HANDBOOK A TO ACCOMPANY THE PRINCIPLES AND REGULATIONS

VALIDATION, PERIODIC

REVIEW - REVALIDATION and

MODIFICATION of

ACADEMIC PROVISION 2012 - 2013

1

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 4 GLOSSARY 5 A PROCEDURES FOR THE VALIDATION AND APPROVAL

OF NEW FRAMEWORKS, PROGRAMMES AND PATHWAYS 8

B PROCEDURES FOR THE MODIFICATION OF

FRAMEWORKS, PROGRAMMES, PATHWAYS, COURSES AND MODULES 16

C PROCEDURES FOR THE PERIODIC REVIEW -

REVALIDATION OF FRAMEWORKS, PROGRAMMES AND PATHWAYS 20

D PROCEDURES FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL

FOR ACADEMIC PROVISION 22 E INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR PURPOSES OF

APPROVAL, PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION AND MODIFICATION 24

F PANELS, GROUPS AND TEAMS: MEMBERSHIP AND

ROLES 28

2

APPENDICES A OUTLINE PLANNING PROPOSAL FOR A NEW PROGRAMME OR MAJOR

MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING PROGRAMME B DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY GROUP TERMS OF REFERENCE C EXTERNAL ADVISER PRO-FORMA D REQUEST FOR DEROGATION FROM THE REGULATIONS FORM E ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ON DEROGATION F FURTHER GUIDANCE TO PROGRAMME/MODULE LEADERS ON THE WRITING OF

MODULES AND TO FACULTY BOARDS OF STUDIES AND VALIDATION/ REVALIDATION PANELS ON THEIR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL

G AIDE MEMOIRE FOR STEERING GROUP MEMBERS H AIDE MEMOIRE FOR VALIDATION/PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION PANEL

MEMBERS I EXEMPLAR VALIDATION AGENDA J GUIDELINES FOR VALIDATION AND PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION PANELS

ON APPROVAL OF FLEXIBLE AND DISTRIBUTED LEARNING PROVISION K GUIDANCE TO VALIDATION AND PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION PANELS ON

OUTCOMES L RESPONSE FORM FOR TRACKING POST-VALIDATION CHANGES M RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FOR NEW FRAMEWORKS, PROGRAMMES OF

STUDY OR PATHWAYS FORM N PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL OF CURRICULUM DELIVERED BY AN OVERSEAS

PARTNER LEADING TO AN AWARD OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHESTER O WORK-BASED AND INTEGRATIVE STUDIES PANEL AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR

APPROVAL OF FOUNDATION DEGREES P PROCEDURES FOR THE APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATES Q FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION OF MODULES R NEW MODULE AUTHORISATION FORM S STANDING APPROVAL PANEL T ACCREDITATION PROCEDURES U CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF UNITS, CENTRES

AND INSTITUTES V PROGRAMME MODIFICATION FORM W APPROVAL OF TEACHING STAFF FROM EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS X MODULE MODIFICATION FORM Y WITHDRAWAL OF MODULE REPORT FORM Z PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION AGENDA

3

AA RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION OF NEW

FRAMEWORKS, PROGRAMMES OF STUDY OR PATHWAYS BB WITHDRAWAL OF PROVISION CC GUIDELINES FOR A DEFINITIVE DOCUMENT FOR A FRAMEWORK DD GUIDELINES FOR DETAILS OF PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT (TO BE INCLUDED AS

PART OF THE VALIDATION SUPPORT DOCUMENT) EE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF DELIVERY AT SITES OTHER THAN THE

UNIVERSITY OF CHESTER FF GUIDANCE FOR PANEL CHAIRS GG REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF EXTERNAL ADVISERS TO

VALIDATION, PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION OF SPECIAL APPROVAL PANELS HH PROFORMA FOR APPROVAL OF EXTERNAL ADVISERS TO VALIDATION, PERIODIC

REVIEW - REVALIDATION OR SPECIAL APPROVAL PANELS II GENERAL GUIDELINES ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PANEL MEMBERS

4

INTRODUCTION

This manual is intended to accompany the part of Section B of the Principles and

Regulations that deals with validation, periodic review, revalidation and modification of

academic provision. It contains requirements governing the validation, approval and

review of academic provision falling under the Principles and Regulations of the

University of Chester, derives its force from those Principles and Regulations, and shall

be read in association with them. The University of Chester insists on the observance of

these requirements by all those staff of the University who may be involved in the

validation, approval and periodic review of academic provision.

The requirements shall be applied, as appropriate, to frameworks, programmes or

courses that lead to awards of validating and awarding authorities other than the

University of Chester, and to professional and statutory body recognition.

The requirements for approval shall also apply to franchised provision, external

programme provision, and its subsequent authorisation to be delivered by a collaborating

institution, and, normally, to joint and dual programme provision. In these cases,

reference should also be made to the Manual on Collaborative Provision.

The procedures and requirements for information shall be reviewed periodically, in the

light of the University's own experience, sector-wide developments and the advice of

external sources.

5

GLOSSARY Accelerated validation

Under certain circumstances, an accelerated timescale for validation may be appropriate

- for example, when funding becomes available for a new programme of study, where

professional requirements change or when the proposal represents a limited extension of

current provision, involving predominantly pre-existing approved modules. Accelerated

validation shall be approved by the relevant Dean of Faculty or Faculty Board of Studies

and the Dean of Academic Quality and Enhancement when considering the Outline

Planning Proposal.

Affiliated Institution

Another authority whose quality assurance framework the University of Chester has

reviewed and approved, under which validation, monitoring and review may occur of

programmes of study that can lead to awards of University of Chester.

Approval

Approval of programmes of study is granted by Senate following validation, review

through the revalidation process, or consideration of a proposal by the relevant Board of

Studies, if the appropriate requirements have been met. Approval of modules is also

granted by the relevant Board of Studies, following due consideration. Approval indicates

that students may be registered to undertake study in the approved area, or via the

approved mode of study.

Course of Study A free-standing module, or suite of modules up to and including the value of 40 credit points are referred to as a course of study. They do not generally lead to a named award, but can be approved by the relevant Faculty Board of Studies. Curriculum Proposal The Curriculum Proposal is a document, or selection of documents, produced for the meeting of the Steering Group. It should describe the structure of the proposed framework, programme of study or pathway, including details of the rules governing progression through the programme, accompanying details of the proposed curriculum, ideally expressed in full module descriptors.

Derogation

A curtailing of the application of certain, specified Regulations. Any derogation must be

approved by Academic Quality and Enhancement Committee on behalf of Senate, and

must be supported by unambiguous written extracts from public, statutory or regulatory

body regulations requiring a divergence from the University Regulations.

Framework

A framework of study is an approved structure, designed to accommodate a programme,

or programmes of study, together with any associated pathways, which facilitates

progression towards a defined award.

Module

A module is the standard unit or building block of study at the University of Chester. It is

defined in terms of size, which at the University of Chester is based around a standard

unit of 20 credit points, (reflecting the nationally agreed standard of one credit point

indicating 10 notional hours of study), and in terms of level. A module can only be

6

placed at one level. Multiple units of a module are permissible, and fractional units

exceptionally. A module is expected to demonstrate internal academic coherence and

focus.

A Module Descriptor is required for every module that can be studied at the University.

This is a description of the purpose of the module, the curriculum studied, and the ways in

which a student is assessed during or on completion of the study. It must also identify the

credits, by volume and level, that are awarded to a successful student. Module

descriptors must be written according to a common template and house style.

Outline Planning Proposal Form

The Outline Planning Proposal Form is the document that is considered initially by the

Development Advisory Group on behalf of the Senior Management Team. It shall address

certain aspects required in the Principles and Regulations, and shall be a statement of

intention to develop a framework, programme of study or pathway (if new resources are

required), if approval to proceed is granted.

Pathway

A pathway is an approved suite of modules with demonstrable disciplinary,

interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary coherence, which is not free-standing but constitutes

an element of a framework of study and/ or complements a programme of study.

Periodic Review - Revalidation

This is the periodic process by which a programme (and its modules) or framework is

reviewed and critically appraised, and following which re-approval may be granted for a

further six year period, (or other period specified by a professional body or agency). It will

include a retrospective view of the programme and a forward looking rationale for change

and development. It will include a critical appraisal of how successfully the programme or

framework is operating and any changes to aims and objectives. The panel giving such

appraisal will always include external subject experts.

Programme of Study

A programme of study is an approved suite of modules with demonstrable disciplinary,

interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary coherence, representing the whole or part of the

approved studies leading to a named award.

Programme Specification

A Programme Specification is produced for programmes of study or pathways, as part of

the approval process. It shall have incorporated any conditions, recommendations or

qualifications set against the approval, and shall act as a reference statement for the

provision in question for the following academic year. Copies of all Programme

Specifications are published on the University Intranet Programme Documents pages.

Site Authorisation

Site authorisation is an aspect of the modification of an approved programme of study,

where approval is sought to deliver the validated curriculum on a site different from that

for which the original approval was given. This may be an alternative campus of the

University, for which a formal event is not required, or at the site of another organisation.

There is a formal meeting, supported by programme documentation, with a focus on

resources to support delivery, including human, learning and physical, the student

experience, and programme management.

7

Standing Approval Panel

A Standing Approval Panel is a body that is convened regularly to consider proposals to

approve provision that is not a new framework or complete major programme, but may be

a modest extension to an existing programme, a new programme comprising

predominantly pre-validated modules, a pathway or major modification to a programme of

study. It may be used, for example, to consider approval of Professional Certificates, and

non-award-bearing activities that do not lead to an award of the University of Chester, or

other awards that are not recognized within the Framework for Higher Education

Qualifications. It forms a variant part of the formal validation process.

Steering Group

A steering group is a formally constituted panel of peers and external subject experts who

will engage in discussion with the Programme Planning Team over a curriculum proposal

presented at a formal meeting. The membership of the group is normally approved by the

Faculty Board of Studies. The report of the meeting will normally list a number of

recommendations derived from the discussion, which the steering group believe will

enhance the quality of the proposal. It is the role of the steering group to indicate to the

Faculty Board of Studies when they believe a Programme Planning Team are sufficiently

prepared to present a document to a validation panel, with every expectation of a

successful outcome. Validation

This is the process by which a proposed framework, programme of study or pathway is

recommended for approval by a panel of peers and external subject experts. The

recommendation will be the outcome of a formal meeting, wherein discussion determines

whether a programme designed to lead to a designated award meets the requirements of

that award as determined by the University of Chester, in conjunction with, where

appropriate, any professional body or agency.

Validation Support Document

The Validation Support Document is a portfolio of optional supplementary information, in

addition to the Programme Specification and Module Descriptors, provided to a Validation

Panel to help the Panel in understanding how the programme or pathway may be

delivered and supported. It may describe aspects of the student experience, and features

of the form of delivery, and will describe the various mechanisms that are intended to

govern the quality assurance and management of the programme. It may also include a

section detailing the various categories of resources that will be deployed around the

programme.

8

A PROCEDURES FOR THE VALIDATION AND APPROVAL OF NEW FRAMEWORKS, PROGRAMMES AND PATHWAYS

1 The Senate of the University of Chester alone has the ultimate authority to approve

any academic provision within the University. The process of scrutiny necessary to

arrive at a decision on approval (see glossary) may be delegated to the

Development Advisory Group, Academic Quality and Enhancement Committee,

Boards of Studies, or other nominated body. The Senate requires all modes and

forms of study leading to a University of Chester award of more than 40 credit

points to undergo a formal process of validation (see glossary) prior to approval by

the Senate. (Principles and Regulations section B1).

2 For frameworks and pathways generally, and all programmes a process for

validation for approval must be undertaken. For modules and courses of study (see

below) validation, as defined in this manual, is not required. Recommendation to the

Senate for approval of courses of study and individual modules shall be made by a

Board of Studies of the appropriate Faculty, or, where appropriate, by more than

one Board of Studies.

Validation

3 The University of Chester recognises the following structural entities in which

academic provision may be organized:

a) Frameworks

b) Programmes of study

c) Pathways

d) Courses of study

e) Modules

Validation is the process by means of which a decision to recommend that Senate

approves a framework (see glossary), programme of study (see glossary) or

pathway (see glossary) is reached. It involves detailed scrutiny of a proposal

document and discussion between the proposers and members of a panel that will

include external advisers. The panel shall ensure that a judgement based on sound

academic standards, quality support mechanisms, adequacy of resources and

professional requirements is made.

4 The University has adopted a process model of validation whereby proposals must

be considered in stages. In this way the University can ensure that a proposal is

designed and operated in accordance with the Principles and Regulations and is

consistent with the requirements of the Manual on Design of Approved Academic

Provision; that it is relevant to the mission of the University; that resources including

adequate staffing will be available; that appropriate internal and external advice is

provided to the planning team (see paragraph 66) as the proposal develops; and

that at the point where the programme is approved it is appropriate in terms of

quality and academic standards.

9

5 Peer review is an essential element of the University's procedures for validation and

is the basis for the composition of the groups charged with scrutiny of the proposal

at each stage, namely the Steering Group (see glossary and paragraph 69), the

Validation Panel (see glossary and paragraph 70) and the Periodic Review -

Revalidation Panel (see paragraph 73). Peer review will involve colleagues from

across the University and external subject experts with appropriate academic and/or

professional backgrounds. Experts with knowledge in areas such as pedagogy and

credit accumulation may also be invited to participate.

6 The validation process is preceded by discussion at both the departmental and

Faculty levels, and culminates in a proposal in both departmental and Faculty plans.

The proposal should be referenced in the Faculty’s annual Business Plan, which will

be discussed at the Faculty Board of Studies. Thus, for it to proceed, a proposal

must first have the support of the Head of Subject (where applicable) and of the

Dean of Faculty. Market research must be undertaken in order to demonstrate

demand amongst prospective students or employers.

7 Once a prima facie justification for developing the proposal has been established, a

Planning Team (see paragraph 68) shall be formed under the direction of a

designated leader in order to take the proposal forward to approval.

8 The Planning Team, once established, shall prepare an Outline Planning Proposal

Form (see glossary and Appendix A) which must conform to the criteria set out in

section B2 of the Principles and Regulations, and which should be considered by

the Faculty Management Group.

Where the proposal, (including identification of a new pathway or a new

programme title), does not involve approval of new modules nor authorization of

any other resources, application to proceed can be made directly to the

Development Advisory Group without the requirement to complete an Outline

Planning Proposal form (see paragraph 56 for guidance on requirements in such

cases).

9 The Development Advisory Group is required to consider the strategic development

of the University’s portfolio of programmes and awards.

It will convene at regular intervals to pass recommendations concerning proposals

(see Appendix B).

10 Following consideration by the Faculty Management Group, the Outline Planning

Proposal Form shall be scrutinised by the Development Advisory Group (see

Appendix B). In the absence of a Dean at the meeting giving consideration to a

Faculty’s proposal, the Faculty may be represented by another member of the

Faculty Management Group for the purpose of presenting the proposal. Where the

proposal affects delivery in more than one Faculty, all relevant Deans shall signal

support for the proposal to the Group. Any proposal for derogation from the

Regulations should be brought to the Development Advisory Group’s attention,

along with any necessity to appoint an External Programme Adviser in an area

where the University does not have the relevant expertise. Following consideration

of the Outline Planning Proposal form, the Development Advisory Group shall

forward its recommendations, including a view on whether it is necessary for the

10

Dean to personally attend the validation event, in a note to the Senior Management

Team and/ or Senate. If the Senior Management Team decides to reject the

proposal, it shall not proceed.

11 The Development Advisory Group must be assured that the proposal is consistent

with the strategic objectives of the University and of the relevant Faculty, and that the proposal can be resourced from within projected budgets of the University.

12 If the Development Advisory Group decides to recommend approval of the Outline

Planning Proposal, a signed copy authorising development shall be forwarded by the Secretary of Development Advisory Group to the relevant Dean of Faculty, so that the proposal can be considered at a meeting of the Faculty Board of Studies. Notification of authorisation to develop the proposal shall also be passed by the Secretary of the Development Advisory Group to the Principal Assistant Registrar, Partnerships and Academic Strategic Support and to the Policy Implementation Officer, Validation. The Board shall consider approval of the proposal, and if approval is to be agreed, the steering process (which normally precedes validation) which is to be conducted within that Faculty. The Board of Studies will decide on the most appropriate scheduling and membership of a Steering Group. This shall include whether, in exceptional circumstances, written comments from an external adviser may be adequate in place of attendance at a Steering Group meeting (see Appendix C for the pro-forma on which comments must be submitted).

Where a programme requires derogation from the University’s Regulations, application must be made to Academic Quality and Enhancement by completing a Request for Derogation from the Regulations Form (Appendix D). Application for derogation must be made in advance of the validation event, and the signed request form presented as part of the Validation Support Document. Further guidance on the process for derogation can be found in Appendix E. The Programme Planning Team must have held an initial Steering Group meeting within six months of the Development Advisory Group approving the Outline Planning Proposal, otherwise the decision to recommend development will lapse. Under certain circumstances, an accelerated timescale for validation may be appropriate (see glossary: accelerated validation) whereby a Steering Group may be deemed unnecessary and the proposal permitted to proceed directly to a validation event. Permission for accelerated validation may normally only be confirmed by the Dean of Academic Quality and Enhancement.

13 A Steering Group may meet only after the Outline Planning Proposal has been

approved by the Faculty Board of Studies (or through Chair’s action). The first meeting shall be preceded by a preliminary meeting between the Secretary of the Steering Group (normally the Faculty Administrator) and the Planning Team leader in order to establish the time scale and the documentation required.

14 The Faculty Administrator should direct the Planning Team towards the Principal

Assistant Registrar, Partnerships and Academic Strategic Support, the Policy Implementation Officer, Validation, or to other members of Academic Quality Support Services in order that advice on programme design, regulations and the drafting of the curriculum documents is available prior to the drafting of the Curriculum Proposal. This meeting may also identify any specific issues likely to arise during the steering process.

15 A Curriculum Proposal (see paragraph 58, Appendix F and glossary) shall be

written by the Planning Team and presented to the Steering Group. The Steering Group has a wide remit to explore all issues regarding the proposed framework, programme or pathway, however the main focus of the meeting should be on the

11

curriculum structure, content, outcomes and assessment. (Guidance for Steering Groups is contained in Appendix G). A report shall be drawn up following each meeting of the Steering Group detailing recommendations for the development of the programme which the Planning Team must then consider. This report must be presented to the Faculty Board of Studies.

No limit shall be placed on the number of Steering Group meetings. When the

Steering Group decides that the Planning Team is ready and the documentation is

sufficiently advanced, a final steering report shall be presented to the Chair of the

Board of Studies, who shall decide whether the report should form a substantive

agenda item of the Board, or whether approval can be reported to the Board. The

Secretary to the Board of Studies shall recommend in a report to Academic Quality

Support Services that the proposal proceeds to validation. Academic Quality

Support Services will then take action to convene a Validation Panel. The Assistant

Registrar Assessment, Quality, Standards and Review shall confirm the

membership of each Validation Panel.

16 A validation meeting shall be informed by the Principles and Regulations,

paragraph B3.2 and its deliberations shall include: the context of the proposal;

quality and standards; relevance to both internal and external reference points

(including the nationally-agreed Academic Infrastructure); and any potential

resourcing issues that fall outside those authorised in the Outline Planning

Proposal. Documents for validation, which must conform to the University’s

Principles and Regulations and to the Manual on Design of Approved Academic

Provision, shall be presented to AQSS for consideration by the Validation Panel,

normally three weeks prior to the event. In the case of programmes, the validation

documents shall include a proposed Programme Specification. The aim of the

meeting is to ensure that the proposal is fit for the purpose of justifying the award

and title; complies with the Principles and Regulations; is consistent with external

quality requirements; and can be referenced against sector best practice. (Further

guidance for Validation Panels is contained in Appendix H, including an exemplar

agenda, Appendix I).

Additional guidance for Planning Teams and Validation Panels on programmes

involving flexible and distributed learning can be found in Appendix J.

The Validation Panel may choose not to recommend approval, in which case the

Planning Team may choose to present revised documentation to a reconvened

Validation Panel. Alternatively, the Validation Panel may choose to recommend

approval of the proposal. In this case, the report of the Validation Panel will detail

the conditions that the Planning Team must respond to, and the recommendations

that the Planning Team shall be required to consider. The Quality Adviser or

Secretary to the event shall announce to the Planning Team any conditions and

recommendations that have been agreed by the Validation Panel at the end of the

event. (Principles and Regulations B2.2, B2.3, B2.4, and Appendix K Guidance to

Validation and Periodic Review - Revalidation Panels on Outcomes).

17 Once a Validation Panel has reached its decision, a report of the validation event

shall be given to the Planning Team in order that a response to the conditions and recommendations can inform the various documents. A condition will set out a specific action that the Planning Team is required to take. A recommendation will identify an action that, if taken, may lead to an enhancement of the proposal. It is a requirement that post-validation materials be submitted by the Planning Team to the

12

Chair of the Validation Panel, so as to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Chair that the conditions attached to the recommendation for approval have been met. The Planning Team should complete the validation response form (Appendix L) in order to assist the Chair in identifying the changes made.

18 The report of the Validation Panel shall be presented to the Board of Studies (or

exceptionally for reasons of timing to the Chair thereof) for approval, together with notification from the Chair of the Validation Panel that the conditions of approval have been met (Appendix M Recommendation for Approval of New Framework, Programme or Pathway form), a form indicating verification from the appropriate Assistant Registrar in Academic Quality Support Services that the amended Programme Specification complies with the Principles and Regulations and all appropriate institutional frameworks and the Programme Specification for the proposed new programme, amended as necessary as a result of the outcome of the validation.

If additional resource requirements have been identified through the validation

process, the report and any relevant post-validation documentation shall be presented initially to the Development Advisory Group, or referred to the senior management of a partner organization where the proposal deals with collaborative provision. The Senior Management Team may then authorise adequate additional resources and forward the report to the Board of Studies; or, where the Senior Management Team is not able to authorise further resources for the programme, the proposal is referred back to the Board of Studies for further consideration. AQSS shall ensure that the post-validation documentation contains all appropriate details described in the Principles and Regulations and complies particularly with Section D of the Principles and Regulations. The Board of Studies is empowered to set further conditions in order to ensure such compliance. Once it has assured itself that the documentation is in order and no issues surrounding the approval are outstanding, the Board of Studies may recommend that the Senate approves the framework, programme or pathway.

If the Board of Studies accepts that a derogation from the Regulations is required,

the validation report must be sent to Academic Quality and Enhancement Committee which will consider approval of derogation on behalf of Senate.

If the proposed programme lies within an area where the University does not have

the relevant expertise the Board of Studies is required to consider nominations for an External Programme Adviser. (Refer to procedures in Manual C: Collaborative Provision). Once the validation process is complete, the Programme Specification is submitted to AQSS by the Faculty Administrator (see paragraph 64). The approved full module descriptor(s) must be published on the University intranet by the Faculty Administrator.

19 The Senate shall receive the proposal to approve the framework, programme or

pathway by means of the minutes of the Board of Studies. Senate's approval shall signify that the framework, programme or pathway may be implemented and students may be registered for any associated awards. Registrations shall not be accepted for an award before the approval of Senate has been granted. Normally, initial approval shall be for an indefinite period but with no longer than a six year period before review leading to Periodic Review - Revalidation.

20 The Validation Panel’s recommendation for approval shall lapse if no proposal to

approve the framework, programme or pathway is received by Senate prior to the initial student cohort registration date identified in the validation report. If the recommendation of the Validation Panel lapses, the proposal must be referred to the Development Advisory Group, and no students may be registered.

13

21 Joint validation of frameworks, programmes or pathways may be undertaken in

collaboration with professional bodies or other validating authorities or

organizations, may be considered for approval (Principles and Regulations B5.1) In

such circumstances, the requirements described herein shall be adhered to,

although account should also be taken of the requirements of the other validating

body. A joint report shall be submitted to the Board of Studies. Where a consensual

position cannot be reached, a report reflecting the views of the University of Chester

members of the Validation Panel may be submitted to the Board of Studies, with an

account of the unresolved issues. Where the proposal is for an overseas academic partner to collaborate in the delivery of a part of the programme of study that will lead to an award of the University of Chester further procedures shall be taken into consideration (Appendix N).

22 Where the validation event is considering collaborative provision for approval, the

composition of the Validation Panel shall be such that it represents the interests of those Departments within University of Chester which are involved in such provision. (See Manual supporting Section C of the Principles and Regulations).

Alternative Procedures for the Approval of Foundation Degrees 23 Foundation Degrees may follow procedures outlined in paragraphs 6 to 18 above.

Such procedures would be normal for proposals for programmes of study originating within the Faculties of the University.

Alternatively, the proposal for a Foundation Degree may originate with a client

external to the University, leading to a process wherein the curriculum is negotiated in response to the client’s requirements. In this case, the curriculum design may take place within the Work-Based and Integrative Studies framework (see Manual D, The Design of Approved Academic Provision), and approval sought via the Work-Based and Integrative Studies Approval Panel (Appendix O).

Procedures for the Approval of Master by Research Programmes 24 Specific procedures apply for programmes approved under the Master by Research

(MRes) framework. Each programme shall be designed by the academic department in which the programme will run, and approved by their Board of Studies. A representative of the Graduate School shall attend Board of Studies whenever and MRes is being approved or modified, and Chair’s action shall not be permitted in relation to MRes approval or modification. This will ensure that the Regulations and Code of Practice relating to research are followed as appropriate. Whilst the final approval of an MRes shall be at the discretion of the Board of Studies, ultimate oversight of the admission of students will be maintained by the Graduate School.

Procedures for the Approval of Professional Certificates and Courses of Study 25 The definition of a Professional Certificate is described in section D2.6 of the

Principles and Regulations. The procedures for approval of a Professional Certificate, which is credit-bearing but lies outside the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (QAAHE, 2008), are described in Appendix P.

14

26 A module, or suite of modules which falls within the definition of a course of study (see glossary), shall be approved by the Board of Studies within whose Faculty the modules are located. The Board of Studies shall receive a rationale, full module descriptors (Appendix Q), accompanied by the module authorisation form (Appendix R), comments from the external examiner (and module leader response to the comments where appropriate) and a full and transparent resource implications statement. Once approved, the Secretary of the Board of Studies shall ensure all appropriate details are communicated to Registry Services and AQSS.

The approved full module descriptor(s) must be published on the University intranet

by the Faculty Administrator.

Procedures for the Approval of Other Academic Provision 27 Where the academic provision does not fall within any of the structural entities

identified in sections B1 and B2 of the Principles and Regulations, nor in paragraph 3 of this manual , (with the exception of Professional Certificates, pathways and extensions to current programmes), a Standing Approval Panel (Appendix S) may be convened. The Standing Approval Panel may address the following types of provision:

academic provision not included within the scope of section B of the Principles and Regulations, nor covered by other requirements within this manual;

new awards comprising previously validated modules;

extensions to pre-existing programmes that comprise no more than 120 credits in a Bachelor’s programme, or 60 credits in a postgraduate programme1;

provision not located within the framework for higher education qualifications;

pathways within programmes of study that involve the approval of new modules; or pathways that involve the approval of a new award title;

University of Chester Professional Certificates;

any other certificates awarded by the University, or consortia to which the University belongs, that comprise a programme of study comprising credits that amount to less than a full level of study;

provision that is non-award bearing and non-credit bearing;

provision that is non-modular for which the University has delegated authority from a recognized accrediting body2.

Non-award-bearing Learning Activities 28 Non-award-bearing learning activities are described in section D1.13 of the

Principles and Regulations. Proposals for such specific, structured learning activities shall be made to the Faculty Board of Studies, and shall include as a minimum a rationale, details of the activity (amounting to at least 100 notional learning hours) along with an income and expenditure account, including the input of staff and other resources required. If approved by the Board, the Faculty Administrator shall report in writing full details to Registry Services so that student registration forms can be issued and completed in order to entitle students to University facilities.

29 Where the learning activity takes the form of training offered to an organization’s

employees, members or clients by that organization, accreditation of the activity

1 This may include, eg. The approval of a Single Honours programme through the addition of a

modest number of extra modules to a pre-existing Combined Honours subject; or the addition of a 60 credit dissertation or project to a validated Postgraduate Diploma programme in order to permit the award of a full masters degree. 2 This is most likely to incorporate City and Guilds qualifications.

15

may be sought from the University of Chester. Following initial scrutiny of the request for accreditation by the Development Advisory Group, a process comprising several stages, and accompanied by documentation and details supplying evidence of fitness for purpose, shall be undertaken, as described in Appendix T.

30 Academic provision may embrace a distinctive area of expertise which the

University may deem appropriate to organize outside the normal departmental and programme structure. Such activity may be located within a Unit, Centre or Institute. The criteria for the initial approval and establishment of Units, Centres and Institutes are described in Appendix U.

Procedures for the Approval of Affiliated Institutions 31 Senate must approve the institution as a formal partner of the University, leading to

a signed Organizational Agreement. There can be no approval of a partner as an Affiliated Institution without an

affiliation event. This event shall include representation from members of the University’s academic community and must be chaired by a member of University Senior Management, and for the panel to be quorate, have at least a representative of Academic Quality Support Services and an independent external adviser.

The panel shall receive documentation, and meet with officers of the institution, to

consider the ways in which the institution manages the quality framework for delivery of its programmes of study, and reference points used to ensure the standards of awards.

A report of this meeting shall be considered by Academic Quality and Enhancement

Committee, on behalf of Senate, for approval or otherwise. 32 For approval of new programmes, proposal documents shall be submitted to

members of the relevant University of Chester Faculty Board of Studies, which shall consider the proposal and seek commentary from an external adviser. Feedback from this consideration shall be given to the Affiliated Institution, which must agree to meet any conditions set by the Board of Studies if the programme is to lead to an award of the University of Chester.

Similar procedures shall apply for the periodic review and revalidation of

programmes of study.

16

B PROCEDURES FOR THE MODIFICATION OF FRAMEWORKS, PROGRAMMES, PATHWAYS, COURSES AND MODULES

33 Once a validated framework, programme, pathway or module has been formally

approved, a number of factors may necessitate a modification of the details of the

programme specification or module descriptor.

Modifications to Frameworks, Programmes and Pathways

34 Where the modification of any framework, programme or pathway has significant

resource requirements or implications, and Outline Planning Proposal Form must be

completed and submitted to the Development Advisory Group for authorisation.

Once the Outline Proposal has been authorised, the Programme Team may proceed

to the next step, as set out in paragraphs 35-37 below. AQSS shall determine which

of these procedures is appropriate, in specific cases.

35 Where modifications of a conceptual, modal or structural nature affecting the whole,

or greater part of a framework, programme or pathway are proposed, a new

validation is required. Where changes to curriculum amounting to a replacement of a

third or more of the programme modules are proposed, a new validation is required.

Such an event is to be distinguished from periodic revalidation undertaken according

to the University's schedule. No programme modified through validation may be

delivered unless approved no later than the start of the academic session in which it

will be delivered. The proposal to modify the framework, programme or pathway,

including the authorised Outline Planning Proposal Form where appropriate, shall be

forwarded to Academic Quality Support Services for inclusion on the validation

schedule. The procedures shall be those described herein for the validation of a new

programme of study.

Where modification, (including identification of a new pathway), does not involve

approval of new modules nor authorization of any other resources, application to

proceed can be made directly to the Development Advisory Group without the

requirement to complete an Outline Planning Proposal form (see paragraph 56 for

guidance on requirements in such cases). 36 Where modifications are proposed to frameworks, programmes or pathways which

do not change the concept, mode or the greater part of the structure of the framework, programme or pathway, but merely modify specific features other than individual modules, the modifications may be submitted on a programme modification form (Appendix V) for approval by the Board of Studies and confirmation through report and receipt of minutes by the Senate. The submission to the Board of Studies shall include:

i) rationale for the change and supporting evidence, including evidence of

consultation undertaken;

ii) the details of the changes proposed;

iii) a form including External Examiner comments (with evidence and/or

explanation of the response to the comments).

17

If the proposed modification is supported by written evidence from a public, statutory

or regulatory body requiring derogation from the Regulations, once accepted by the

Faculty Board of Studies approval shall be sought from the Academic Quality and

Enhancement Committee.

Once approved, changes must be included in the Programme Specification, and a

revised copy forwarded by the Faculty Administrator to Registry Services and sent to

AQSS. 37 Where modifications are proposed to a programme, pathway or course through the

addition of a new module or modules, consideration and approval of those modules shall be the responsibility of the relevant Faculty Board of Studies. Modules shall be presented to the appropriate Boards of Studies accompanied by a module authorisation form (Appendix R) bearing comments from a relevant external examiner or adviser, and shall be considered in relation to the aims and objectives of validation as described in regulations B3.1 and B3.2. (If Appendix R must be completed it is not necessary to complete Appendix V in addition). Once approved, the Secretary of the Board of Studies shall ensure all appropriate details are communicated to Registry Services.

The approved full module descriptor(s) must be published on the University intranet

by the Faculty Administrator.

Authorisation to Deliver a Programme, Pathway or Course on a New Site 38 Modification to a programme, pathway or course may take the form of the wish to

deliver an approved curriculum on a site different from that for which the original approval was given, which may or may not be a campus of the University of Chester. Where the site is an alternative campus of the University approval by the Development Advisory Group must be sought. No completed Outline Planning Proposal Form is required in this case. No proposal to deliver an approved programme, pathway or course on an alternative campus may proceed until such approval is obtained. Once approval is obtained no further consideration of the proposal is required, though the Programme Specification must be modified to reflect delivery on the new site. The approval of the Development Advisory Group must also be gained for the proposal to deliver an approved programme, pathway or course by a collaborative partner at the site of another organisation. In this case, a full Outline Planning Proposal Form need not be completed, though the costs to the University associated with the authorisation should be identified. If the delivery on the site of another organization is to be carried out by University staff a full Outline Planning Proposal Form should be completed and submitted.

39 Once approval in outline has been received for delivery at the site of another

organisation, the Programme Specification must be modified to reflect delivery on the new site, and be presented to the Authorisation Panel. This Panel shall normally comprise:

Chair: from another Faculty Quality Adviser: Principal Assistant Registrar (or nominee) Learning Resources representative (a written submission is permissible) Either The Programme Leader, where not involved directly in the new proposed delivery,

18

Or Head of Subject (or nominee), not directly participating in delivery Minuting Secretary: from Academic Quality Support Services The main emphasis of discussion between the Panel and the Programme Team will be on the rationale for delivery, market research underpinning the decision to proceed, staffing involved in direct delivery (see Appendix W for procedures for approval of partner organization staff), physical and learning resources, support for tutors and students, quality management and communications between organisations. For an event at the site of a partner organisation, the Panel may wish to additionally explore the context of the strategic development of the proposal, and its support from the partner organisation’s senior management team, the proposed student numbers and the resourcing of the proposal. Further questions relating to employer contacts and involvement will be essential to the consideration of Foundation degrees. These procedures may run concurrently with the analysis of an organization as an appropriate partner of the University of Chester.

Modifications to Courses and Modules

40 Modifications to modules can be made by the Module Leader and Team, and

presented to the Faculty Board of Studies for approval in the academic year before they are to be implemented. The Board of Studies will ensure that the modification has correctly followed procedures.

Modifications to modules will include, among other things, any change to:

Module Code; (this will,per se, involve the creation of a new module)

Title;

Credit Value;

Subject Assessment Board responsible;

the mode of delivery as described in the Methods of Learning and Teaching/

Student Learning Component. A change in this last area may also affect the

Contact Hours; and

anything that affects, (especially increases), the resources required for the

module above normal recurrent spending.

Such modifications should be submitted to the Board of Studies accompanied by a

module modification form (Appendix X).

Changes to Module Code, Credit Value or Level will necessitate the creation of a

new module. Only minor changes to module Title will be considered without the need

to create a new module.

Administrative updating of modules are to be expected. These might include

changes to a small number of words in other sections, that do not significantly alter

the emphasis of the module, or such matters as the Module Leader, the Key

References and aspects of content that need to track changes in legislative or

regulatory statutes. The Principal Assistant Registrar, Partnerships and Academic

Strategic Support, should be consulted over any interpretation of category of the

modification. Such changes do not need the approval of, nor need to be reported to,

the Faculty Board of Studies.

19

If the proposed modification is supported by written evidence from a public, statutory

or regulatory body requiring derogation from the Regulations, once accepted by the

Faculty Board of Studies approval shall be sought from the Academic Quality and

Enhancement Committee.

The updated, and approved if necessary, full module descriptor must be published

on the University intranet by the Faculty Administrator.

41 Where a validated module is to be withdrawn, it shall be reported to the Board of

Studies, using the Module Withdrawal Form, (Appendix Y), and via the minutes to

the Senate. Where the withdrawal is due to a new module or programme being

offered in its place, the withdrawal should be considered in parallel with the validation

of the proposed replacement. The module leader shall notify Registry Services, so

that the withdrawn module can be properly archived, and any replacement module

descriptor published. It shall be made clear to the Board of Studies whether a

module is being withdrawn in toto, or simply from a specific programme or pathway

of study. (See also paragraphs 50 to 52 on the procedures for the withdrawal of

academic provision).

20

C PROCEDURES FOR THE PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION OF FRAMEWORKS, PROGRAMMES AND PATHWAYS

Periodic Review - Revalidation

42 Prior to the end of its period of approval, unless it is to be withdrawn by the

University, Faculty or responsible Department at that point, a framework,

programme, pathway and their constituent parts or modules must be subject to

revalidation. Periodic Review - Revalidation (see glossary) shall take the form of a

review of the provision in question. There shall be no re-approval of provision without

a review. The maximum length of period for which re-approval shall normally be

recommended is six years. The purpose of reviewing provision is to ensure its

continued viability, appropriateness and consistency with best practice. The Periodic

Review - Revalidation Panel shall assure Senate that the objectives identified in the

Principles and Regulations B3.2 and B3.3 are met.

43 In an academic session prior to that in which the Periodic Review - Revalidation falls,

the Academic Quality and Enhancement Committee shall approve a schedule which

identifies those parts of the University's academic provision that are to undergo

review and revalidation.

44 Once this schedule is published, the scope of the provision to be reviewed shall be

agreed jointly by the Principal Assistant Registrar, Partnerships and Academic

Strategic Support, and the Dean(s) of Faculty or delegated nominee(s) in whose

subject area most of the provision is expected to lie. In unitary Faculties or for certain

modes of delivery, the agreement is likely to be between the Principal Assistant

Registrar and Programme Leaders.

45 The Assistant Registrar Assessment, Quality, Standards and Review shall confirm

the membership of each Periodic Review - Revalidation Panel.

46 In a Periodic Review - Revalidation event, the University will rely heavily on specialist

External Advisers, particularly so where new modules are presented for validation;

(see Appendix Z for an exemplar agenda). Panel members will also meet students

from all the programmes being presented for revalidation, along with any other

relevant collaborators.

47 The focus of the Periodic Review - Revalidation event shall be on:

the student experience;

compliance with appropriate aspects of the national quality agenda;

confirmation that nationally recognized standards are being met;

the sharing of best practice; a critical reflection on the performance of the programmes, linked to an

assessment of future development;

staffing and other resources.

If an existing derogation is in place for a programme, the Programme Team must

complete and present a new Request for Derogation from the Regulations Form

(Appendix D).

21

48 Once the event has been concluded, a report of the outcomes of the event, including a

list of the programmes of study for which a recommendation of re-approval is to be made, shall be presented to the Board of Studies for approval.

The Periodic Review - Revalidation Panel has the authority to set recommendations

and conditions on the programmes of study, and these shall be addressed as in

paragraphs 17 & 18 above. Any such recommendations and conditions must take

account of the interests of any students who are progressing through the programme.

As a priority, the quality of the student experience shall be maintained in any case

where the Periodic Review - Revalidation Panel, for whatever reason, is unable to

recommend continued approval. When it is proposed, as a consequence of a decision

taken at revalidation, to enact changes which may apply to existing, as well as new

students, the interest of these students must be fully taken into account.

The Programme Teams shall produce the requisite number of post-validation

documents, incorporating all amendments resulting from the revalidation meeting, for

presentation to the Chair of the Periodic Review - Revalidation Panel on behalf of the

Board of Studies.

49 The Board of Studies would normally require confirmation that any conditions have

been met before agreeing to approve the programmes. The Programme Teams should describe how the conditions are to be met to the satisfaction of the Chair of the Periodic Review - Revalidation Panel, who will indicate such approval to the Board (Appendix AA Recommendation for Re-approval of Framework, Programme or Pathway form). The Senate shall receive the recommendation for approval through the minutes of the Board of Studies. New Programme Specifications shall then be drawn up (see paragraph 66 below).

22

D PROCEDURES FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL FOR ACADEMIC PROVISION

50 In line with Principles and Regulations sections B2.6 and B2.7 any programme of study

leading to an award of the University of Chester may be withdrawn. The authority to withdraw a framework, programme, pathway, course of study or module resides with Senate, acting on the advice of its committees.

The proposal to withdraw academic provision may be made by the Senior Management Team, the Development Advisory Group, the Faculty, the Subject Department or the Programme Team.

The grounds on which approval to withdraw academic provision may be sought can include:

Failure to meet minimum acceptable academic standards;

Failure to recruit or register sufficient students to ensure viability;

Incompatibility with the University’s corporate strategy and plans;

Failure of the curriculum to retain currency or relevancy. Programmes of study or pathways that fail to recruit any new students for three consecutive years must be drawn to the attention of the Development Advisory Group with a view to withdrawal.

51 Application for the withdrawal of the programme and/ or the award and/ or its

constituent modules shall be made to the Development Advisory Group by completion of the ‘Withdrawal of Provision’ pro-forma, (Appendix BB). If the Development Advisory Group approves the withdrawal, the notification of the withdrawal of the programme and/ or the award and/ or its constituent modules shall be submitted to the Board of Studies, in order that Registry Services can be informed.

52 The application for the withdrawal shall indicate when withdrawing an award and title

whether or not the modules comprising the programme of study are also to be withdrawn. Provision shall be made for students already registered for the award who have started their programme of study, in order for them to complete their studies or agree to transfer to an alternative programme of study.

Awards and titles may be withdrawn without the withdrawal of their constituent

modules. Modules comprising a programme of study may be withdrawn, whilst retaining the

award and title pending revalidation of a new programme of study leading to the award. The Development Advisory Group may decide to suspend recruitment and admission

to a programme of study; if the award and programme is not revalidated at the next scheduled opportunity, the award and title shall be considered withdrawn.

Where the University wishes to reactivate recruitment to a programme of study the

Development Advisory Group must approve the decision. Any decision to halt suspension of recruitment and admission must be made before the award and title is withdrawn. In terminating recruitment to a programme of study the Development Advisory Group and the Board of Studies shall be given an indication of when the final award may be conferred for that programme.

23

The application to withdraw a course of study or an individual module shall be made to the relevant Board of Studies for approval (see paragraph 41), using the Withdrawal of Module Report Form (Appendix Y). Modules withdrawn through the process of Periodic Review - Revalidation shall be aggregated onto a single Withdrawal of Module Report Form and presented as an appendix to the revalidation documentation. All the above information on withdrawal of modules, programmes of study and awards and titles shall be communicated by the Faculty Administrator to Registry Services, with an indication of the date on which the information can be removed from the current database.

Application to withdraw any Other Academic Provision not falling into the categories already identified shall be made in a proposal to Academic Quality and Enhancement Committee for approval.

24

E INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR PURPOSES OF APPROVAL, PERIODIC REVIEW - REVALIDATION AND MODIFICATION

53 Approval should only be sought for programmes that are consistent with the University’s mission statement and Corporate Plan.

54 It is recognized that the impetus for programme development, whether new or of old,

may come from an external source such as a professional body, the Government through the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, or one of its agencies, or through initiatives from funding bodies. In such instances, the Programme or Planning Team shall ensure that the requirements of such external bodies are consistent with the Principles and Regulations of the University of Chester and are reflected in the documentation submitted for approval.

55 The Dean of Faculty shall be informed of, and shall endorse, the plans of departments

or staff members residing within the Faculty for programme development.

56 The Planning Team shall complete an Outline Planning Proposal Form for a new

programme of study, (see Appendix A) that shall include sufficient information to allow

a judgement to be made on the proposal based on the criteria outlined in the Principles

and Regulations section B2. It is a requirement that all appropriate sections of the form

are completed prior to submission, and thus the Planning Team will need to have

undertaken some market research that can be evidenced, and sought the views of

various officers of the University.

In instances where the Development Advisory Group has not been presented with the

full Outline Planning Proposal form, but with a summary derived from the approved

form, such a summary shall comprise sections on the purpose of the proposal, a

rationale, market analysis, risk, minimum student numbers for viability, and any

resource implications.

The completed Proposal must be submitted to the Development Advisory Group of the

University Senior Management Team for consideration.

57 The minutes of the Development Advisory Group shall indicate approval of the

proposal, along with any recommendations with respect to the approval that are considered appropriate. The Secretary of the Development Advisory Group shall forward the signed and authorised proposal form to the Dean of Faculty, and to the Principal Assistant Registrar, Partnerships and Academic Strategic Support and the Policy Implementation Officer, Validation.

58 Following the granting of approval for the Outline Planning Proposal, and the

agreement by the Faculty Board of Studies (or Chair) that the proposal may proceed to a Steering Group meeting, the Planning Team shall develop a Curriculum Proposal (see Glossary) to be presented to the Steering Group.

The Curriculum Proposal shall include, as a minimum, the following components:

a) a programme rationale b) the Programme Specification c) full module descriptors d) External Adviser’s written comments (when no adviser is present at the

25

meeting) (see Appendix C) e) the Outline Planning Proposal summary (see paragraph 62)

Additionally, for distance learning programmes, it is necessary to approve both delivery

methods and distance learning materials. See Appendix J for guidance.

59 A report must be drawn up of each meeting of the Steering Group, detailing

recommendations that the Planning Team are advised to address in developing the proposed programme. In approving the final report of the Steering Group, the Board of Studies recommends that the proposal proceeds to validation.

60 The Planning Team shall prepare validation materials. For the validation of a

framework, the sections identified in the guidelines for the Definitive Document for a Framework (Appendix CC) shall be completed.

61 For the validation of a programme or pathway the following items as appropriate,

ensuring that the provisions of section B3.2 of the Principles and Regulations are met, shall be presented:

a) the Programme Specification b) all new module descriptors, and current module descriptors that describe key

elements of the curriculum and options where available These two items form the minimum, core documentary requirements for a validation

event. All provision carrying its own title for which students may register as a qualification aim shall be expressed in a programme specification specific to that title. Following a successful validation, they will be published on the University website.

In addition, the validation event would expect to see a Validation Support Document,

comprising some, or all, of the following:

c) the description of Programme Management (Appendix DD) d) a programme assessment grid detailing the nature and timing of both

formative and summative assessment across the programme as a whole e) an approved Outline Planning Proposal summary (see paragraph 62) f) the rationale for the programme or pathway g) synopses of qualifications and recent experience of the Programme Leader

designate and all core module leaders h) the (final) Steering Group meeting report i) Subject Benchmark Statements, National Occupational Standards,

Professional Standards or other external profession or subject specific information (where appropriate)

j) (where appropriate) a Request for Derogation from the Regulations form (Appendix D)

And also in addition, for the validation of collaborative provision:

k) the draft of the Programme Agreement l) the approved Organisational Agreement (particularly where the validation

event is the first instance of collaboration with a new partner).

The Programme Team have the right to provide any other information or material to the Validation Panel which is considered to be relevant and useful.

62 The Validation Panel should not be presented with the full Outline Planning Proposal

form, but with a summary derived from the approved form, comprising sections on market analysis, risk, minimum student numbers for viability, all new investment

26

authorised, and any recommendations by the Development Advisory Group for attention by the Validation Panel. The Planning Team may update certain sections as appropriate, for example market research.

63 For the authorisation of delivery of a validated programme on a new site or with a new partner the following items will be required:

a) the current Programme Specification b) all new module descriptors, and current module descriptors that describe key

elements of the curriculum and options where available (where new tutors will be delivering the modules)

And in addition, the authorisation event would expect to see the following support documents:

c) the synopses of qualifications and recent experience of the Programme

Leader designate and all core module leaders, where not considered and approved at the original validation of the programme or pathway (refer to Appendix W)

d) the approved Outline Planning Proposal summary where required as part of the process

e) the rationale for the proposed delivery f) the Validation Support Document

And furthermore, for the authorisation of collaborative provision:

g) the draft of the Programme Agreement h) the approved Organisational Agreement (particularly where the validation

event is the first instance of collaboration with a new partner).

64 The document(s) to be presented to the Periodic Review - Revalidation Panel shall similarly follow the structure described in paragraph 61 (though Outline Planning Proposals, rationale for the programme(s) and Steering Group reports will not be necessary, and cognate groupings of programmes may be addressed in a single Validation Support Document), or Appendix CC for definitive framework documents, but must additionally address the criteria described in the Principles and Regulations section B3.3. The Dean of Faculty or Head of Subject shall present the Revalidation Panel with an overview critical commentary covering the previous three years. This should take the form of a statement on the responses to any quality and standards issues that were raised in annual programme monitoring or external examiner reports, detailing the appropriate actions subsequently taken. It should also note any new quality and standards issues identified since the review, but should continue with a description of fitness for purpose for the coming review period, which should be related to aims, outcomes and standards, and should be related to the Faculty Business Plan. The statement should ensure it discusses the management of quality and standards within the Department, including ways in which student views are sought and responded to, and the way in which the budget holder deploys resources such that the Department can guarantee the adequacy of resources for the proper maintenance of standards and the enhancement of quality. The Periodic Review - Revalidation Panel should be given access to the students' current programme handbooks, and the previous three years' annual monitoring reports. A Withdrawal of Module Report Form should be used to identify all modules being withdrawn through the revalidation process.

65 In accordance with section B4.4 of the Principles and Regulations, a validation or

revalidation report shall be written and submitted to the Board of Studies on behalf of

27

the Senate. The report shall address regulations B2.2 or B2.3, the time period for approval, and regulation B2.4 where any conditions or recommendations attached to the approval are described.

66 Prior to submission of the report to the Board of Studies, it shall be forwarded to the

Programme Team for action. The Programme Team shall demonstrate their actions in

response to conditions set by the Validation Panel to the Chair of the Panel, who shall

signify through the signing of a form (Appendix M or AA, or Appendix EE following a

site authorisation) that the conditions have been (or will be) met to their satisfaction.

The form should be forwarded to AQSS. The Programme Team shall forward the

Programme Specification to AQSS where it will be checked against internal and

external regulatory requirements, and proof-read. (This part of the process is not

undertaken by AQSS in relation to revalidated Programme Specifications). If

necessary, AQSS will produce a written list of requirements for amendments to the

Programme Specification, which the Programme Team must action. The finalized

version of the Programme Specification is returned to AQSS where the appropriate

Assistant Registrar in AQSS will verify that the validation process has been completed

in accordance with the regulations. The validation report, verified Programme

Specification, verification form and notification from the Chair of the Validation Panel

that the conditions of approval have been met (Appendix M Recommendation for

Approval of New Framework, Programme or Pathway form) shall be forwarded by

AQSS to the Secretary of the Board of Studies, who will include the items on the

agenda of the meeting of the Board, in order for the Board to assess the extent to

which any recommendations arising from the validation process have been considered

and appropriate actions taken (Principles and Regulations B3.2(d)), and to consider

approval. Thereafter approval shall be indicated in the minutes of the Senate.

67 Following the successful conclusion of the validation or revalidation process an

electronic version of the Programme Specification will be published on the University

website. Whenever a modification of the Programme Specification occurs a copy

should be submitted to AQSS for updating on the University website. The Programme

Specification must reflect the requirements of section B4.3 of the Principles and

Regulations. The electronic version of the document shall be updated annually by the

Programme Leader to include any modifications adopted by the modules or programme

structure over the previous year.

The Faculty Administrator shall publish all new and modified module descriptors on the

university website.

28

F PANELS, GROUPS AND TEAMS: MEMBERSHIP AND ROLES

Composition of Planning Team

68 The Planning Team shall comprise all staff members likely to contribute to the design

and development of the proposal; this will normally include:

Programme leader (designate)

Relevant Head/s of Subject (ex-officio)

Academic Staff likely to be Module leaders

Learning Resources representative

Employer representatives (where appropriate)

A leader of the Planning Team with experience in programme design shall be identified

(who may not necessarily be the Programme leader designate). It is essential the team

maintains liaison with the relevant Dean(s) of Faculty and appropriate Heads of

Subject.

Composition of Steering Group

69 Associate Dean of Faculty/ Deputy/ Head of Subject/ Senior Programme Leader from

within the Faculty: Chair of Steering Group

Faculty Administrator: Secretary to Steering Group

1 representative of the Faculty

1 member of the Faculty with a cross-curricular experience

1 representative of another Faculty

1 external adviser (who may be from the academic world or from industry, business,

professions, but may not be a current External Examiner)

(A Steering Group may co-opt additional members and in the case of a Professional

Doctorate should draw upon the expertise of those with relevant experience.)

Further details of the roles of the Steering Group members are given in Appendix G.

Composition of Validation Panel

70 Chair (Senior member of academic staff from another Faculty with sufficient experience

of validation and chairing of meetings); in all cases, the Chair must be from a different

Faculty to that of the Programme Planning Team. (Further details of the role of the

Chair are given in Appendix FF).

Quality Adviser (normally Principal Assistant Registrar, Partnerships and Academic

Strategic Support, or nominee)

1 representative from the Steering Group

1 representative from Learning Resources (a written submission is permissible)

2 external members (one may be the representative on the Steering Group; at least

one must be from the academic world, but may not be a current External Examiner),

(see Appendix GG for procedures and Appendix HH for the pro forma to be used in the

selection and approval of External Advisers)

1 member of the Academic Quality Support Services: Secretary to the Validation Panel

(the Secretary may also serve as Quality Adviser, depending upon the complexity of

29

the validation)

In all cases, the composition of the Validation Panel shall conform to paragraph A6.6 of

the Principles and Regulations. In the case of a Professional Doctorate, at least one

member of the validation panel will be a representative of Research Committee.

Further details of the roles of the Validation Panel members are given in Appendix II.

71 Where professional accreditation is sought alongside an academic award,

representatives of the professional body shall be invited to sit as full and equal members of the validation or revalidation panel. The panel shall reach a consensual position if a recommendation for the approval of both the academic award and the professional accreditation is to be made.

72 Steering Groups and Validation Panels have a wide remit to explore all issues

regarding the proposed programme of study with the Programme Planning Team. All frameworks, programmes of study or pathways are required by the University to conform to one of the titles of the awards identified in sections A2 and A3 and to the Regulations governing the Design of Approved Academic Provision contained in section D of the Principles and Regulations as well as to national initiatives e.g. subject benchmarks, national qualifications and credit frameworks, relevant sections of the QAA code of practice.

Composition of Revalidation Panel

73 The Revalidation Panel shall normally comprise the following:

Chair of Panel: Dean (or Associate) of Faculty other than that within which provision is

located. (Further details of the role of the Chair is given in Appendix FF)

Secretary: Member of Academic Quality Support Services

(the Secretary may also serve as Quality Adviser, depending upon the complexity of

the revalidation)

Quality Adviser: (Principal Assistant Registrar, Partnerships and Academic Strategic

Support, or nominee)

Representative from Learning Resources (a written submission is permissible)

Member of other Faculty with a cross-curricular experience

Recent former students: one undergraduate, one postgraduate (where postgraduate

provision exists)

Employer or Professional Body Representative (where appropriate)

External Advisers: normally two, (or as appropriate)

Further details of the roles of the Revalidation Panel members are given in Appendix II.

74 The membership of all Validation Panels and Revalidation Panels shall be confirmed by

the Assistant Registrar, Assessment, Quality, Standards and Review.

Composition of a Standing Approval Panel

75 The composition of a Standing Approval Panel may vary according to the activity being

considered. Further details can be found in Appendix S.

30