3
Programme validation, review and modifications
3.1
Flowchart
Assurance
Committee
APAC
Approved proposal
Assurance
Committee
AQS
submits
validation
report
overview
Validation /
Review
Review
AQS
submits
validation
report
overview
AQS
AQS
Review report
APAC
Approved proposal
Validation
/ review report
3.2
The difference between a validation and review event
3.2.1
Definitions
Validation/Validation event: the process by which the University ensures that any
programme is academically sound and may be offered to students
Approval: The outcome of a validation event may result in the granting of approval to
the programme. This enables the programme to be offered, subject to meeting any
conditions set.
Review/Review event: the process by which an approved programme, or group of
programmes, is considered for re-validation A successful review results in the revalidation of a programme or programmes for a further period, subject to meeting
any conditions set.
The only time an event will be classed as a validation is when it is considering a
completely new programme which has not been developed from anything currently
existing and with no history. All other events will be classified as reviews, with the
appropriate documentation, ie QMRs etc and the inclusion of students
Distance education: programmes or parts of programmes explicitly designed to
provide for students who are geographically removed from the university or partner
institutions. Students studying on distance education programmes may be resident
in the UK or overseas. The programme will be regarded as distance education
where more than 50% of the teaching is not delivered face to face.
3.2.2
Definitions: Collaborative programmes
Joint programme – a University programme, or part thereof, leading to a
qualification of the University, designed, delivered and assessed jointly with a
Partner Institution (or Institutions) and quality assured by the University.
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/policies/academic-quality/handbook/
updated 11Sep15
2015/16
Collaborative research programme - A University programme, leading to a
qualification of the University jointly designed & delivered by the University and a
partner. Taught components are assessed by the University and partner; research
components are assessed by the University. Quality assured by the University.
Franchised programme – a University programme, or part thereof, leading to a
qualification of the University, designed, assessed and quality assured by the
University but delivered at and by a Partner Institution.
Validated programme – a programme of study, developed, assessed and delivered
by a Partner Institution, awarded by and ultimately quality assured by the University
3.3
Programme Validation and Review
3.3.1 Timing, location and expenses
No validation event for a programme due to start in September or January should
occur after the preceding May or October respectively, unless by approval of the
Chair of APAC. This applies to all variants of validation procedure at both
programme and module level as detailed later in this chapter.
Normally, the validation or review event must be located at the University campus in
which the programme will be delivered and for collaborative programmes at the
partner institution. This is to allow viewing of the facilities/resources pertaining to the
programme and to provide assurance that the programme meets its specification.
However, for collaborative programmes the School may apply via APAC to hold the
validation at the University or, exceptionally, by video conference.
There are charges to Collaborative Partners for validation and review events of joint,
franchised and validated programmes. Further information can be obtained by
contacting the AQS team or Academic Partnerships.
3.3.2 Procedure
3.3.2.1 Preparation meeting for a validation or review
Any formal Validation or Review should be preceded by a School preparation
meeting to discuss:
 the proposal
 the timetable for preparation
 the Panel
 draft documentation (including Programme Specification - Appendix 3f)
 practical arrangements for the event.
Guidance on designing a curriculum is available in Guidance 3viii, and a template for
programme handbooks in Appendices 3i-3l.
The meeting is:
 Chaired by the relevant Deputy Dean (or nominee).
 Held far enough in advance of the formal event to allow for necessary correction
and circulation of documents.
 Attended by the key programme team members, the Officer, and any important
contributors to the programme development, whether internal or external to the
University.
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/policies/academic-quality/handbook/
updated 11Sep15
2015/16
If the event involves members too distant to attend, a telephone or other link can be
used to receive their input during the meeting.
The checklist of officer duties (see Guidance 3i) and the list of documentation (see
Guidance 3xxix) should be used as a prompt. Discussion should include the draft
agenda (Appendix 3n or 3o may be useful), timetable and practical arrangements.
Notes of the working meeting are not presented as part of the formal paperwork for
the event.
3.3.2.2 People involved in a validation or review event
The Validation of Review Panel usually comprises the following members (see
Guidance 3iii for information on the roles and responsibilities of each member, and
guidance 3xxviii for specific information for Distance Education validations):
 Officer (In the case of an enhanced validated partner event, the Officer may be a
member of staff of the partner institution)

Chair and a University representative
Please note that:
- Both should normally be a senior member of staff familiar with University
procedures.
- Either the Chair or the University Representative must have experience
of working actively with students in a learning, teaching and assessment
capacity.
- Both the Chair and the University Representative can be from the same
School as each other although every effort should be made to use a
Chair and a University Representative from different Schools
- The Chair should not be from the same School as the programme which
is being validated.
- The University Representative can be from the same School as the
programme which is being validated although he/she must be from a
different department.

Professional statutory and/or regulatory body representative(s) Co-Chair as
appropriate

One/two External Assessors using the criteria in Guidance 3v:

Student representative
See Guidance 3i for a table of panel compositions according to the type of validation
or review
In addition the following attend the Validation or Review event for meetings with the
panel:

senior School staff - the Dean of School and/or the relevant Deputy Dean (and
other(s), such as the Head of Department, as relevant). If the proposal is heavily
cross-curricular, senior staff from the other schools are also involved
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/policies/academic-quality/handbook/
updated 11Sep15
2015/16

programme team – the team usually includes: the Programme Director,
Programme Leader and members of team and the Liaison Manager from
Library and Student Services. If relevant: key technicians, administrators,
English Language Learning Support and Centre for Academic Practice
Enhancement staff, careers manager and external institutions/businesses or
other University staff
for review events, the panel will also meet with students, who should represent
a cross-section of the current cohorts including overseas campuses and where
possible, graduates of the programme
and for collaborative events
 senior staff and the Principal (or representative) of the institution (as
appropriate).
 programme Team, including the University and Institution Link Tutors.
NB For Enhanced Validated Partners, all validation and review events will be
Chaired by the University and the panel will be set up according to University
processes. The event will be managed and administered by the partner, or with
substantial administrative input from the partner.
3.3.2.3 Documentation
For a detailed explanation of each document’s contents and who has responsibility,
see Guidance 3xxix
3.3.2.4 Distribution of documentation
Documentation should be submitted to the Officer three weeks in advance of the
event. Papers are sent out two weeks before the event is to be held. The relevant
Deputy Dean or Chair may postpone the event if there is a serious delay in the
papers being distributed or if, upon receipt of the papers, they deem the
documentation to be unacceptable for the event to proceed.
A full set of papers is produced for the:
 panel
 programme leader for circulation to the programme team (as appropriate)
The agenda is sent, for information, to the:
 School Quality Enhancement Manager (Validation and Review), AQS
 Admissions Technical Development Manager
 Director of Academic Partnerships (collaborative events only)
 Regional Office, where applicable (overseas collaborative programmes only)
3.3.2.5 The validation or review event
A validation event may cover one or more programmes in cognate areas and review
events are normally arranged by cognate groups of programmes where possible. It
is important to ensure an appropriate balance between the size of the provision to
be scrutinised and the length of the validation or review in order that the panel may
have sufficient time to consider all aspects in detail.
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/policies/academic-quality/handbook/
updated 11Sep15
2015/16
A suggested agenda is available in Appendix 3n or 3o. The following is a list of
meetings which are likely to occur, but is not an agenda:
 private Panel meeting
 tour of facilities (if appropriate)
 meeting with students and graduates (for reviews)
 meeting with Senior School staff and programme teams
 further private Panel meeting
Middlesex programmes which are not taught/assessed in English must follow the
conditions listed in Guidance 5iii.
3.3.2.6 MU Overseas campuses
Where reviews include provision delivered on a Middlesex University overseas
campus, the review documentation will include the relevant campus handbook,
resource statements and staff CVs relating to the programme(s) offered at the
campus(es). A representative from each campus offering the programme(s) will be
invited to attend the review event for meetings with the panel. A video/tele
conference will take place with students and where necessary also with programme
staff.
3.3.2.7 Franchised programme reviews
For franchised programmes reviews will be held as follows:
 All franchise partners and overseas campuses will take part in the periodic
Review of the in-house programme and the event will include a resource
statement, staff CVs, representation and feedback from all partners to which the
programme is franchised, together with feedback from their students.

As well as being part of the periodic in-house review, franchise partners will also
be reviewed on their own six yearly cycle. This review will consider, as far as
practical, all franchised programmes at the partner institution, irrespective of the
University lead School.
3.3.2.8 Location
The Validation or Review will normally be held at the University for in-house
programmes, and also for franchise and joint programmes. If the Review is
conducted at the University, the Link Tutor and key staff from the partner institution
attend the event and there must be satisfactory arrangements for assessment of
student opinion of the programme.
The review of a validated collaborative programme would normally be held at the
partner.
Where a programme is running on more than one site, the review can be held at the
main partner site, but key programme and teaching staff from all sites must attend
the review event. Documentation will include resource statements from each of the
sites offering the programme. Arrangements should be made for students from all
sites to contribute to the event.
Where multi-site provision with a partner is complex, a resource visit may be
required, as determined by AQS on a case-by-case basis. This will be undertaken by
a senior member of School staff or a panel member, together with an external
assessor.
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/policies/academic-quality/handbook/
updated 11Sep15
2015/16
3.3.2.9 Franchised programmes and extended approval
The suggested agenda templates, Appendices 3n and 3o, detail consideration for all
collaborative programmes but it is necessary to note that a University programme
normally operates successfully at the University for at least two years before being
considered for franchising. Therefore at a franchised validation it is not possible to
make changes to the content of the programme which may be running elsewhere in
the UK or overseas. The event would focus much more on administrative, resourcing
and learning experience matters and should not contain conditions in relation to the
academic content of the programme.
If APAC extends approval for higher levels of a qualification, parts of which have
already been approved, a Validation could still be required (e.g. to franchise the 2nd
year of a degree programme). The Panel should ensure that approval decisions are
informed by full consideration of academic standards and the quality of the learning
opportunities. The report records issues under these areas.
3.3.2.10
Conditions, recommendations and length of approval
Once a new programme is validated, it is normally incorporated within the six-year
School review cycle, and is subject to the University monitoring and audit. However,
a panel can request a shorter period of time before review – the reasons for this
should be clearly recorded in the validation report.
The panel can set the programme team conditions and recommendations as the
outcome of the validation or review event. We define these as follows:
Condition: an important matter which the Panel believes would currently, or could
potentially, put quality and/or standards at risk and which requires urgent corrective
action or requires preventative corrective action (possibly through a longer term
condition) or is a university requirement.
Recommendation: a matter which the Panel believes has the potential, if addressed,
to enhance quality and/or further secure standards.
The possible outcomes of the event are as follows:
a. Unconditional approval (without conditions, though perhaps with
recommendations).
b. Approval subject to the meeting of conditions;
c. Approval subject to the meeting of conditions but for less than the standard 6
years;
d. Rejected and referred back for further work.
Recommendations can be for (a) to (c) above, but do not have to be met in order for
the programme to run although they do have to be considered and addressed.
Following notification of a successful validation or review event, Appendix 3u, should
be completed by the services with responsibility.
3.3.2.11
Memorandum of Cooperation for Collaborative programmes
Before a collaborative programme can be offered and students enrolled, the
Memorandum of Cooperation must be signed, with the Partnership Agreement
already having been completed and signed. This applies after both a validation
event for a new programme and a review event for a revalidated programme. Once
the conditions have been met and the Chair has signed Part A of Confirmation of a
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/policies/academic-quality/handbook/
updated 11Sep15
2015/16
Validation or Review (form 3e), the Officer will obtain a signature from the Director of
Academic Partnerships, who will sign part B to declare that all necessary parts of the
MoC have been completed and signed by both Middlesex University and the partner
institution.
The MoC, including its Administrative and Operational Annexe, is the contractual
document governing the operation and management of the programme. No
programme will be allowed to commence without a signed MoC and fully signed
Confirmation of a Validation or Review form. In the case of a revalidation, no
students can be recruited to the revalidated programme until the MoC and
Confirmation of a Validation or Review form has been signed.
Once both parts A and B of the Confirmation Form have been signed the Officer can
then circulate to those listed at the end of the Form. AQS retain a copy for University
oversight.
3.3.2.12 Validation of a resubmitted proposal
The Programme Leader acts on the action list from the referred back validation or
review event. The revised, resubmitted papers include a covering document which
lists in detail the action taken by the team to strengthen the resubmitted proposal,
including any consultancy or staff development undertaken.
The Panel for a resubmitted event should normally have one original External
Assessor and one new External Assessor and either the Chair or the University
Representative from the original event.
3.3.2.13 Non recruitment
Validation approval will lapse if a programme does not recruit for two years in
succession unless an extension is approved by APAC.
A list of programmes which have been suspended for two years will be presented to
the last School committee and APAC meeting of each academic year to confirm
whether they should be withdrawn. APAC will also agree the suspension of
programmes for specific entry points, based on application numbers
3.3.2.14
Validation of programmes to run at new sites of approved
institutions
Programme validation will be combined with site approval, involving the same team
(see section 5, 5.3.4.1). The overall purpose of validation remains as outlined in 3.13.4 and to ensure that arrangements at the new sites are sufficient for the successful
delivery of the programme(s), including ensuring that adequate programme-specific
resources are available to support the proposal;
A student handbook, CVs of staff responsible for delivery of teaching and a resource
statement should be available to the panel. The panel will ensure that arrangements
for managing multi-site delivery are appropriate to ensure comparability of the
student experience and maintain quality and standards across all sites at which
programmes are delivered.
3.3.2.15 Validation of programmes to run at approved sites of enhanced
validated partners with multi-site operations
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/policies/academic-quality/handbook/
updated 11Sep15
2015/16
For institutions with enhanced validated status operating on multiple sites, the
following process will apply for the approval of a programme to run at an approved
site, where a programme in a cognate subject area is already offered at the site:
a. Consideration and approval of the programme proposal through the relevant
School-based Committee.
b. Consideration and approval of the programme proposal from APAC.
c. Where required by APAC, a site visit will be undertaken by a member of schoolbased staff to establish the appropriateness of the resources for delivery of the
programme.
d. Documentation - Programme handbook (or programme specification and Module
Narratives), resource statement and staff CVs will be presented to an external
assessor and School subject expert for their consideration and approval, and the
outcome noted at the relevant School Committee. Where a site visit has taken
place, a report on this will be provided to the external assessor as part of the
documentation. AQS is then notified of the outcome.
e. Appendix 3e should be signed by the Chair of the School Committee and this,
together with a brief report should be sent to AQS.
Where a programme in a new subject area is to be offered, the above procedure will
apply, but a site visit will be undertaken member of school-based staff.
3.4
Validation or review by school committee
This procedure is designed for those occasions when a proposal is either small or
straightforward and may be validated by School Committee. Such occasion would be
approved by APAC. Examples of such proposals include:
 A new programme created mainly from existing University modules, or
 A change in programme status (e.g. introducing an additional or changed mode
of study).
The overall purpose of validation/review remains as outlined in 3.3 and the
documentation required is the same. The Committee meeting should include an
appropriate External Assessor (may be via correspondence) and a copy of the
minutes and an Appendix 3e should be circulated as normal.
3.5
3.5.1
Validation of programmes to be run at overseas campuses
Purpose
3.5.1.1 The procedure is designed for approving or validating programmes to run at
already approved overseas campuses.
3.5.1.2 The overall purpose of validation is to ensure that arrangements at the
overseas campus are sufficient for the successful delivery of the programme ad that
adequate programme-specific resources are available.;
3.5.2 Scope and procedures
3.5.2.1 The procedure to be followed in each case is proportionate to the potential
risk involved in programme set up, delivery and management The procedure applies
to programmes to be run at all MU overseas campuses. Procedures are as follows
based on four scenarios.
Scenario A
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/policies/academic-quality/handbook/
updated 11Sep15
2015/16
The proposed programme runs at the London campus, and there are already
programmes at the same level in the same or a cognate subject area running at the
overseas campus wanting to deliver the proposed programme;
a. Consideration and approval of the programme proposal through the relevant
School- based Committee (such as APC).
b. Consideration and approval of the programme proposal from APAC.
c. Resource requirements are provided by the London programme team to the
overseas campus.
d. Confirmation is received from the Campus Director (or nominee), who confirms
that the resources, including staffing, can be provided and staff CVs are provided
where available.
e. The confirmation is noted via the relevant School Committee, and AQS is then
notified by means of an Appendix 3e.
f. Approval lasts until the date for review of the programme as validated on the
London campus
Scenario B
The proposed programme runs at the London campus, but represents a greater level
of risk for delivery at the overseas campus. The types of risk in this category could
include – (i) there are not currently any programmes running in a cognate subject
area at the overseas campus in question (ii) the programme is at a level not currently
being delivered in a cognate subject area at that campus;(iii) the programme
requires the use of highly specialist resources or equipment which the campus does
not already have; (iv) any other risk as identified by APAC.
a. Consideration and approval of the programme proposal through the relevant
School-based Committee.
b. Consideration and approval of the programme proposal from APAC.
c. Where the risk concerns resources or if agreed by APAC, a campus visit needs
to be undertaken by member of school-based staff to establish the
appropriateness of the resources for delivery of the programme. This may be via
videoconference (see below).
d. A validation will be undertaken by the School committee. A brief Overview,
Programme handbook, resource statement and staff CVs will be provided to an
external assessor for their consideration and approval, and the outcome noted
at the relevant School Committee. Where a campus visit has taken place, a
report on this also needs to be provided to the external assessor for approval.
The School committee may choose to undertake the event via videoconference,
with the external assessor present. AQS is then notified of the outcome.
e. Appendix 3e should be signed by the Chair of the School Committee and this,
together with a brief report should be sent to AQS.
f. Approval lasts until the date for review of the programme as validated on the
London campus.
Scenario C
The proposed programme is new, and will be validated for delivery at both London
and one or more overseas campuses;
a. Consideration and approval of the programme proposal through the relevant
School Committee and then APAC.
b. Validation of the programme through the standard procedures with the following
additions: (i) the event should normally take place at the London campus; (ii) an
overseas campus resource statement. local programme handbook and staff CVs
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/policies/academic-quality/handbook/
updated 11Sep15
2015/16
to be provided in the briefing pack for the validation event; (iii) overseas campus
involvement in validation by video conferencing or in person, where appropriate
c. The approval period is agreed at validation
Scenario D
The proposed programme is new, and will be validated for delivery at an overseas
campus only. It will not be possible to undertake Scenario D validations until
APAC has determined that the campus is fully operational..
a. Consideration and approval of the programme proposal through the relevant
School Committee and then APAC.
b. Validation of the programme through the standard procedures with the following
additions: (i) the event should normally take place at the overseas campus.
c. The period of approval is agreed at validation.
3.5.3 Duration of approval
For scenarios A and B, approval lasts until the date for review of the programme as
validated on the London campus.
For Scenarios C and D, the period of approval would be agreed at validation. The
standard period of approval is 6 years, though a shorter period could be approved.
3.6
Validation and Review by Video Conferencing
3.6.1.1
In order to decide whether a collaborative review can be carried out
by video conferencing, a risk assessment will need to be completed and a decision
made by the Academic Quality Service and the School concerned.
The criteria for a decision to approve a video conferencing event would include
consideration of:
 External examiner reports
 Institutional monitoring reports
 Institutional re-approval reports
 Progression and achievement data
 Annual/Quality monitoring reports
all of which must demonstrate a low risk, for example, there should be
 Timely responses to external examiner reports that demonstrate effective
management of recommendations.
 Timely submission of the Annual Monitoring Report that demonstrates
engagement with the process, enhancement of provision and good
progression and achievement
 A low risk outcome from institutional monitoring
 A low risk outcome from institutional re-approval.
3.6.1.2 Agreement for a collaborative validation to be carried out by video
conferencing may be exceptionally allowed when the validation is for a programme
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/policies/academic-quality/handbook/
updated 11Sep15
2015/16
at an existing partner where a cognate programme, validated by Middlesex
University, is already running and where such an event has been deemed low-risk
in accordance with the criteria as set out for review above. As in the case of review,
the School concerned and the Academic Quality Service will consider the
appropriateness of each request for a validation by video conferencing.
3.6.1.3 In the event that approval is given to hold a validation or review by means of
video conferencing, it will be necessary for the link tutor or nominee approved by the
Chair, one external assessor, and at least one of the Chair, the University
Representative and the Officer to attend the overseas location in order to be
assured that all necessary resources are in place and to meet with a representative
selection of students.
3.6.1.4 Should there be more than one site of a partner which will need to be
involved in an event, it will not be possible to hold a three way video conference to
undertake the event. Both sites will need to be visited by representatives of the
panel, to be determined by the Chair, including at least one External Assessor.
3.7
3.7.1
Changes to programmes and programme titles
Flowchart
Notification to
relevant parts of
the University
APAC
Approved
Proposal
School
Committee
Title
Approved
Approved
Proposal
Proposal not
approved or Subject
to conditions
Validation
3.7.2 Purpose
The purpose of this procedure is to ensure that all changes to academic provision
validated by the University take account of internal and external requirements and
that appropriate consultation and notification takes place in the development and
approval of these changes. In addition this procedure should guard against
incremental changes to programmes, where the resulting changes are so significant
that they warrant a full Review.
3.7.3 Major changes
Major changes to programmes are those which substantially change the character of
the programme. The following changes require School and then APAC approval,
followed by a Validation/Review event:
 Changes in collaborative programme status (e.g. from franchised to validated).
 Change in mode of delivery of a programme other than to PT/FT mode, for
example adding a distance education version of the programme or delivery of the
programme in another language
 A change to the programme learning outcomes
 A change of more than 1/3 of the core/compulsory credits of a programme,(or the
optional modules of a programme where the programme learning outcomes are
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/policies/academic-quality/handbook/
updated 11Sep15
2015/16
affected), during the period of Validation involving changes to the structure (the
addition of deletion of modules) or to existing modules involving changes to
learning outcomes. The following will contribute to such a change:.
Any replacement of a core module or of an optional module where the
programme learning outcomes are affected
Any addition, removal or allocation to a different level of a core module;
Any change in the credit weighting of a core module;
Any change to the learning outcomes of a core module (with or without a change
in the title of a module);
Any change to the curriculum content of a core module other than routine
updating (with or without a change in the title of a module);
Any change in the mode of delivery of a module (e.g. from face to face to
distance learning mode)
Records should be maintained to log changes that take place during the period
of validation of a programme, to identify when the changes have affected 1/3 of
the credits of the programme.
3.7.4 Planning
The following should be consulted or notified as appropriate:
 Relevant Deputy Dean (if using their School’s module(s)).
 University/Institution Link Tutor for collaborative partner
 students via Board of Study (wherever possible other channels should be
exploited, e.g. web communication)
 External Examiners
3.7.5 Reporting and notification
The following should be notified as appropriate:
 Relevant Deputy Dean
 University/Institution Link Tutors
 Learning Resource Managers
 DE team in CAPE (if distance education elements included)
 the timetabling team
 Student Records (studentrecords@mdx.ac.uk)
 Assessment Officers (assessmentofficers@mdx.ac.uk)
 Students
 Departmental and Programme Administration Managers
3.7.6 Minor changes
The School Committee alone can approve minor changes but in collaborative
partnerships must ensure agreement of the University Link Tutor prior to
consideration of the changeAPAC must receive notification if there is any change to
the programme title.
3.8
New modules, changes to modules and module deletion
3.8.1
Flowchart
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/policies/academic-quality/handbook/
updated 11Sep15
2015/16
Relevant parts of the
University
Proposal
School
Committee
Approved
Quality Monitoring
Report
3.8.2 Purpose
The purpose of this procedure is to ensure that all changes to academic provision
take account of internal and external requirements and that appropriate consultation
and notification takes place in the development and approval of these changes.
3.8.3 Responsibility
Unlike changes to programmes, the School is entirely responsible for approving
changes to modules, new modules, and module deletions at School Committee. This
includes joint and franchised modules. . Validated programmes are required to follow
an equivalent process as set out below which must include consultation with the
University Link Tutors for major changes.
3.8.4 Major changes
Major changes are those which substantially alter the aims and learning outcomes of
a module and/or substantially affect the achievement of learning outcomes of
programmes or pathways for which the module is a constituent part. A major change
to the contents of a module or its title will require the creation of a new module code.
Detailed instructions are available on the Curriculum MISIS web pages
(http://www.intra.mdx.ac.uk/tools-resources/misis/helpfuldocuments/curriculum/index.aspx )
3.8.5 New module
The validation of a single module, either in-house or for a collaborative partner, is
undertaken by the School Committee according to the principles set out in this
procedure. The External Examiner is required to have agreed the module narrative
for both in-house and collaborative new modules Where the module is for a
collaborative partner, there should also be consultation with the Link Tutors.
3.8.6 Planning, notification and forms
The people who should be consulted and notified for major changes involving
module provision, are listed on the module change form, Appendix 3h.
3.8.7 Operational or administrative changes to modules
Certain operational or administrative module changes, while not considered major,
require appropriate consultation with, and notification to, other parts of the
University. Examples of changes are: deleting a module run, changing pre-requisites
and changing a module name or number. The relevant Deputy Dean is responsible
for ensuring that staff/students are consulted and notified.
3.8.8 Minor changes
The decision as to whether a change to a module or its title is major or minor is
subject to the approval of the relevant Deputy Dean in conjunction with the following
criteria which are deemed minor:
 Recoding of a module retaining the same content.
 Changes of a drafting nature.
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/policies/academic-quality/handbook/
updated 11Sep15
2015/16


Those required to keep academic content current.
Those enhancements of the module teaching, learning and assessment
strategies, or other assessment arrangements that are intended to improve the
quality of the student learning experience. Changes will be deemed minor
provided that the changes will not substantially alter the character of the module,
and that the module strategies and arrangements continue to accord with the
teaching, learning and assessment strategies of programmes of which the
module in question is a constituent part. Such amendments will allow for
changes in emphasis on particular teaching or assessment methods, a move
from outmoded or ineffective methods, or the introduction of new (to the module)
approaches. Comments from the External Examiner on the changes made
should also be invited and considered.
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/policies/academic-quality/handbook/
updated 11Sep15
2015/16