Quality Assurance and Enhancement Handbook

Transcription

1 Quality Assurance and Enhancement Handbook

2 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT HANDBOOK PART 1: CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY Section 1 Statutes and Principles approved by Privy Council 1 Section 2 Academic Council 15 Section 3 Academic Policies 16 PART 2: PEER GROUP SCRUTINY Section 4 Independent Scrutiny of Taught Programmes 18 Section 5 Dissemination of Good Practice 18 Section 6 Department and School Level 18 Section 7 University Validation Panels and Review Panels 19 Section 8 Appeals against Panel Outcomes 21 PART 3: VALIDATION OF COURSES AND MODULES Section 9 Curriculum Design, Award Titles and External Reference Points 23 Section 10 Validation Processes for New Named Awards 24 Section 11 Re-Validations 31 Section 12 Major or Minor Modifications 31 Section 13 Additional Named Awards 41 Section 14 Introduction of New Modules 41 Section 15 Replacement of Existing Modules 41 Section 16 On-Line Learning and Distance Learning 41 Section 17 Course Publicity 44 Section 18 Course Records at University and School level 45 Section 19 Module Handouts 45 Section 20 Communication with External Agencies and PSBs 45 PART 4: REVIEW Section 21 Introduction 46 Section 22 Internal Course Review 46 Section 23 External Review 52 Section 24 Professional and Statutory Body (Re)-Accreditation 53 Section 25 Liaison with Professional and Statutory Bodies 53 PART 5: DOCUMENTATION FOR VALIDATION AND REVIEW Section 26 Presentation 56 Section 27 Course Handbook 56 Section 28 Programme Specification 57 Section 29 Module Document 58 Section 30 School Document 58

3 Section 31 Critical Review Document 59 PART 6: MONITORING Section 32 Responsibilities of all Teaching Staff 64 Section 33 Heads of Department 64 Section 34 Course Leaders 64 Section 35 Students Rights and Responsibilities 65 Section 36 Formal Student-Staff Consultation Processes 66 Section 37 Student Surveys 69 Section 38 Annual Monitoring 69 Section 39 Peer Observation 77 Section 40 Sample Protocol and Feedback Sheet for Peer Observation 78 PART 7: GOOD PRACTICE IN ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS Section 41 Principles of Assessment 80 Section 42 Aims and Learning Outcomes 83 Section 43 Assessment and Marking Criteria 84 Section 44 Design of Assessment Formats 85 Section 45 Higher Education Skills and Abilities 89 Section 46 Personal Development Planning 89 Section 47 Group Work 90 Section 48 Feedback to Students on Coursework and Examinations 91 PART 8: EXTERNAL EXAMINER INVOLVEMENT Section 49 Requirement for External Examiners 94 Section 50 Procedures for Approval of External Examiners 95 Section 51 Criteria for Approval of External Examiners 95 Section 52 Exemptions to Criteria for Approval of External Examiners 96 Section 53 Applications for Extension and Changes in Responsibilities of External 96 Examiners Section 54 Approval of Nominations of External Examiners 97 Section 55 Approval of External Examiner Nominations by Professional Bodies 97 Section 56 Briefing External Examiners 97 Section 57 Protocols for External Examiners 98 Section 58 Role of External Examiners on Subject Boards 99 Section 59 Role of External Examiners on Conferment Boards 100 Section 60 Attendance at Boards 101 Section 61 Procedures for External Examiners Reports 102 Section 62 Fees and Expenses for External Examiners 102 PART 9: PARTNERSHIPS WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANISATIONS Section 63 Partnerships 104 PART 10: ACCREDITATION Section 64 The University of Westminster Accreditation Service 106 Section 65 The University of Westminster Accreditation Board 106

4 1 Part 1: Constitutional Authority Preamble 1.1 In June 1992, the Privy Council gave its consent on behalf of the Government for the Polytechnic of Central London to be re-named as The University of Westminster, in accordance with the Further and Higher Education Act, The Act encompasses the power to award degrees, and approval of the name change signifies formal confirmation that the University of Westminster is recognised by the Government as competent to confer awards in its own name. 1.2 The Statutes and Principles approved by Privy Council in 1992 govern all aspects of academic provision by the University. These are set out in full below, and the sections which follow provide detailed guidance on the University's quality assurance processes for taught courses, based on the Statutes and Principles. Section 1: Statutes and Principles approved by Privy Council A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY 1.3 The term programme of study' is used to denote an approved set of modules by which a student may obtain a specified award of the University. The term course' is used to denote a subject or one or more discipline-based sets of modules having a single or closely-related focus, leading to a common award and being administered as a single structure. The term module' is used to denote a discrete study element within a course. The term course scheme' is used to denote the form and content of a course as presented to and validated and approved by the University. The term course programme' is used to denote a larger grouping of courses. Each student of the University will therefore follow a programme of study which will be composed of a number of modules within a course or course programme. The term academic programme' is used to denote in the widest sense academic activities relating to a course, a subject or a discipline within the University. MISSION STATEMENT 1.4 We will shape the future of professional life by: Being a diverse, vibrant and inspirational learning environment Establishing the University of Westminster as the leading practice-informed teaching and research university Being a responsive, metropolitan and cosmopolitan university serving the needs of diverse communities Embedding internationalism, employability and green-thinking in all that we do

5 2 AWARDS OF THE UNIVERSITY Awards 1.5 The University will make available programmes of study which lead to awards at levels of achievement as described below. Certificate (sub-degree) Diploma (sub-degree) Foundation Degree Bachelor s Degree Bachelor s Degree with Honours Graduate Diploma Postgraduate Certificate Postgraduate Diploma Master's Degree Research Degree A full list of the University's awards is given in Annex 1 (Part 1, Section 1). 1.6 The University will award higher doctorates. 1.7 The University will confer honorary degrees upon persons who have achieved distinction in public or professional life. 1.8 The University will confer honorary fellowships upon persons who have either: or provided distinguished service to education and/or the University in a voluntary capacity; provided distinguished service beyond the normal requirements of a member of the University. Collaboration with other awarding bodies and with other institutions 1.9 The University will act jointly with professional associations and with other awarding bodies to make available courses leading to recognised awards of such associations and bodies The University may permit other institutions to offer courses leading to an award of the University. Such programmes of study will be validated and approved by the University in accordance with the Statutes and Principles. APPROVAL, MONITORING AND REVIEW OF THE UNIVERSITY'S PROGRAMMES OF STUDY 1.11 Definitions Validation Validation is the process whereby a judgement is reached by a group including external and internal peers as to whether a course designed to lead to an award of

6 3 the University meets the requirements for that award, as determined by the principles and regulations of the University. Approval Approval is the outcome of a validation process where a proposed course scheme has been judged to meet the University's requirements. It is the formal act of the Academic Council on behalf of the University to confirm that a proposed course scheme meets the University's requirements. Review Review is the process whereby the quality of an academic programme is critically appraised at intervals by a group including external and internal peers in order to confirm that an academic programme remains academically valid and that any courses associated with that programme continue to meet the University's requirements. Monitoring Monitoring is the regular, normally annual, process by which the University critically appraises the operation of its courses and its academic programmes and ensures that appropriate standards are maintained. Academic Council 1.12 Academic Council, being charged with responsibility for ensuring the academic standards of the University, is the final arbiter in all matters relating to validation, approval, review and monitoring. Academic Council may designate a specially constituted committee, sub-group or panel to act on its behalf in matters relating to validation, approval, review or monitoring and may delegate some of its powers of decision to that body. Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee 1.13 The Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee (QAEC) has a general remit to advise Academic Council on matters relating to the quality assurance and academic standards of taught provision with a focus on the student experience and to oversee the development of quality assurance and enhancement procedures accordingly. Learning, Teaching and Student Support Committee 1.14 The Learning, Teaching and Student Support Committee (LTSSC) oversees the development and implementation of the Learning, Teaching and Development vision and the strategic priorities of the Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy. It also considers the outcomes of student feedback gathered from external and internal surveys of student opinion. School Learning Teaching and Quality Committee 1.15 The remit of the School Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee includes the development of School policies and strategies for Learning, Teaching and quality enhancement and to monitor action plans and implementation of related University policies within the School. It also considers student feedback at the School level and reviews the outcomes of course approval processes. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF VALIDATION AND REVIEW Aims

7 The overall aim of course validation and review is to secure for students a high quality of educational and academic experience. Its most important function is to assess the quality and standards of the University's academic programmes. It also stimulates curriculum development by requiring staff to evaluate their courses and to open them to the thinking and practices of external peers. Objectives 1.17 The University's validation and review process will ensure that: a) courses meet the University's requirements for the relevant award and those of any relevant external agency; b) the standards required are appropriate to that award and benchmark statements are referred to where available; c) the human and physical resources available and the environment within which the course is offered are of a standard appropriate to support the course; d) the standards and quality of teaching in each subject area are maintained and, where possible, will be enhanced; e) there is ongoing student involvement in course evaluation; f) the courses comply with University policies and codes of practice The University's review process will further ensure identification of: a) the quality of courses in operation as demonstrated by the performance of students, feedback from students and the reports of the external examiners; b) the extent to which staff have updated themselves and the manner in which they deliver their subject, and engage in relevant research, consultancy and professional activity; c) the outcomes of the process of critical review in which staff have engaged; d) the rationale for any changes that have been made since the last validation or review and any plans for further changes; e) such other performance indicators as may be determined by Academic Council. Monitoring 1.19 All courses leading to an award of the University will be subject to a continuing monitoring process to ensure the academic health of the courses between formal reviews. Collaboration with other institutions 1.20 The University will work in close partnership with institutions which offer courses leading to an award of the University to ensure that the University's procedures for course validation and review are complementary to, and where possible combined with, the collaborating partner s own internal procedures for the scrutiny of courses. MAINTENANCE OF ACADEMIC STANDARDS WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY

8 5 General principles 1.21 The University is dedicated to providing the means whereby its students can attain the highest levels of achievement of which they are capable. To this end it undertakes to provide adequate and appropriate facilities to ensure the continuing quality of its courses The University undertakes to ensure a learning environment commensurate with the quality of teaching and learning in its courses The University subscribes to the principle that the quality of the staff, their qualifications and experiences and the calibre of leadership at all levels are of paramount importance The University expects its staff to demonstrate a commitment to personal, academic and professional development, and to engage in a variety of scholarly and professional activities appropriate to their subject specialism, and in relation to developments in teaching and learning in HE, with a view to maintaining and updating their expertise In respect of the validation of a course the University will seek to ensure that both the teaching and support staff are adequate in number and appropriately qualified for the objectives of the course to be fulfilled. The University will formally agree policies for staff development and research and will actively promote staff development and research to support teaching and learning at all levels The University will provide the physical resources needed to sustain the course Responsibility for the maintenance of academic standards in the University lies with Academic Council. Academic Council may delegate the execution of its policies to committees, sub-groups and panels as may from time to time be determined by Academic Council. ADMISSION OF STUDENTS TO THE UNIVERSITY'S COURSES 1.28 The University will admit students to its study programmes on the basis of the following principles: a) reasonable expectation that the applicant will be able to fulfil the objectives of the course and achieve the standard required for the award; b) the University's requirements for admission to the course leading to a particular award; c) the University s commitment at all times to ensuring equality of opportunity for all applicants In considering individual applicants for admission to a course the University will seek evidence of personal, professional and/or educational experiences that provide indications of ability to meet the demands of the course Each approved course will specify the requirements for admission to that course.

9 The University bases its admission requirements on nationally recognised formal minimum attainment levels. Other qualifications and/or experience which demonstrate that the applicant possesses appropriate knowledge and skills may be accepted in lieu of the stated formal minimum requirement. The University will use its discretion to interpret such formal minimum attainment levels in terms of equivalence In admitting individual students to its courses the University will have regard principally to the applicant's ability to achieve the aims and objectives of the course. Admission to a programme of study with advanced standing 1.33 If the University is satisfied that the applicant has fulfilled some of the progression and attainment requirements of the course by means other than attendance on the planned course, and will be able by completing the remaining requirements to fulfil the objectives of the course and attain the standard required for the award, that student may be admitted to any appropriate point in the course and be awarded the appropriate volume and level of credit In exercising its discretion in this respect the University will ensure that such admissions accord with the University's requirements relating to the standards of its awards and with good practice throughout higher education in the UK The University will consider admission to a course of study with advanced standing on the basis of accredited prior certificated learning (APCL) and/or prior experiential learning (APEL) Admission with exemption' will be subject to the same principles as admission to the beginning of a course. Subject to the requirements of the relevant course regulations, the University may admit a student with exemption from certain modules of a course, which means that the student is not required to take those modules but may, as appropriate, be required to take alternatives; or with specific credit, which means that the student is considered to have passed certain modules and will, where course regulations permit, be allocated marks. PROGRAMMES OF STUDY LEADING TO AWARDS OF THE UNIVERSITY Definition of a programme of study 1.37 A programme of study is the approved curriculum leading to a specified and named award of the University as followed by an individual student; the programme may be identical with a course or may be one of a number of standard routes within a larger course programme. The University will admit students to its courses on a full-time, part-time, mixed-mode or distance-learning basis as appropriate. All programmes of study will conform to the University's regulations and requirements. Throughout this Handbook, the term course is used to denote both a single course or a larger course programme with a number of standard routes. Aims and objectives of the course 1.38 Every approved course will have stated aims and learning outcomes which the curriculum, structure, teaching and learning and assessment strategy of the course, and forms of assessment are designed to fulfil. Where available, benchmark statements should be referred to The aims will include the development to the level required for the award of a body of knowledge and skills appropriate to the field of study and reflecting academic developments in that field: these are course-specific aims.

10 The aims will also include general educational, skills and employability objectives, including the development of those generic skills students need in order to be effective members of a competitive work force and for lifelong learning. The aims are also expected to meet the University s Learning, Teaching, and Assessment Strategy. In addition these aims include the development of intellectual and imaginative powers; students understanding and judgement; their problem-solving skills; their ability to communicate; their ability to see relationships within what they have learned and to perceive their field of study in a broader perspective. Each approved course will aim to stimulate an enquiring, analytical and creative approach, encouraging independent judgement and critical self-awareness with the ability to reflect on attainment and plan future learning requirements The statement of learning outcomes will show how the programme will fulfil the aims. The statement of course-specific learning outcomes will specify the knowledge and skills appropriate to the field of study and identify the ways in which these will be developed and evaluated in the students. The statement of general objectives will identify the ways in which the students' transferable intellectual skills will be developed and evaluated. Course regulations 1.42 Each designated course or pathway leading to a specified and named award of the University will be subject to course regulations approved in accordance with the general regulations of the University. Inter alia, the Regulations will include: a) Regulations on the admission of students to a course The admission regulations will describe the basis on which a student will be admitted to the beginning or to subsequent stages of the course; b) Regulations on progression Progression regulations will set out the way(s) in which students progress through the course, and identify the elements that are compulsory, optional or alternative; c) Regulations on assessment The assessment regulations for a course of study will state the basis on which students will be assessed for an award, relating the assessment requirements to the aims and learning outcomes of the programme, the standard of the award, and any special assessment requirements associated with the award. Course management 1.43 In respect of its designated courses leading to specified and named awards the University will establish: a) clear channels of accountability from course teams to Academic Council; b) executive and administrative structures which support the collective processes of academic policy-making and sustain academic leadership; c) arrangements for staff and students to contribute in an informed way to the formation of academic policy and priorities; d) effective communication which fosters internal inter-relationships and the transmission of good practice.

11 The University will appoint a suitable member of the academic staff to be the leader of a designated course of the University. The responsibilities of a Course Leader will include: a) ensuring that the course meets its specified aims and learning outcomes; b) ensuring that the course is conducted in accordance with its approved regulations; c) administration of the course in respect of academic matters; d) the provision of documentation in respect of the monitoring and review process The University will establish for each designated programme a Course Committee, membership of which will include representatives of students studying on the course. The responsibilities of the Committee will include: a) serving as a formal channel of communication between staff involved in course delivery and the delivery of associated academic and administrative support services, and students on the course, in all matters relating to the operation of the course; b) advising on and monitor the implementation of the aims and learning outcomes of the course and its academic standards; c) considering provision for the welfare of students on the course, specifically induction and the Personal Tutor system; d) making recommendations to the School Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee on any matter relating to the course; e) dealing with any other matters referred to it by or on behalf of the Course Leader, Head of Department, Dean of School, or Academic Council. ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS ON THE UNIVERSITY'S COURSES Principles of assessment Fulfilment of course learning outcomes 1.46 One purpose of assessment is to enable students to demonstrate that they have fulfilled the learning outcomes of the course and achieved the standard required for the award they seek. Examiners will make their judgements on student performance in relation to the assessment regulations approved for the course. Confirmation of standard 1.47 Assessment will reflect the achievement of the individual student in fulfilling course learning outcomes, and at the same time relate that achievement to a consistent national standard of awards. It will therefore be carried out by competent and impartial examiners, and by methods which enable them to assess students fairly.

12 9 Types of assessment 1.48 In respect of designated study programmes a wide variety of assessment methods and types are used. The University will ensure: a) that students are assessed in accordance with the aims and learning outcomes of their study programme; b) that the methods and types of assessment relate closely to the subject matter and the methods of delivery. Assessment regulations 1.49 Each designated course or pathway leading to a specified and named award of the University will be subject to a set of assessment regulations specific to the course and approved in accordance with the general assessment regulations of the University. External examiners 1.50 The University will appoint an appropriate number of external examiners to each of its designated course schemes in order to ensure that the assessment process is conducted in a manner which provides parity of judgement for all students for the designated course and subject and that the standard of the University's awards is maintained in accordance with national standards External examiners are required to report annually on the conduct of the assessments just concluded and on issues related to assessment and the quality of the subject or course as revealed through the assessments. Assessment Boards 1.52 For every stage of assessment for each validated course leading to an award of the University, there will be one or more Assessment Boards whose constitution and terms of reference accord with the approved regulations for the course and which includes the external examiner(s) appointed by the University. The constitution of the Board may include provision for the appointment of subsidiary examination committees and the same Board may be responsible for more than one course or pathway The Assessment Board is appointed on behalf of Academic Council and is accountable to Academic Council for the fulfilment of its terms of reference. For courses operating under the University modular framework, there shall be a two-tier system of Assessment Board, comprising a Subject Board and a Conferment Board. The authorised Subject Board for each subject within the course has independent powers in respect of the award of credit for individual modules. Information for students 1.54 The University will ensure that the assessment requirements and criteria for courses are published to students. RESEARCH DEGREES OF THE UNIVERSITY 1.55 General In respect of supervised programmes of research the University will award the degrees of Master of Philosophy (MPhil) and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in

13 10 accordance with Regulations for the award of the Degrees of Master of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy (Research Degree Regulations). Scope: Programmes of research may be proposed in any field of study subject to the requirement that the proposed programme is capable of leading to scholarly research and to its presentation for assessment by appropriate examiners. The MPhil award: The MPhil is awarded to a candidate who, having critically investigated and evaluated an approved topic and demonstrated an understanding of research methods appropriate to the chosen field, has presented and defended a thesis by oral examination to the satisfaction of the examiners. The PhD Award: The PhD is awarded to a candidate who, having critically investigated and evaluated an approved topic resulting in an independent and original contribution to knowledge and demonstrated an understanding of research methods appropriate to the chosen field, has presented and defended a thesis by oral examination to the satisfaction of the examiners. Registration 1.56 Students may register for: Master of Philosophy Master of Philosophy with possibility of transfer to Doctor of Philosophy Doctor of Philosophy (only in the most exceptional cases) 1.57 In considering applications for registration, the University will satisfy itself that candidates are suitably qualified, that candidates are embarking on viable research programmes, that supervision is adequate and likely to be sustained, and that a sustainable research environment and training opportunities are available The normal entry requirement for registration for the degree of MPhil or MPhil with possibility of transfer to PhD is a first or upper second class honours degree of a university in the UK or a qualification which is regarded by the University as equivalent to such an honours degree Applications from candidates holding qualifications other than those above will be considered on their merits and in relation to the nature and scope of the programme of work proposed and the experience of the candidate. Supervision 1.60 All research degree candidates will have at least two and not normally more than three suitably qualified supervisors, one of whom will be the Director of Studies. Examination 1.61 Examination arrangements for research degrees will be approved by the Research Enterprise and Knowledge Transfer Committee Examiners appointed by the University will be experienced in research in the area of the candidate's thesis and, where practicable, have experience as a specialist in the topic(s) to be examined All research degree candidates will be examined by at least two and not normally more than three suitably qualified and experienced examiners, of whom at least one will be an external examiner.

14 The examination for the MPhil and PhD will have two stages: firstly the submission and preliminary assessment of the thesis and secondly its defence by oral examination or approved alternative Each examiner will read and examine the thesis and present an independent preliminary report on it to the University before any oral or alternative examination is held. Following the oral examination the examiners will present a joint report and recommendation relating to the award of the degree to the University. Conferment 1.66 The Research Enterprise and Knowledge Transfer Committee shall ensure that all examinations are conducted and the recommendations of the examiners presented wholly in accordance with the University's regulations. The authority to confer the award shall rest formally with the Academic Council, which may delegate such authority to the Research Enterprise and Knowledge Transfer Committee. Thesis 1.67 The thesis must be submitted in the form specified by the University's regulations. The submission of the thesis for examination is at the sole discretion of the candidate. Re-examination 1.68 The University may permit re-examination for the award in accordance with its regulations. Requests for a review of examination decisions 1.69 Candidates may in certain circumstances request a review of an examination decision in accordance with the procedures contained in the Research Degrees Regulations. Research Committee 1.70 Academic Council has delegated authority to the Research Enterprise and Knowledge Transfer Committee to act on its behalf in matters relating to research degrees, as outlined above. Research Degrees by Submission of Published Work 1.71 Candidates may apply for the award of MPhil or PhD on the basis of published work, subject to special regulations for such awards (Research Degrees Regulations). The Research Enterprise and Knowledge Transfer Committee shall approve a suitably qualified supervisor to guide the candidate in preparing the work for submission The submitted work will be assessed in accordance with the Research Degrees Regulations Candidates may not resubmit for a MPhil/PhD by submission of published work within a period of three years from the date of the original examination. Any further submission must include evidence of further work. CONFERMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY'S AWARDS Conditions of conferment 1.74 An award of the University will be conferred when the following conditions are satisfied:

15 12 a) the candidate was a registered student of the University at the time of his or her assessment for an award and has paid all fees and dues to the University; b) the candidate has completed a programme of study approved by the University as leading to the award being recommended; c) the award has been recommended by an Assessment Board convened, constituted and acting under regulations approved by the University and involving all members appointed by the University as external examiners for the award; d) the recommendation of the Assessment Board has been formally ratified on behalf of Academic Council The University retains the right to rescind an award previously conferred.

16 13 ANNEX 1 Awards for validation and conferment by the University as at September 2009 Certificate of Competence Certificate of Higher Competence Diploma of Competence Diploma of Higher Competence Certificate of Special Study (Cert SS) Diploma of Special Study (Dip SS) Foundation Certificate (Fdn Cert) Edexcel BTEC Higher National Certificate (HNC) Edexcel BTEC Higher National Diploma (HND) Certificate (Cert) Professional Certificate (PCert) [subject specific title] Diploma (Dip) Certificate in Education (Cert in Ed) Certificate of Higher Education (Cert HE) Certificate of Special Study in Lifelong Learning (Certificate in Teaching in the Lifelong Learning Sector) Diploma of Higher Education (Dip HE) Foundation Degree in Arts (FdA) Foundation Degree in Science (FdS) Bachelor of Arts (BA) Bachelor of Osteopathic Medicine (BOst.Med) Bachelor of Science (BSc) Bachelor of Engineering (BEng) Bachelor of Laws (LLB) Bachelor of Music (BMus) Graduate Certificate (Grad Cert) Graduate Diploma (Grad Dip) Postgraduate Certificate of Special Study (Pg Cert SS) Postgraduate Diploma of Special Study (Pg Dip SS) Postgraduate Certificate (Pg Cert) Postgraduate Diploma (Pg Dip) Professional Graduate Certificate in Education Professional Graduate Certificate of Education (Diploma in Teaching in the Lifelong Learning Sector) Erasmus Mundus European Masters Master of Arts (MA) Master of Engineering Master of Laws (LLM) Master of Music (MMus) Master of Osteopathic Medicine (MOst.Med) Master of Public Health (MPH)

17 14 Master of Research (MRes) Master in Science (MSci) Master of Science (MSc) Master of Business Administration (MBA) Master of Philosophy (MPhil) Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Professional Doctorate Final degree awards at undergraduate and postgraduate level and research degree awards accord with the Framework for Higher Education Qualification (FHEQ) published by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) (2008) and the academic credit guidance published by the QAA (2008).

18 15 Section 2: Academic Council 2.1 The Terms of Reference of Academic Council, revised with effect from 1997/98, are as follows: "Subject to the overall responsibility of the Court of Governors and to the responsibilities of the Vice-Chancellor and Rector, the Academic Council shall be responsible for: general issues relating to research, scholarship, teaching and courses at the University, including: criteria for the admission of students; the appointment and removal of internal and external examiners; policies and procedures for assessment and examination of the academic performance of students; the content of the curriculum; academic standards and the validation and review of courses; the procedures for the award of qualifications and honorary academic titles; and the procedures for the exclusion of students for academic reasons consideration of the development of the academic activities of the University and the resources needed to support them and the provision of advice thereon to the Vice-Chancellor and Rector and to the Court of Governors; and provision of advice on such other matters as the Court of Governors or the Vice- Chancellor and Rector may refer to the Academic Council". 2.2 Responsibility for the conduct of quality assurance processes is delegated by Academic Council to specific postholders and formally constituted groups. Executive responsibility for Academic Quality at central University level is held by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, who is both a member of the University Executive Board (UEB) and of Academic Council. Formal responsibility for the academic regulations, and the accountability of the proper conduct of the University's quality assurance processes for taught courses and research degrees, is held by the University Director of Academic Services and Academic Registrar, who is Secretary to Academic Council. 2.3 In , an Executive Dean has been given a University-wide responsibility for Quality Assurance and will chair the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee and the Partnerships Committee. The Dean will be involved in all Quality Assurance processes except where they relate to their own School. The Deputy Vice Chancellor will approve External examiner nominations from the Dean s School and a Deputy Chair will be appointed to QAEC to consider issues arising from the Dean s School. 2.4 Responsibility for the initial consideration of new course proposals or significant changes of content or changes to the title of the award is held by the UEB. Authority for the detailed consideration of the proposals and their approval or non-approval, is delegated to University Validation Panels. 2.5 Annual monitoring of all taught courses and modules, and periodic review for courses in continuous approval, is delegated by Academic Council to the Quality Assurance Enhancement Committee, which reports to Academic Council. 2.6 The audit and monitoring processes for research degree students are undertaken by the Research Office in the Academic Services Department for report to the University-wide Research Enterprise and Knowledge Transfer Committee, which reports to Academic Council.

19 16 Section 3: Academic Policies 3.1 The policies, approved by Academic Council, which govern the design and delivery of taught courses and the registration and supervision of research degree students are as follows: Admissions Policy for Taught Courses Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures for Students Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy Personal Tutoring Policy Induction Policy Employability Strategy Code of Practice on Supporting Students with Mental Health Problems Code of Practice for Students with Disabilities Technology Enhanced Learning Policy Research and Knowledge Transfer Strategy Ethics Code of Practice. 3.2 These policies are available on the Academic Services website. Please check this site for updates to these policies and procedures during the year. 3.3 The processes in this Quality Assurance and Enhancement Handbook are complemented by the following publications which are updated regularly: The Handbook of Academic Regulations (including the Assessment Regulations, and the Modular Frameworks) Essential Westminster (including those extracts of the Assessment Regulations defined as Essential Regulations for Students, together with module information and guidance on student finance, and registration; the Complaints Procedure for Students, the Disciplinary Procedure, Regulations Governing Student Conduct and Codes of Conduct is also published here) Student Representatives' Handbook Regulations for the Award of the Degrees of Master of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy Guidelines for Research Degree Students.

20 [BLANK PAGE] 17

21 18 Part 2: Peer Group Scrutiny Section 4: Independent Scrutiny of Taught Programmes 4.1 The principle of peer scrutiny is central to the University s quality assurance processes. Independence of judgement is of paramount importance; the style of communication also plays a significant part. A developmental approach based on dialogue rather than inspection allows the course presenters to reflect on and revise their ideas, as appropriate. 4.2 The critically evaluative comment of subject specialist peers from outside the University contributes directly to curriculum updating. Detailed consideration of and advice on syllabuses, academic levels, credit weightings, assessment, regulations and student feedback methods is more appropriately undertaken by colleagues within the University. 4.3 While new course proposals and existing courses which are being presented for revalidation or review would normally involve external advisers who have no prior connection with the School, in the case of single additional modules, which are considered through the minor modifications process, the involvement of a current external examiner is justified by their familiarity with the whole course scheme. Section 5: Dissemination of Good Practice 5.1 School-based peer observation processes aid dissemination of good current practice. Individuals share expertise and identify issues for academic development within a collaborative framework. The Westminster Exchange provides guidance on peer observation. See also Sections 39 and Staff from both the Academic Services Department and the Westminster Exchange give presentations and lead workshops for University staff on good practice models within the University and across the F&HE sectors, in the UK and internationally. Both departments have examples of documents available for reference or loan. Section 6: Department and School Level 6.1 The continuing professional development of academic staff as teachers is a core requirement of the University s quality management system. Staff development sessions which focus on specific aspects of teaching and learning are provided within the University and at other HEIs. There is also an award-bearing programme, leading to the Postgraduate Certificate, Diploma or MA in Higher Education, run by the Westminster Exchange. The Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education is mandatory for all staff at a 0.5 appointment or above new to the University who are also new to teaching in HE. 6.2 Some of the most valuable development is initiated within the subject specialist peer group at Department or School level. The opportunity for reflection on teaching and assessment just completed (e.g. during staff conferences) is highly valued because it is contemporaneous and collective. It informs ongoing curriculum revision and adjustment of assessment methods.

22 Peer observation is organised at Department and School level. This is a collaboration between individuals, who share good practice, encourage reflection, exchange constructive criticisms and debate approaches to teaching and learning, based on observation of each other s classes. Arrangements are made to identify issues for academic development for the Department and/or School. Section 7: University Validation Panels and Review Panels 7.1 New course proposals and courses with time-limited approval are scrutinised by University Validation Panels, and courses in approval are reviewed by University Review Panels. Both Panels hold delegated authority on behalf of Academic Council. 7.2 Chairs and members of Panels are nominated to represent a particular constituency which is published in the Panel list and in the Panel s report. All individuals involved in the work of the Panel must be wholly independent of the course(s) under consideration. 7.3 Validation Panel Chairs, Panel Secretaries and School Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee representatives are briefed annually in groups to provide updates on the process, compare notes on best practice, ensure consistency of approaches to validation and recommendations to Academic Council, and to keep under review University policy in respect of awards for taught courses. 7.4 University Validation and Review Panel Chairs represent Academic Council. They are nominated by the Quality and Standards Office for formal approval by the Dean with executive responsibility for Academic Quality. The Panel Chair will not be a member of the School proposing or reviewing the course. Other Validation or Review Panel members are also from a different School and must be independent of the courses and subjects under consideration. Normally, a Validation or Review Panel will consist of at least four members: the Panel Chair representing Academic Council, two School Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee representatives and the Panel Secretary. However, additional members may be needed for more complex Panels, such as those considering a group of courses. 7.5 External advisers contribute to the scrutiny of new course or re-validation proposals or course/subject reviews by providing current subject specialist expertise and/or knowledge and experience of modular credit accumulation schemes, and/or accreditation of prior and experiential learning - AP(E)L. They are advisers to the University members of the Panel, and in the case of joint University/Professional or Statutory Body Panels, they hold full membership. 7.6 External advisers should be independent of the University and be able to offer constructive criticism of the submission, particularly the course content and teaching methods. As a group they should have the required subject expertise and provide experience of: higher education at the appropriate level industry, commerce, public service or the professions (as appropriate) validation and/or quality assurance procedures credit accumulation and/or modular schemes.

23 20 They must not be either current or recent (i.e. within the previous six years) external examiners at the University or staff members of the School and should not previously have contributed to the design or delivery of the course or a cognate course within the University. 7.7 For Validation or Review Panels, the host School for the proposal should nominate at least one of two or two of three external advisers. Dependence on a single adviser should be avoided wherever possible. The remaining advisers may be nominated by the Panel Secretary in consultation with the Panel Chair and the relevant School/Department. For Review Panels, there will be at least one external adviser, who will be nominated by the Dean of School/Head of Department. Nomination forms for external advisers must always be used. 7.8 The Dean of School may propose that the University should not draw external advisers from institutions identified as being in direct competition with the University of Westminster in the subject area concerned: in this context direct competition normally implies geographical proximity. The Dean of School should inform the Panel Secretary prior to the Initial Validation or Review Meeting which institutions operate courses in direct competition and provide brief reasons for her/his concern. 7.9 The Panel Chair approves the external adviser nominations and, where appropriate, determines an order of preference, in consultation with the Panel Secretary. Where possible this is undertaken at the Initial meeting. Although the diary availability of individuals is the primary factor which influences the final selection of external advisers, as far as possible the total group of nominations should achieve a balanced representation in terms of gender, background, ethnicity, academic expertise, professional expertise, and validation experience The involvement of external advisers who are independent of the School/Department is an essential characteristic of the peer scrutiny process for new course approvals, courses being re-validated following time-limited approval or courses being reviewed. The Dean of School attests to this independence in signing the nomination form. All contact with nominees once accepted and agreed must be conducted by the Panel Secretary in the Quality and Standards Office External advisers to Panels convened at the University of Westminster receive a standard fee in recognition of their contribution to the Validation or Review process and will be reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred. Their involvement in the scrutiny of new or ongoing courses is regarded as a key commitment to the wider peer group of subject/education specialists. While direct reciprocation must always be avoided, the general principle that academics, senior administrators and practising professionals are prepared to give their time to contribute constructive criticism to course provision is central to the UK s quality assurance processes in HE Observers are occasionally invited to Validation or Review Panel meetings with the approval of the Panel Chair and Secretary. This may be for staff development reasons (that is, a course developer designate or potential external collaborator), or for professional or statutory body reasons. In most cases, observers are welcomed as participative rather than silent observers, but in cases where a professional or statutory body observer is in attendance normally the protocol agreed at the beginning of the meeting should prohibit their active inclusion in the agenda-setting and the dialogue with the presenters. Alternatively, agreement between the Quality and Standards Office and the professional or statutory body may be secured for a Panel shadowing role.

24 The remit of University Validation Panels is set out in Section and the remit of University Review Panels is set out in Section A written protocol provides the framework for the conduct of Validation and Review Panels. Copies are used in development and updating workshops for Panel Chairs and Secretaries. The protocol is available from the Quality and Standards Office The work of University Validation and Review Panels is continuously reviewed by the Academic Services Department. Evaluation questionnaires, which are distributed following a Panel meeting to elicit written feedback for all Panels, are collated and reviewed annually. Section 8: Appeals against Panel Outcomes 8.1 The University has a formal procedure for considering an appeal against the outcome of course validation, re-validation or review, whether conducted by a University Validation or Review Panel. The only ground for appeal is that there has been material irregularity in the conduct of the process. Academic judgements are not an allowable ground for appeal. 8.2 An appeal must be received by the Academic Registrar, in writing, within fifteen working days of the conclusion of the validation or review process, that is, the final meeting. The appeal must be submitted by the Dean of School, and must state clearly the grounds for application and the circumstances on which it is based. The application will be referred to a Validation Appeals Panel comprising three members of Academic Council, from Schools not responsible for the course(s) under consideration. Although the Appeals Panel should include staff with validation expertise, no member of the Validation or Review Panel concerned may be party to the deliberations of this Appeals Panel. The membership of the Appeals Panel will be determined by the Vice-Chancellor, in his role as Chair of Academic Council. 8.3 The Director of Academic Services and Academic Registrar or his/her nominee (provided that they have had no involvement in the Panel), will act as Secretary to the Validation Appeals Panel. The Panel will meet within fifteen working days of receipt of the application. A meeting may only be deferred by agreement between the Vice-Chancellor and the Dean concerned. The Secretary will provide the Panel with a copy of the appeal and any supporting documentary evidence, the report of the Panel against which the appeal has been lodged, and any documents which were presented to the Validation or Review Panel which are of direct relevance to the appeal. 8.4 The Validation Appeals Panel will determine its own procedure. The Dean and the Chair and Secretary of the Validation or Review Panel will have the right to appeal and speak before members of the Panel. Other members of the Panel may also appear. External advisers would only be called in exceptional circumstances. 8.5 The Validation Appeals Panel may determine: that the original recommendation of the Validation or Review Panel should be presented to Academic Council in the normal way that the report should be referred back to the Validation or Review Panel for further consideration that a Validation or Review Panel with a different membership should be convened to re-consider the course(s).