/34)
The Committee received for information an extract from the IQER Developmental Engagement
Report for St Helen’s College which had identified some good practice in the area of staff
development in the partnership between Salford University and St Helen’s College.
APPC.11.47
QAA- Collaborative Provision Outcomes (APPC/11/35 and APPC/11/36)
It was reported that QAA had published a series of papers, based on Collaborative Provision
Audits conducted between 2004 and 2007. These papers called Outcomes from collaborative
provision audit provided institutions with information about the emerging broad findings of
collaborative audit and review activity. Two recent reports had been published in April 2011:
Learning support arrangements in partnership links
Arrangements for monitoring and support
These papers could be downloaded from the QAA website at
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/institutionalAudit/outcomes/outcomesCPaudit.asp
A summary of Features of good practice for each report was attached.
The Committee noted that collaborative provision was likely to be a prominent feature in the next
QAA institutional Review. The Committee resolved to write to Tracey Hulme and Gregory Clark
to request staff development in this area in order to highlight the quality assurance requirements
and support good practice in collaborative provision. The Committee also noted that it would be
useful for the essential and advisable recommendations from recent QAA Collaborative Provision
Audit Reports to be extracted in order to inform the Committee about potential areas of risk within
collaborative provision.
APPC.11.48
Date of next meeting
Wednesday 6 July 2011 at 2.00pm.
APPC.11.49
Dates of meetings in 2011/2012
28 September 2011
26 October 2011
7 December 2011
25 January 2012
7 March 2012
16 May 2012
27 June 2012
8