Section status: Updated
Introduction date: October 2015
Chapter 2. Portfolio Management



Course Development
Role of the Deans’ Forum
Course Approval (Validation)
2.1
Introduction
2.1.1
This chapter is concerned with the procedures associated with the development and
approval of new courses, from their conception to validation. The purpose of these
procedures is to ensure consistency in our practices and outcomes and in so doing to
support the development of the University’s course offering.
2.1.2
The processes set out below have been designed to promote cooperation between
Faculties and Professional Service Departments, and are based on expectations set
out in Part A and Chapter B1 of the QAA’s UK Quality Code1, as well as best practice
identified through feedback from previous University events.
2.1.3
The process of new course development and approval for collaborative partners is
similar to that of internal provision, but with some additional requirements. The
guidance below contains additional text for the proposal and validation of
collaborative provision. However, it should also be read in conjunction with Chapter
3of this manual2, and the Partnerships Operational Manual (POM)3 which provides
more operational detail, and takes into consideration Chapter B10 of the QAA’s
Quality code4.
2.2
2.2.1
The role of the Deans’ Forum: Portfolio Planning and New Course Proposals
The University’s Deans’ Forum, inter alia, considers Academic Business Cases for
new course development against the following criteria: its contribution to the
University’s Mission; market demand and its unique selling point. The Deans’ Forum
may also examine the nature and likelihood of any risks that may be posed by the
proposed development. Only when this business case approval has been granted
can a proposal move on to be considered for full academic approval.
2.2.2
The University’s planning process5 requires Faculties to submit a Portfolio Plan to the
Deans’ Forum on a cyclical basis. Portfolio Plans are considered within the context of
the University Educational Character and Mission. The development of new courses
normally emerges from the agreed Portfolio Plan.
2.2.3
For any collaborative new course proposals, the partner should first discuss these
with the relevant faculty(s). This should then be formally considered at the Faculty’s
UGPGC and, if approved, an Academic Business Case developed.
1QAA UK Quality Code - http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/quality-code/Pages/default.aspx
2 Chapter 3: Working with Others – Quality Management of Collaborative Provision
3 Partnerships Operational Manual (POM) - http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/services/quality-enhancementunit/partnership-operational-manual/
4QAA UK Quality Code Part B -http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/qualitycode-part-b
5 Further information regarding the planning process and its links with the Strategic Plan can be found in the
Briefing Paper for the 2010 QAA Institutional Audit:
https://Livelink.Londonmet.ac.uk/Livelink/livelink.exe/Open/26141886
2.2.4
In the same way as new course development, the introduction of a new mode of
study to an existing course requires business case approval by the DVC through the
Deans’ Forum (see 2.3 - Approval of the Academic Business Case).
2.3
2.3.1
The role of the Deans’ Forum: Approval of the Academic Business Case
Approval of the Academic Business Case is the first stage of academic approval. In
terms of the process, all business cases should first be considered at the Faculty
UGPG Committee before they are considered in the University’s Deans’ Forum,
chaired by the Deputy Vice Chancellor (DVC). Recommendations for approval by
the Deans’ Forum are made on the basis of the likely success of the course and its
contribution to University objectives. At this point a record of the course is captured
on University systems for the first time.
2.3.2
Academic Business Case approval is required for all University award bearing
undergraduate and postgraduate provision. All proposals must be submitted to the
Secretary of the Deans’ Forum (Portfolio Development) on a fully completed
Academic Business Case form (QEU0083)6).
2.3.3
Non-award bearing short courses are approved by the faculty and are noted at the
Deans’ Forum7. Immediately after faculty approval, the fully completed,
Short/Professional Course form (QEU0097)8 should be forwarded to the Secretary
(Part B, Portfolio Development) of the Deans’ Forum.
2.3.4
Proposals must address any resource requirements with those responsible for
providing that resource (Library Services, ISS, Estates), allowing sufficient time for
additional or specialist resources to be budgeted for and procured. Course teams
(developers/designers) are also advised to refer to the University’s Assessment
Framework and the Learning and Teaching Strategy9 for information related to
learning, teaching and assessment.
2.3.5
For collaborative partner proposals, the submission of the academic business case to
the Deans’ Forum must be accompanied by a risk assessment of the partnership
based on a formal due diligence.10 The level of due diligence required will be
dependent on whether the nature of the partnership and the status of the partner.
2.4
The role of the Deans’ Forum: course closure, zero recruitment, deferral of
start date, course title change
2.4.1
During the lifetime of a course (or sometimes during its early development) issues
may arise that require action, e.g. course closure. In such cases the relevant form
should be completed and forwarded to the Secretary (Part B, Portfolio Development)
of the Deans’ Forum to seek formal approval. The Dean of Faculty may raise the
matter directly with the DVC, however, the Secretary still requires a copy of the
6The form should be completed in consultation with relevant Professional Service Departments as indicated
7 Please see Chapter 8 (Short/Professional Course Approval Process) below
8For full details concerning non-award bearing short courses see Chapter8 below
9CELT website: http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/celt/learning-teaching-assessment/university-frameworks.cfm
10 Please see Chapter 3, paragraph 3.2.3 below for further information on due diligence
relevant completed form. The Forum also notes any matters which may have a
bearing on these decisions in general. Such requests may include (but are not
necessarily limited to) the following:






To close a course permanently (“course deletion”)11. It should be noted
that this decision may impact on the delivery of the course if taught
elsewhere through a franchise arrangement.
To close recruitment to additional applicants in the session (“course
full”)12 because student numbers will otherwise exceed the resources for
delivery.
To close recruitment to existing and additional applicants in the session
(“zero recruitment”)13 because it is not feasible for the course to run that
session, for instance due to insufficient numbers applying, insufficient
staffing (or other) resources, or inability to satisfy professional body
requirements in time. If more than one application for zero recruitment is
made in relation to the same course, it may be considered for permanent
closure
To defer the agreed start date of a course
To amend the existing title14 (any such amendment should normally be
compatible with the existing content of the course: if the application is
conditional upon an allied modification to the course content, this should be
made clear)
To amend the existing timing of recruitment (normally once or twice a
year, and occasionally less frequently)
2.4.2
The Deans’ Forum will receive reports of all such decisions (circulated to all
interested staff, and minuted for the record) which have taken place outside of the
meeting.
2.5
2.5.1
Marketing
The Academic Business Case documentation has been developed to include
sections, which proposing faculty(ies) are required to complete with relevant
information that can be used for marketing purposes should the proposal be
approved for development. As outlined in 2.2.1, key areas to be covered include the
distinctive features of the course, its unique selling point and the pattern of delivery.
Course developers are reminded to consider the impact of the student contract
where courses are advertised before being formally validated.
2.5.2
For the marketing of collaborative courses, see section 7 of the Partnerships
Operational Manual.
2.6
Prospectus
11Course Close, Zero Recruitment, Course Full Form(QEU0037) - http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/services/qualityenhancement-unit/templates--guidance/
12Course Close, Zero Recruitment, Course Full Form (QEU0037) - http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/services/qualityenhancement-unit/templates--guidance/
13 Course Close, Zero Recruitment, Course Full Form (QEU0037) - http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/services/qualityenhancement-unit/templates--guidance/
14Course Title Change form (QEU0043) - http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/services/quality-enhancementunit/templates--guidance/
2.6.1
Following approval for development, the course will be added to the University
prospectus. It is important to note that public information15 will form part of the QAA’s
Institutional Review of the University and faculties are advised to read Part C of the
UK Quality Code prior to submitting course information to the University’s External
Relations department.
2.7
2.7.1
Course Offer Database (COD)
The Course Offer Database (COD) has been developed to provide an authoritative
source of course and module information that is integrated with the University’s
website and the Student Record System, the VLE and timetabling systems.
2.7.2
Course prospectus information is added to the COD after the Academic Business
Case has been approved. Course Specifications are added following validation.
Modules are generally added following validation unless the information is required
on the website, or other systems, earlier. Course and module information is rolled
forward from year to year, and changes entered, allowing for a complete historical
record of the courses and modules offered.
2.8
2.8.1
Course Design
Documentation required for validation includes completed course (QEU0072) and
module (QEU0074) specifications. Guidance on their completion is available from
QEU0073 and QEU0075.
2.8.2
Course teams are advised to refer to the UK Quality Code - Part A: Setting and
maintaining threshold academic standards16. Course design should also take into
consideration the principles that underpin all courses, e.g. demand, flexible learning,
employer involvement in curriculum design, delivery and assessment, work-related
learning (where applicable), alignment with the Student Charter and the faculty's
assessment tariffs. In developing a course’s structure, modes of delivery (full
time/part time, extended, distance) and types of learning, including technologyenhanced learning and work-based learning (e.g. placements, projects and
internships) should also be considered. Further guidance is available in section 2.13
below.
2.8.3
For collaborative courses developed by a partner institution, the assigned Academic
Liaison Tutor and the Faculty Partnerships Manager should support the partner
course team in the design and development of new courses, to ensure guidance
from QAA’s UK Quality Code and subject benchmarks have been followed when
completing the course module specifications. The QEU and Academic Registry may
also provide support.
2.9
2.9.1
Course Validation
On behalf of the University, the QEU is responsible for a) ensuring that all courses
and modules have been approved through due process and, b) safeguarding the
15 UK Quality Code for Higher Education – Part C: Information about higher education
provisionhttp://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/Quality-Code-Part-C.aspx
16 UK Quality Code – Part A: Setting and maintaining threshold academic standards http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/quality-code/Pages/UK-Quality-Code-Part-A.aspx
accuracy of course and module titles and their content. Given this responsibility, the
QEU manages all validation events.
2.9.2
At the beginning of the process, the QEU works closely with the Faculty Quality
Representative to organise and manage the validation event. Typically the QEU will
organise the event and the Quality Representative ensures that the faculty is fully
prepared for validation. QEU also organises a pre-meeting three weeks prior to
validation to ensure that all necessary actions have taken place and that the
documentation is fit for purpose.
2.9.3
In preparing for validation, a Course Leader must be identified to take forward the
development of a course proposal. The Course Leader must oversee a course team
to ensure that the new course accords with the academic business case, meets
University documentation and regulatory requirements, and any relevant external
requirements (e.g. Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs)). The
same requirements apply to the development of collaborative courses.
2.9.4
The validation event is designed to consider a course proposal against internal
requirements and external reference points and in so doing considers matters of
design, delivery, assessment, regulation, variation (see 2.12.11) etc. The concern at
the point of validation is to confirm the quality and standards of a course and to have
assurance that it will provide students with a rigorous and worthwhile learning
experience.
Internal requirements and guidance include:
 Reference to the Academic Regulations
 Reference to the Learning & Teaching Strategy
 Reference to the Assessment Framework
 Reference to the Undergraduate or Postgraduate Framework
External requirements and guidance include:
 Reference to the UK Quality Code Part A17
 Reference to the UK Quality Code Part B, Chapters B1, B3 and B6
 Reference to the UK Quality Code Part B, Chapter B10 (collaborative
provision only)
 Reference to the Higher Education Academy18
 Reference to employers
 Reference to alumni
 Reference to PSRBs
2.9.5
For courses delivered in distance or blended learning mode (whether existing19 or
new provision) an event to approve the distance learning mode is still required. The
event should establish that: the pedagogical approach for online learning is
appropriate; that the learning materials are appropriate; that students are supported
and that regulatory and assessment issues have been satisfactorily addressed. As
17http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/quality-code/Pages/UK-Quality-Code-Part-A.aspx
18http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/
19 Distance/online/blended learning mode of delivery of any existing course requires a validation event
with any course, it is also important that, when developing the learning materials, the
Course Team(s) ensure that the student experience is not compromised by any
particular mode of learning.
2.9.6
Sub-awards as free-standing awards and top-ups
In exceptional circumstances a full validation event for sub awards as free-standing
awards or award top-ups might be considered excessive. However, there is still a
need to ensure that the award is coherent and appropriate. In such circumstances,
the course of action should be discussed with the Head of the QEU.
2.10
2.10.1
Timing
Although it is acknowledged that market demand may prompt an academic business
case and course development at short notice, for the most part it is advisable to allow
at least a year from the point of initial proposal to approval completion 20.
2.10.2
Dates for the pre-meeting and validation event should be agreed between the faculty
and QEU at the earliest opportunity. This having been done, the QEU will convene a
pre-meeting three weeks in advance of the event (see section 2.14 below) which
means that course documentation is required four weeks in advance of
validation. These timings should be factored in when considering proposing a
course at short notice.
2.10.3
As with internal validations, the date for collaborative validation events should be
agreed between the faculty, partner and QEU at the earliest opportunity. QEU will
collate the course documentation and organise the panel for the approval event
which will normally take place at the partner institution.
2.11
2.11.1
The Role of the Panel and Course Team/Faculty
The University maintains a commitment to open scrutiny through peer review by
academics principally, but also by employers, students and other stakeholders, as
appropriate. This assists the University in ensuring that its awards are comparable in
standard to that elsewhere in the sector and is a valuable method of benefiting from
the expertise and experience of others. It also facilitates enhancement and
institutional learning across the University.
2.11.2
Consistency of internal standards and the dissemination of good practice are
facilitated, inter alia, through cross-faculty participation in validation events. This type
of participation helps to ensure that the course is not scrutinised solely within the
confines of its discipline or profession.
2.11.3
For the validation of an additional distance/online/blended learning mode of delivery,
in addition to 2.9.6 above, Panel members should also consider whether the course
documentation clearly articulates how the student will be supported to ensure a
comparable student experience with on-campus provision.
20 Timing covers the proposal’s consideration at the Deans’ Forum to course being validated and set up on the
University’s systems allowing student registration and programme planning.
2.11.4
The QEU will convene a panel of peers external to the faculty in which the course(s)
is situated. The Panel will normally consist of:





2.11.5
a Chair (from a faculty other than that proposing the course)
an internal panel member (from a Faculty other than that proposing the
course) for large course clusters only
a Student Academic Representative (from a different faculty)
one or more External Advisors with subject and/or professional expertise.
Secretary (from QEU)
The Chair is responsible for coordinating and facilitating the line of questioning by
allocating areas of responsibility to Panel members during the agenda-setting premeeting period.
The Chair’s background knowledge/experience should include:
 Extensive panel experience either within the University or as an external
adviser elsewhere
 Knowledge of institutional and national quality assurance
 Knowledge of academic regulations
 Knowledge and experience of distance learning delivery (where appropriate)
The Chair’s function is to:
 Chair a pre-meeting with the faculty and the Secretary (and internal panel
member if possible) to go through the documentation, ascertain whether it is
complete and agree the agenda and any additional items to be discussed at
the validation meeting
 Guide discussion during the validation meeting, ensuring that all relevant
agenda items are covered, and that all members of the Panel contribute
appropriately
 Allocate areas of questioning to Panel members once topic areas have been
agreed
 Agree outcomes and summarise conclusions
 Confirm the validation report as accurate before it is sent out
 With the Secretary/QEU representative, identify any institutional issues raised
during the validation meeting, and ensure these are relayed to the appropriate
committee/person for information or action
 Formally sign off the revised documentation once all the conditions have been
met
2.11.6
Depending on the number of courses being validated, or the nature of the validation,
an internal panel member will be appointed. If required, they will be a:




Senior member of another faculty or
Senior member of CELT or
Senior member of Academic Registry or
Senior member of QEU.
Also, where possible, the internal panel member should not be from the same faculty
as the Chair.
The internal panel member’s background knowledge should include:
 Extensive knowledge of the relevant University Framework requirements
(UG/PG) and requirements of the relevant level of the Framework for
National Qualifications and/or benchmark statements and descriptors
 Knowledge of national quality assurance requirements, and quality
management within the University
 Knowledge of the University Academic Regulations
 Knowledge and experience of distance learning delivery (where
appropriate)
The internal panel member’s function is to:
 Attend the pre-meeting if possible
 Follow the line of questioning assigned by the Chair
 Ensure compliance of the course(s) with the appropriate framework and
academic regulations and protocols
 Pay particular attention to the application of the quality assurance
processes by the course teams
 Contribute to the summarising of the debate
2.11.7
The External Advisors will be appointed by the QEU based on nominees put forward
by the course team by completing the appropriate nominee form (QEU0013). Ideally
two External Advisers will be appointed, one of which should have recent experience in
an area of employment, industry, commerce or a profession relevant to the course. To
ensure autonomous and impartial scrutiny of the course(s) being validated, External
Advisors should not have been associated with the University within the last five
years. It is strongly advised that External Advisors are not former employees of the
University.
2.11.8
Where distance/online/blended learning mode is to be introduced to an existing
course, provided s/he has appropriate experience of the development and/or
management of distance learning provision, consideration would be given to the use of
the course’s existing external examiner for the purpose of approval.
2.11.9
External participation is important for ensuring that courses are designed, developed,
approved and reviewed in the light of independent advice and for ensuring both
transparency of process and confirmation of standards. Such external participation
provides assurance at various levels: to the team delivering the course and to the
University in monitoring the independence and objectivity of decisions taken under its
procedures; to its students; and to any reviewers who may carry out reviews/audits
that are external to the University’s own processes.
The External Advisor’s background knowledge should include:
Extensive knowledge of:
 The subject area (including subject benchmarks)
 The relevant industry
 QAA/quality assurance
 Experience and/or management of Distance learning provision (where
appropriate)
The External Advisor’s function is to:
 Provide an independent external view of the course(s)
 Advise the Panel on any necessary revisions to course or module content
or assessments (including weighting, type of assessment, and frequency
of assessment)
 Contribute to the summarising of the debate
2.11.10
A student Academic Representative (StAR) will be appointed to the Panel by the
QEU, in keeping with the University’s commitment to its students to take deliberate
steps to engage students in its quality management processes. The StAR will be
from a faculty other than that in which the course is situated and will be a full member
of the validation panel.
The Student Academic Representative’s background knowledge should
include:
 University’s validation and review processes
 Understanding of Higher Education
The Student Academic Representative’s function is to:
 Provide a student view of the course(s)
 Share his/her experience of the potential resource implications
 Advise on the impact of the mode of delivery and assessment methods
 Explore issues of employability in relation to the course(s)
 Contribute to the summarising of the outcome
2.11.11
The Secretary to the validation event will normally be the QEU Quality Officer.
The Secretary’s background knowledge includes:
 Extensive knowledge of the University’s validation and review processes
 Extensive knowledge of the UK Quality Code
The Secretary’s function is to advise the Panel on the review process and the
UK Quality Code and, in addition, to:
 Arrange the pre-meeting and validation event
 Ensure that all members of the Panel and course team have access to the
relevant information (time, date, location and purpose of meeting)
 Ensure the faculty provide validation documentation in good time for
circulation to the Panel. This would include background information (brief
rationale, employability strategy, assessment tariffs); Course and Module
Specifications, Academic CVs of the course team, exemplars of online
activities and learning and teaching materials for at least one core module
and, where necessary, a resources statement. In addition, the Secretary must
prepare a briefing note for the Panel and other standard information
 During the meeting, ensure that the validation procedure (as outlined in the
briefing note) is followed








2.11.12
The course team/Faculty is required to:






2.12
2.12.1
During the meeting, prompt the Chair when necessary regarding areas of
questioning which may have been overlooked or not discussed thoroughly
Ensure that an accurate record of conditions and recommendations is made,
and agreed with the Chair, prior to the end of the meeting
Produce and circulate an outcomes report detailing conditions and
recommendations, where possible, within two working days of the meeting
Produce and circulate a full report, highlighting particular points of discussion,
within three weeks of the meeting
With the Chair, identify any institutional issues raised in the validation
meeting, and ensure these are relayed to the appropriate committee/ person
for information or action
Obtain the revised documentation (where relevant), check conditions have
been met, and meet with the Chair for final confirmation
Inform the faculty that the conditions have been met, or not (and if not, to
provide guidance on which areas need further work)
Forward the final documentation to the Academic Registry, to be stored in the
approved area of Livelink
Produce accurate and timely validation documentation, including background
information (Business Case, employability strategy, assessment tariffs);
Course and Module Specifications; Academic CVs; Module Mapping (see
5.12.9)
Provide a demonstration of the online platform to be used, plus exemplars of
online activities and learning and teaching materials for at least one core
module for distance learning courses
Attend a pre-meeting arranged by the QEU
Distribute the documentation to all members of the course team, and pass all
documentation on to the Secretary for distribution to the Panel
Have knowledge of relevant quality assurance procedures (both from the
University, and nationally).
Follow up on conditions and recommendations and report progress to the
Faculty Quality Representative
Course Approval Documentation
The most up-to-date templates, forms and guidance are stored on Livelink and are
accessible through the QEU’s Templates, Forms and Guidance web page21. Only
those course and module specifications submitted on the most up-to-date
templates will be accepted.
Background Information
21Documentation submitted on out-of-date templates will not be accepted.
2.12.2
To help the validation panel understand the course within the context of the faculty
portfolio, the course team(s) is advised to provide the panel with background
information that should include specific reference to the market demand,
employability strategy and alignment with the appropriate faculty assessment tariff.
Background information need be no more than one page in length or could form part
of a presentation given by the course team at the beginning of the event with prior
agreement from the Chair.
2.12.3
Where a new mode of delivery is being introduced to an existing course (distance
learning, block, mixed mode etc.), the background information mentioned in 2.12.2
above should include how the proposed new mode supports and maps to the existing
course.
2.12.4
Course Specification(s)
A course specification (QEU0072) is required for each award. It must be completed
in full22 and any fields not relevant must be indicated as such. Where alternative
interim award titles are possible (subject to approval by the DVC, through the Deans’
Forum), required module combinations should be specified23.
2.12.5
With the exception of the JACS code, which can be obtained from the Office of
Institutional Effectiveness (OIE), course and module coding should be obtained
through the Academic Systems and Information Office (Academic Registry) by the
Faculty Quality Representative.
2.12.6
When drafting a course specification course teams should refer to the University’s
current Assessment and Undergraduate/Postgraduate/Research Frameworks.
2.12.7
When validating a course with a distance learning mode, a separate course
specification is required. Although the intended learning aims and outcomes will
match those of the course delivered under the standard mode, the specification will
need to be written in such a way as to articulate the requirements, experience,
assessment strategy, and progression of a student whose main/only access to the
University is through the virtual learning environment.
2.12.8
2.12.9
Module Specifications
As with the course specification, module specifications (QEU0074) must be completed
in full using the module specification guidance notes (QEU0075). Existing modules,
which are also delivered on other courses, should be presented as 2.12.1 above, and
can only be viewed in the context of its/their appropriateness to the course being
validated. Should the course team wish to make changes to an existing multivalent
module, please refer to guidance in the modification process in Chapter 5
Course teams should provide a module map to show how modules fit within the
faculty’s portfolio and where they are multivalent or straddle more than one faculty.
Course teams are also advised to provide a map of assessments to assure the
validation panel that the course team has avoided assessment bunching.
22 Note: This information will be entered directly onto the system when the COD has been fully integrated.
23 Guidance on completing the course specification (QEU0073) can be found on Livelink, through the QEU’s
web pages.
2.12.10
2.12.11
2.12.12
2.12.13
With regard to courses delivered by distance/online/blended learning, separate
specifications must be provided for each module delivered in this mode. This is to
ensure that there is no confusion on the expectation and requirements of a student
and, given their chosen mode of study, how it is intended they are to engage with and
be assessed on each module. Further information and support on developing
materials for distance learning can be obtained through the CELT 24.
Variations
There are occasions when a course team may require a variation from the
University’s Undergraduate/Postgraduate Framework or standard Academic
Regulations. All requests for variation from the Undergraduate or Postgraduate
Frameworks must be submitted to the Head of QEU with a full account of, and
rationale for, the proposed variation, for approval by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.
Variation to the Academic Regulations will require consultation with an appropriate
senior member of Academic Registry.
Academic Staff CVs
Academic CVs for all members of the course team should be made available for
consideration at the validation event. The CV should state the member of staff’s
academic title, name, relevant qualifications, current post, relevant experience,
research activity, and publications.
Additional Documentation for Collaborative Events
In addition to the documentation noted above, the course team/partner must also
provide a draft course handbook (based on the University’s template) for each
collaborative course being validated.
2.12.14
The partner must also provide a resource statement for the event to provide assurance
to the Panel that there are sufficient resources to deliver the course and support the
student experience.
2.13
Guidance Materials (including Undergraduate and Postgraduate Framework
requirements)
The following web links provide access to templates and guidance materials for
course developers.
2.13.1
Undergraduate, Postgraduate, and Research Frameworks
http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/services/quality-enhancement-unit/quality-assurance-atthe-university/
Module and Course Specification Guidance
http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/services/quality-enhancement-unit/templates--guidance/
University Assessment Framework
http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/celt/resources-and-policies/university-assessmentframework.cfm
University Academic Regulations
http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/academic-regulations/
Academic Year Plan & Course Structures (see appendix)
24 CELT E-Learning Team - http://metranet.londonmet.ac.uk/celt/contact-celt/celt-eteam.cfm
Staff Guides
a. Teaching and Assessment for Student Engagement
http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/celt/learning-teaching-assessment/staff-guidesresources.cfm
b. Quick Guide to Blended Learning
http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/celt/teachingandlearning/staff-guides-to-goodpractice/staff-guides-to-good-practice_home.cfm
c. Embedding Employability in the Curriculum
https://intranet.londonmet.ac.uk/studentservices/careers/universitystaff/employability/employability_home.cfm
d. Minimum Standards on Digital Learning & Teaching
http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/celt/teachingandlearning/staff-guides-to-goodpractice/staff-guides-to-good-practice_home.cfm
e. Library Services Quick Guide to Compiling Module Resource Lists
http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/fms/MRSite/psd/ls/general/Quick%20Guide%20-%20Re
source%20Lists%20June%2023%20draft.pdf
f. Library Services Quick Guide to Embedding Information Literacy in Your Modules
http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/fms/MRSite/psd/ls/general/Quick%20Guide%20IL.pdf
2.13.2
The table below sets out the standard Undergraduate Framework requirements.
Undergraduate
Framework
Range of
Awards
Award Titles
Credit
Architecture
Standard
Requirement
BA/BSc/BEd/BEng/LLB with Honours – 360 Credits
BA/BSc Unclassified/non-Honours Degree – 300 Credits
Certificate of Higher Education – 120 Credits
Diploma of Higher Education – 240 Credits
Foundation Degree – 240 Credits
MEng, or similar Integrated Masters award – 480 Credits
Preparatory:
 Certificates – 60 Credits
 Diplomas – 120 Credits
viii.
Work-Based Learning Awards:
 Certificate (45 credits at level 4)
 Intermediate Diploma (45 credits at level 5)
 Diploma (45 credits at level 6)
Standard format e.g. BA/BSc (Hons) award name
Level 4 4 x 30-credit modules (all core)
No variation
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
Level 5
Level 6
Teaching
Pattern
Level 4
Level 5
Level 6
No variation
Variation permitted (within subject discipline) if:
I. PSRB requirement - must be documented
4 x 30-credit
or
3 x 30-credit modules plus II. Level 6 top-up for international students where 15-credit modules
are credible currency – must be evidenced
modules
2 x 15 credit modules
III.
Strong pedagogic case for non-standard delivery – must be
4 x 30-credit
or
3 x 30-credit modules plus
supported by external examiner or equivalent
modules
2 x 15 credit modules
No multiples other than 15 and 30 credits shall be considered
No variation
4 x 30-credit modules over 30 weeks (simultaneous
delivery)
4 x 30-credit
or
3 x 30-credit modules plus The following variations may be permitted (within subject discipline)
modules over 30
2 x 15 credit modules
I. 30-credit modules delivered over 15 weeks for short course
weeks
each over 15 weeks
deliver/repeat delivery/accelerated offering – must be evidenced
(sequentially)
II. 15-credit modules delivered over 30 weeks e.g. where there is
evidence that long periods of reflection or short iterative delivery
4 x 30-credit
or
3 x 30-credit modules plus
are appropriate
modules over 30
2 x 15 credit modules over
III. Level 4 January Start (January-September) – must be supported
weeks
15 weeks (sequentially)
by business case
IV. Accelerated delivery (summer period) – must be supported by
business case
V. Co- and pre-requisites – case must be made and supported by
compelling evidence
Undergraduate
Framework
Standard
Requirement
Exceptionally, 15-credit modules may be delivered simultaneously
- case must be made and supported by compelling evidence
I. Faculty approved subject discipline tariff is to be provided
II. Course specification assessment schedule shall demonstrate a
careful distribution of assessment with no more than two pieces of
assessment required in any one week
III. Course teams must describe how feedback will be delivered
VI.
Learning and
Teaching
Strategy
(including
Assessment)
Active engagement of students via integrated learning
development, enabling student transitions across all levels of
study, and enhancement of blended learning;
Assessment shall be balanced across the delivery of the module to
facilitate a manageable spread of assessment for students and
staff;
Feedback shall be constructive and timely, in both written and oral
modes, to enhance student learning and satisfaction;
Assessment may be submitted online, as appropriate
Employability
Employability shall be embedded within core modules25
Student
Choice/
Optional
Modules:
No option at Level 4
Part-time study
Project
Part-time course structure to be provided
Mandatory project or equivalent, based on a significant piece of
self-directed study, where the teaching is supervisory.
Condonement
Level 4
Level 5 and Level 6: Subject disciplines are required to provide a
list of Extension of Knowledge (EoK) modules and to indicate
where the Recognition of Work (RoW) module is situated (if part
of the course structure)
Level 5
25 See Subject Discipline statement on employability
I. Employability may be identified as: placement learning;
volunteering; industrial speakers etc. – no one approach is
preferred
II. Employability may be identified within optional or co-curricular
activities
I. For levels 5 and 6, course teams must demonstrate that the core
modules meet the appropriate subject benchmark statement (see
link below) otherwise, courses are not restricted in the number or
credit value of the optional modules
II. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-qualitycode/subject-benchmark-statements
Lists of options (including RoW or EoK) must be produced for each
course
Part-time study is normally 60 credits and no more than 90 credits
a) Identified module at Level 6 to enable students to initiate and carry
out a project/dissertation/artefact/product/performance or
equivalent
b) May be identified as 15 or 30 credit module
90 credits attained at 40% or above
Up to 30 credits with 25-39%
30 credits with 25-39% across Levels 5 and 6
Undergraduate
Framework
Credit Levels
2.13.3
Standard
Requirement
Level 6
Level 4: 120 credits
Level 5: 120 credits
Level 6: 120 credits
No variation
Up to 30 credits at either Level 4 or Level 6
Up to 30 credits at Level 5 (in addition to Level 6 modules)
The table below sets out the standard Postgraduate Framework requirements.
Postgraduate
Framework
Range of
Awards
Standard
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Award Titles
Credit
Architecture
Teaching
Pattern (full
time)
Requirement
Professional Doctorate – 540 Credits
Masters Degree (awards include MA, MSc, MBA, LLM, Med, MPA, M. Ent and may be
designated as ‘by project’ where a minimum of 90 credits is in respect of artefact or
portfolio-based submission) – 180 Credits
Postgraduate Diploma – 120 Credits
Postgraduate Certificate – 60 Credits
Standard format e.g. MA/MSc award name
Level 7
Postgraduate Certificate
Level 8
PG Cert/
Dip/
Masters
Autumn
Entry
Spring
Entry
DProf
3 x 20-credit modules
Postgraduate Diploma
Masters Degree
Professional Doctorate
6 x 20-credit modules
6 x 20-credit modules plus 1 x 60-credit
dissertation/project module
Professional Doctorate
Year 1
Year 1
Autumn term Spring term
18 x 20-credit modules
Year 1
Year 2
Summer
Autumn
term
term
60 credits
(project)
60 credits
-
60 credits
-
60 credits
Year 2 Spring term
-
60 credits
(project)
Typically two years in full-time mode. The doctoral stage may be organised on a
modular basis comprising taught, professional and research elements, or on a
supervision-only basis more akin to a traditional research PhD. Taught elements
may be delivered on a semester basis but it may be more appropriate to consider
intensive block delivery. Where there are taught elements and/or modules, the
Programmes may be specifically designed to serve
the Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
market. This enables students to be recruited onto
specified PG Certificate and PG Diploma pathways to
open access to those who meet the requirements but
may not wish to undertake a full Masters degree from
the outset. The PG Certificate and PG Diploma entry
routes (rather than simply exit awards) should be
specified at validation.
No variation
The following variations may be permitted:
I. At PG Cert/PG Dip/Masters level, 1 x 20-credit
module at Level 6 may be substituted
II. Whilst 20-credit modules are the standard, any
combination of 10-, 20-, 30-, or 40- credit
modules may be used.
The following variations may be permitted:
I.
Non-standard, non-semester-based delivery is
allowed where there is a clear market need
(e.g. intensive blocks of delivery for CPDbased provision)
II.
Variation from the Spring entry patters can be
considered where there is a strong academic,
professional or vocational rationale
Postgraduate
Framework
Learning and
Teaching
Strategy
(including
Assessment)
Standard
Requirement
course-specific regulations must specify whether these are compulsory and need
to be passed in order for a student to satisfy the requirements for the award.
Modules may be offered in a variety of modes of delivery, including campus-based, online and
work-based learning (e.g. placements, projects and internships) and using web-based and
digital technologies to enable flexible learning (place, pace and mode) and to enhance teaching,
learning and feedback.
Where there may be distinct markets for a particular programme, course designers may wish to
consider validating some modules in alternative modes e.g. distance learning or work-based as
well as campus-based.
Research
Methods
The teaching, learning and assessment strategies should enable progressive student
development throughout the course
All Masters courses should include appropriate project preparation and research methods
training which should carry a minimum of 20 credits at Level 7.
If appropriate, generic research methods modules may be developed by subject groups,
Schools or Faculties.
As part of project preparation, course teams should ensure students are aware of the
University’s guidelines on ethical research practice and, where appropriate, have obtained
ethical approval prior to embarking on their project.
Student Choice/
Optional
Modules
All courses should have a specified set of core modules to ensure disciplinary coherence, but
can include a mix of core and optional modules. Specifying a list of options from which students
must choose can help to maintain course integrity
The PG Framework promotes sharing of modules across courses, with modules available as
core or options to students from courses in cognate disciplines as appropriate (subject to
restrictions justified in terms of curriculum coherence, PSRB requirements, student competence
and/or efficient use of resources).
Student
Experience
Personal development is an important part of the student experience, providing an opportunity
for students to plan their learning goals and reflect on their achievements, and can be
embedded within the activities and assessments on the course in a variety of ways appropriate
to the subject area (e.g. learning journals, e-portfolios, annotated sketchbooks, casebooks, skills
audits, reflective commentaries).
Student support is an integral part of taught provision and is likely to include faculty-based
Personal Tutor Schemes alongside more course-specific arrangements. One element which will
be common to all Masters courses is the provision of academic supervision for the project
element of the course. Course leaders should ensure that the best possible arrangements are in
Research methods may be delivered in a stand-alone
module, integrated into a larger module, or split with
a 10-credit stand-alone module and the other 10
credits integrated into a larger module. However,
where it is integrated into other modules, it must be
clearly identifiable.
Postgraduate
Framework
Part-time study
Accreditation of
Prior Learning
(APL)
Project
Standard
Requirement
place for this and that each student has regular and appropriate access to a named project
supervisor. The amount of supervisory contact time may vary according to different subject
discipline norms, but there is an expectation that Masters students will receive at least 4 hours
contact as a minimum.
Delivery patterns for part-time programmes of study can be quite flexible, but normally comprise
between 20-40 credit points for any semester (or summer studies period if appropriate). A parttime student will receive project supervision across a 30 week period and will hand in at the
submission point following this.
Accreditation of prior certificated learning (APCL) and/or accreditation of prior experiential
learning (APEL) may be granted for up to two thirds of the required credits for a postgraduate
award, with three conditions:
(i) APL cannot be given for any part of the project element of a Masters award;
(ii) where APL is given for a PG Certificate course, the remaining credits to be taken
cannot be at Level 6;
(iii) APL cannot be given for a Level 6 module which has contributed to their UG award.
The minimum amount of APL credit that may be given to an individual student is equivalent to
one module within the programme.
APL may be claimed against specific modules or against overall course learning outcomes and
may include recognition of relevant learning acquired from the workplace, PSRBs, CPD courses
and employers’ in-house courses. APEL claims may be made via oral presentation as well as by
written submission, in accordance with University guidelines on APL.
Mandatory dissertation or project-based element normally worth 60 credits. Where a course is
proposed for the award of MA or MSc with the designation “by project”, the module or modules
that constitute it should contain at least 90 credits.
A variety of means (e.g. enterprise activity, live projects with industry mentors, work-based pilot
projects) and formats (e.g. report, portfolio, journal article, website or artefact plus analytical
commentary) may be employed.
Students will normally be expected to have attended and submitted assessments for all the
taught modules before completing the project.
The University sets three standard dates for project submission within the academic year (end of
Autumn semester, end of Spring semester, end of Summer studies period in September).
Professional Doctorate: The nature of the output will depend on the discipline and may typically
comprise a portfolio of outputs with an accompanying critical commentary. The doctoral output
Pre-entry/bridging courses, aimed at helping
applicants to meet the entry requirements and/or
prepare them for particular aspects of the
programme, can be considered to enhance access to
provision. Such courses may be designed specifically
for this purpose or draw on existing modules or presessional courses. Such courses should be specified
at validation, either as an integral part of the
programme or as a possible entry route.
Can be 1 x 60-credit module, or may be split into
smaller credit units if there are distinct parts to the
project which are assessed separately (e.g. practicebased and research-based) as long as they are
clearly identifiable as constituting the project element
of the course.
Postgraduate
Framework
Standard
should enable students to demonstrate a detailed understanding of applicable techniques for
advanced academic enquiry, and the creation and interpretation of new knowledge through
original research or other advanced scholarship which is at the forefront of their academic
discipline or area of professional practice.
Requirement
2.14
2.14.1
Validation Pre-meeting
The purpose of the pre-meeting is to ensure that the validation documentation is
accurate and complete prior to dispatch to External Adviser(s). At the meeting the
Chair employs the validation checklist (QEU0028) to ensure that all issues are
addressed. It is also the point at which the agenda and attendance list are
finalised26. Documentation for the pre-meeting should be forwarded to the QEU
Secretary a week in advance of the meeting to allow time for circulation to the
internal panel members for scrutiny.
2.14.2
Attendees at the pre-meeting include the Chair, internal panel member, Secretary
(and possibly other QEU staff) and representatives from the faculty and course
teams (relevant Dean/Associate Dean, Faculty Quality Representative, Course
Leader designate, and Module Leaders). The Secretary must be informed, in good
time prior to the meeting, as to who will be attending from the faculty so that a
suitable meeting room can be arranged.
2.15
2.15.1
Validation Event
To recap, following approval of the Academic Business Case (see 2.2 above), the
date for the validation event is agreed between the faculty and the QEU and the
event managed by the QEU.
2.15.2
One of the key functions of the validation event is to confirm that courses are of
an appropriate standard in comparison with comparable provision elsewhere in
the UK and that there is demonstrable cognisance of the QAA’s UK Quality
Code27, and/or identified best practice within the sector. Bearing this in mind, the
Panel is asked to consider the areas set out below. Indicative agenda items are:









the design principles underpinning the course
the use of the QAA’s UK Quality Code in the design of the award
alignment with the University’s undergraduate/postgraduate framework
the definition and appropriateness of standards in accordance with the
level and title of the award
the contents of the course and module specifications
the learning materials for distance/online delivery/blended learning (for
distance/online/blended learning only)
the resources necessary to support the course
the nature of the learning opportunities offered by the course
the relationship between the curriculum and current research
Additionally for collaborative validations the panel should consider:
 management and operation of University link and future delivery
26 Note: External Advisers may request adjustments to the agenda at any point
27 Useful reference sites:
Academic Infrastructure – introduction
 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/AcademicInfrastructure/Pages/default.aspx
Academic Infrastructure – UK Quality Code
 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/quality-code/Pages/default.aspx
Academic Infrastructure – Subject Benchmark Statements
 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/subject-benchmark-statements
Academic Infrastructure – Framework for Higher Education Qualifications
 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/publications/information-and-guidance/publication/?PubID=2718
Discussion paper on Doctoral descriptors
 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/characteristics-statements
 future student recruitment targets at the partner institution
 current provision and future plans for staff, and other resources at the
partner institution
 the partner institution’s staff recruitment and staff development
(including staff stability, teaching load, experience of teaching, research,
industry, consultancy)
 partner’s Quality Assurance processes
 course management at the partner institution
 liaison between partner and University
 student experience at the partner institution
 marketing in conjunction with the University
 teaching resources at the partner institution
 accommodation resources at the partner institution
 research, staff development and professional liaison at the partner
institution and in conjunction with the relevant faculty(ies)
2.16
2.16.1
Validation Outcomes
At the end of the meeting the Panel must agree on one of three outcomes: the
course(s) is approved; the course(s) is approved subject to one or more
conditions; the course(s) is referred back to the faculty for further
development/reconsideration. The Panel may also suggest recommendations to
the course team that might improve the current or future delivery of the course.
The Panel will specify the date by which any conditions must be met, and the
course team must respond to the conditions by this date.
2.16.2
The Secretary normally produces the outcomes report within two working days of
the validation event. The outcomes report details the conditions for action, the
deadline for completion and any recommendations..
2.16.3
The Secretary normally produces a full report within three weeks of the validation
event. The full report, which should also be confirmed by the Chair, should contain
the key points discussed, and is circulated to the course team and submitted to the
Faculty UGPG Chair for noting at the subsequent Faculty UGPG Committee.
2.16.4
Having addressed any conditions set by the Panel and considered any
recommendations, revised documentation for both on-campus and collaborative
courses should be forwarded to the Secretary to the event who will then consult
the Chair for formal sign off.
2.16.5
Following the Chair’s final sign-off, email confirmation, containing the final
approved specifications will be circulated to key staff to ensure that relevant
systems can be updated. This confirmation of final approval will enable delivery of
the course(s).
2.16.6
In addition to the email confirmation mentioned above, collaborative partners will
be notified through formal correspondence once the relevant contracts have been
agreed and signed.
2.16.7
Approval for on-campus provision is granted for an unlimited time: however,
periodic review is recommended after a period of 5 years.
2.16.8
Approval of collaborative provision is granted for 3 years in the first instance
and thereafter after 5 years, unless the panel stipulates a more immediate review.
2.17
2.17.1
Costs for Collaborative Validations
Collaborative approval events involve the setting up of a panel with appropriate
expertise. In normal circumstances the event is held at the partner institution
which allows the approval panel to assess the premises’ infrastructure and
learning resources in terms of suitability for the delivery of the course in question,
where the additional costs of travel and accommodation are incurred. To be able
to meet the additional expenses involved in visiting partner premises, the partner
is charged a fixed institutional approval/review fee and the associated costs for
the event.
2.18
2.18.1
Validation Follow-up
Recommendations should be addressed in the subsequent Course Log and
reported to the Faculty UGPG Committee where the faculty should reflect on
lessons learned and promote any identified good practice.
2.19
2.19.1
Course Development and Validation Process Diagrams
From Course Design to Validation
New Course
Proposal
1. Faculty
Portfolio
Development
2. Drafting of
Academic
Business
Case
Academic
Business Case
Approval
3. Approval
of the
Academic
Business
Case
through the
Deans'
Forum
Marketing and
Prospectus
Course Offer
Database
7. Panel and
documentatio
n confirmed
4. Marketing
6. COD
5.
Prospectus
Course
Validation
8. PreMeeting
9. Validation
event
10. Outcome
and follow-up
2.19.2
Outline approval process
Market
research
and
course
developm
ent
QEU
validation
schedule
Marketing
and
prospectu
s
informatio
n drafted
Course Offer
Database
(initial entry)
Outline
approval
by DVC notificati
on to key
staff
2.19.3
Academic
Business
Case
submitted
to the
Deans’
Forum
Deans’
Forum
considera
tion
Course validation process
Outcome
s and
follow-up
Validatio
n timing
to be
agreed
Course Offer
Database
definitive
course
information
Validation
event
Premeeting
Panel
convened
Document
ation
prepared
2.19.4 Key Points Course Development and Approval
Action
Process
Responsibility
New areas identified
for portfolio
development
1.
Portfolio Planning
Subject head/Leaders
2.
Portfolio plan submitted to Deans’ Forum
Dean of Faculty
New Course Proposal
1.
Prepare ABC (QEU0083) for
consideration at the Faculty’s UGPGC
2.
Forward Faculty UGPGC approved ABC
to the Dean for Faculty Approval
Forward faculty approved ABC to the
Secretary (Part B Portfolio Development)
for consideration at the next Deans’
Forum
Prepare due diligence and risk
assessment for collaborative proposal – to
be submitted to the Deans’ Forum with the
ABC
DVC, as Chair of the Deans’ Forum,
confirms the decision on academic
proposals
Formal record of Deans’ Forum decisions
circulated to key University staff
Course advertised as subject to validation
Faculty course team
Faculty Partnership
Manager
Partner / ALT
Faculty UGPGC Chair
Deans’ Forum
approval to develop
course(s)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Marketing
1.
2.
3.
Validation timeline
1.
2.
3.
Course development
and design
1.
2.
Faculty to ensure appropriate text is
provided in order to market the course
Ensure draft key information set data is
available for undergraduate courses
QEU and faculty to agree schedule of
events for the academic year
Documentation for the pre-meeting to
be with the Secretary no later than one
week before the meeting.
Ensure all validations are signed off by the
beginning of June for commencement in
the preceding year
Draft course (QEU0072) and module
(QEU0074) specifications using the latest
templates.
As appropriate for online delivery, also
develops learning materials
Dean of Faculty
QEU
DVC/Chair of the Deans’
Forum
Secretary (Part B:
Portfolio Development)
External Relations
(Marketing)
Faculty Quality Rep/
Course team
Course team
QEU and Faculty Quality
Rep/Faculty Partnership
Manager
Faculty Quality Rep / ALT/
Partnership Manager
QEU
Course Team (with
support from the Faculty
(ALT/Partnerships
Manager) for collab
courses)
Course Team (with
support from the Faculty
(ALT/Partnerships
Manager) for collab
courses) with support from
the CELT Team
3.
Action
Validation
Documentation
Responsibility
4.
Faculty Quality Rep/
Academic Planning and
Information
Course Team (with
support from the Faculty
(ALT/Partnerships
Manager) for collaborative
courses)
Faculty/Course team
1.
3.
1.
2.
Validation Premeeting
1.
2.
Validation Event
Course Team / Faculty
Quality Rep
Process
2.
Panel Membership
Ensure compliance with: UG/PG
academic Framework; National FHEQ;
QAA Subject Benchmark Statements;
Masters Degree Characteristics etc.
Seek course and module codes from
Academic Systems and Information,
Academic Registry
Faculty approved course (QEU0072) and
module (QEU0074) specifications using
the latest templates
Provide a summary of background
information outlining rationale behind the
proposal
Collaborative Courses
Provide a resource statement and draft
course handbook using University
templates)
Appoint members, from a Faculty other
than that proposing the course, and from
each other, of the Validation Panel.
Nominate appropriate external subject
specialists and appropriate
profession/industry expert(s) (QEU0013)
who have not been associated with the
University within the last five years.
Technical read-through and checklist28 of
documentation to identify any (potential)
issues, before it is circulated to external
panel members.
Agree an indicative agenda and specify all
attendees enabling the secretary to
organise an appropriate venue and
catering.
3. Collaborative Courses
Arrange venue and other logistics for the
event
4.Following the pre-meeting, any required
changes to the documentation should be made
immediately, with revised documentation
being submitted no later than two weeks prior
to the main validation event
1. Event secretary collates the
documentation into one bound document
and circulates to Panel members. An
electronic version, and up to a maximum
Partner course team with
support from the Faculty
(ALT/Partnerships
Manager)
QEU
Course team/faculty
Chair, Secretary, Faculty
UGPGC Chair, Course
Leader(s),
ALT/Partnerships
Manager
Chair, event secretary,
and faculty/course team
Event secretary
(QEU)( with support from
ALT/Partnersip Manager)
Course team
Event secretary
28 QEU0028 Validation and Review Checklist https://livelink.londonmet.ac.uk/livelink/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objaction=overview&objid=27801189
of ten bound copies of the document will
be provided for the faculty
Action
Process
Responsibility
2.
The panel and course
team
3.
Validation Outcomes
1.
2.
3.
Approval / Sign-off
1.
2.
3.
4.
Costs for
collaborative events
1.
Scrutiny of the proposed course
documentation and, as appropriate,
demonstration of the VLE platform for
online/distance learning courses to ensure
that the course is of an appropriate
standard, fit for purpose, and aligns with
the UK Quality Code.
Consider the required and available
resources for delivering the course, which
includes a tour of facilities for all
collaborative events, and as appropriate
for internal events.
Produce a formal record of the event
which will result in one of three possible
outcomes: approval without conditions;
approval with condition (to be addressed
before final approval can be granted);
referral back to the faculty for
reconsideration/further development
Address any conditions set by the given
deadline.
Recommendations to be considered at the
earliest Faculty UGPG Committee and
addressed, through the annual monitoring
cycle, in the course log.
Forward final revised documentation, and
confirm update of VLE content, including a
statement on how the conditions have
been met, to the event secretary.
Event secretary liaises with the Chair to
ensure any conditions set have been
addressed and to arrange formal sign off.
Circulate the confirmation email to key
staff within the University with attached
final approved course documentation to
Academic Planning and Information for
storing centrally.
Outcomes of all validation events will
be reported to the University’s
Undergraduate and Postgraduate
Committee (UGPGC) on an annual basis.
Cost of panel, travel and accommodation
The Panel with course
team/partner
representation
Event secretary (QEU)
Course team
Course team, Faculty
UGPGC Chair, and PEM
Chair
Course team, through
Faculty Quality Rep and/
or Faculty UGPGC Chair
Event secretary and Chair
Event secretary
QEU
Collaborative
partner/Faculty