Guidelines to Promote and Support the Credit Rating Process in Colleges in Scotland

Transcription

1 Guidelines to Promote and Support the Credit Rating Process in Colleges in Scotland

2 Contents 1.0 Introduction Colleges as Credit Rating Bodies Establishing SCQF Credit Rating Quality Assurance 7 Procedures and Policies 4.0 The Credit Rating Process Extension of Credit Rating Activity to External organisations Further Information Appendices 20 2

3 1.0 Introduction Although the SCQF Partnership supplies really useful guidance documents in all aspects of credit rating, Scotland s Colleges SCQF Advisory Group (as far back as 2008) felt strongly that tailored clear and concise procedures for colleges would assist colleges extend the credit rating process and exploit the autonomy colleges enjoy to credit rate a range of learning programmes. In addition, since 2008 some colleges have engaged with credit rating both their own and third party programmes and we have benefited from their experiences and their advice around tackling issues and priorities. The guidelines that follow therefore provide advice, guidance and direction on the credit rating process for colleges building on real practical examples. They will assist colleges to develop a methodology for credit rating to take place. These generic guidelines are based on existing best practice advice provided by the SCQF Partnership and lessons learned from the many colleges who have used the credit rating process within their own organisation or with partners, in order to develop models for credit rating and share good practice in methodology. Although these guidelines focus on the systems and processes required for colleges credit rating their own non recognised provision, College devised provision, they also briefly look at third party credit rating, either with community partners or as a commercial opportunity. These guidelines should not be seen as replacing guidance documents created by SCQF Partnership but rather to give some specific college orientated support and provide a starting point for colleges to develop and refine systems, procedures and build up expertise. All other SCQF documentation referred to can be found on the SCQF website at Scotland s Colleges would like to express sincere thanks to the following colleges for their permission to use comments and proforma based on their credit rating experiences: Kilmarnock College Elmwood College Adam Smith College John Wheatley College Borders College. 3

4 2.0 Colleges as Credit Rating Bodies 2.1 Active College Credit Rating Activity Given the increasing mix and diversity of the student population in college, there is a recognised need for colleges to tailor programmes to the needs of learners and employers. Colleges have used the credit rating process to meet the needs of: School groups receiving part of their curriculum in college More Choices More Chances Learners Building a Curriculum for Excellence External business partners. Below are some examples of locally devised college credit rated programmes: Programme Title Credit Rating College SCQF Level Basic IT Computer Literacies Kilmarnock College 5 Learning by Volunteering Angus College 4 Skills for Successful Transition John Wheatley College 4 Advanced Level Dental Nursing Coatbridge College 6 Similarly here are some examples of programmes which have been credit rated by colleges for external organisations: Programme Title Credit Rating College Programme Owner SCQF Level Developing Effective Thinking Skills Adam Smith College NCFE 5 Diploma in Deafblind Studies Edinburgh s Telford College Deafblind 8 A full list can be found on the SCQF database at 4

5 2.2 Background to Colleges as CRBs All colleges within Scotland were granted Credit Rating Body (CRB) status in 2007 following the HMIE Evaluation on the SCQF College Credit rating Pilot which took place in Prior to that only SQA and HEIs had this status. Since then other CRBs have been approved including City & Guilds, Institute of Leadership and Management, The Scottish Police College, and the Chartered Institute of Bankers in Scotland. Regardless of when or how a Credit Rating Body was given its status, the SCQF Guidelines require a Credit Rating Body to have: rigorous processes to ensure that the stated levels and volumes of outcomes will accurately reflect the intended purpose and aims of the learning experience being credit rated rigorous, secure and appropriate arrangements for assessing learner achievement against those outcomes that are consistent internally and aligned with those of other credit rating bodies sound evidence to support the outcome of the credit rating process, supported by peer judgement. Generally, the proposed arrangements for credit rating must meet the overall criteria of being explicit, reliable, valid, and available for scrutiny. In order to be credit rated, programmes must meet four criteria. The learning must be: Expressed in learning outcomes Formally assessed Quality assured More than 10 hours of notional learning time. This raises a few valuable points: There is sometimes an assumption that all college staff are skilled in writing learning outcomes, developing assessment strategies and considering the notional level and credit value of a new programme: however, recent work has shown that this is not always the case. While some colleges have staff who were heavily involved in the HN Review process, many others have not had this involvement. Also, recent changes to staffing within colleges means that many experienced staff are no longer available. Safeguarding the reputation of the framework is paramount and quality assurance systems must be strong and rigorous enough so as not to compromise this reputation. However, many colleges have concerns about establishing internal credit rating procedures linked to either existing or developing quality assurance systems. This may be even more critical where colleges are merging and considering how to merge existing procedures. Earlier advice provided by the SCQF Partnership states that colleges should build credit rating capacity and expertise internally prior to embarking on Third Party Credit Rating. However, some colleges have responded to requests from external partners or organisations to carry out third party credit rating prior to doing so for college devised provision. To address some of these issues, the Scottish Funding Council has supported the building of capacity in credit rating within colleges through funding provided to the SCQF Partnership for projects with several colleges. Most of these have developed credit rating processes for their non recognised programmes and some have introduced Third Party Credit Rating. Others have concentrated on embedding credit rating within their college QA systems. These projects have provided a wealth of good practice from the colleges which were involved. 5

6 This guidance document is, therefore, firmly based on the sharing of this good practice and earlier experience from the original college pilot and the work developed since. These guidelines provide a starting point for colleges to develop and refine systems, procedures, and build up expertise. Colleges should also be aware that the SCQF Partnership continues to run Capacity Building Workshops, free of charge for college staff. 2.3 Education Scotland s View Finally, the evaluation study done by HMIE of the SCQF credit rating within colleges pilot in 2006 stated: Staff felt that the status conferred on college-devised programmes by credit rating had important benefits. It allowed colleges to tailor programmes to the needs of learners or employers and accord the qualifications gained parity of esteem with those of external awarding bodies. It supported a degree of flexibility in programme design and enabled highly-regarded qualifications to develop in areas not covered by external awarding bodies. The development of such provision, in tandem with external partners, had potential to enhance working relationships and should improve progression opportunities for learners. This is just as true in today s changing landscape within Scotland s colleges. 6

7 3.0 Establishing SCQF Credit Rating Quality Assurance Procedures and Policies Based on initial research done with a range of FE colleges as to why credit rating activity within colleges is still relatively low, several concerns were highlighted which were perceived as preventing colleges from credit rating. One of the main reasons that colleges gave for not using their credit rating status was the requirement for the establishment of additional quality assurance processes within the organisation. This is perceived in many cases to be a potentially onerous task with many colleges doubting whether they have the capacity to do so. This was supported by findings in the Kerson Report (Feb 2012), The Use and Impact of the SCQF in the College, HEI and Training Provider Sectors, where one clear conclusion was: Further work is needed by HEIs and Colleges to further develop their quality assurance processes to take full account of the SCQF credit rating guidelines. Furthermore, programme development teams and validation panels should be fully trained in the practical use of the SCQF level descriptors and credit rating guidelines to ensure SCQF credit rating guidelines are fully adhered to in practice. The issue of colleges limited capacity was reflected in an interesting quote also from the Kerson Report: Within a college there tends to be small pockets of expertise (in SCQF) mainly those in quality roles and those with experience of SQA developments, Curriculum planning activities means that Senior and Academic Managers have a higher level of engagement with the SCQF. However, with the recent greater emphasis on credit rating non recognised qualifications, many colleges will wish to establish credit rating processes possibly in conjunction with other colleges within their region. 3.1 Basic Requirements For colleges considering credit rating for the first time, the following should be seen as top priorities. However, there is no fixed terminology or process it is up to individual colleges what is developed, based on local need Senior management should agree where the responsibility for credit rating lies within the college This would normally be a senior member of staff, probably with responsibility for quality and/or curriculum. SCQF Partnership should be given the details of whoever is chosen. 7

8 3.1.2 A set of procedures should be developed which follow the credit rating process from the initial proposal to have a learning programme credit rated, to its actual placing on the SCQF database The SCQF publication Recommended Good Practice Guide The Credit Rating Process in Scotland s Colleges has a very useful flowchart which illustrates the process. It is not prescriptive but provides an example of best practice based on colleges that have already taken part in credit rating. It is reproduced below. 8

9 3.1.3 The procedures should be agreed by the individual college s Senior Management It is recommended that the college s own HMIE should be notified of the college s intent to begin credit rating. It is also helpful if SCQF Partnership is informed at this stage if they haven t already been so. It is also considered good practice that consultation takes place with sister colleges that are already credit rating, especially those within the college s own region or within colleges where merger is planned A range of documentation should be developed to support the quality assurance process These would normally include: An initial proposal to seek agreement to proceed A full proposal (very detailed) containing all the information required by vetters to convene a panel and make decisions A feedback report detailing the outcome of vetting A proforma giving confirmation of level and credit agreed and any recommendations/ conditions to be overtaken Identify key staff required to undertake the process These would normally include: Staff proposing the programme Staff developing the programme Staff completing the documentation for vetting by a panel Staff to serve as vetters on the Credit Rating Panel or equivalent. It is recommended that at least some of these identified staff members have: Knowledge and understanding of the SCQF, the level descriptors and the agreed processes for allocating level and credit value Experience and knowledge of the quality assurance arrangements within the college Have attended a SCQF Capacity Building Workshop. Experience of unit writing would also be useful but not essential. The composition of the credit rating/vetting panel might include: Senior manager possibly with responsibility for curriculum, learning and teaching and/or quality assurance Curriculum leader with appropriate subject specialisms Member of staff with experience of credit rating and/or unit writing External or impartial representative with experience of credit rating. Many colleges have a final sign off stage where the agreed level and credit value is ratified. 9

10 Note that these are only suggestions and colleges should establish processes and procedures as best suits their individual establishment or partners. Staff tasked with implementing the credit rating process should be supported in the roles by inhouse training from more experienced staff or attendance at the ongoing programme of free staff development offered by SCQF Partnership to develop understanding of the SCQF and build capacity to credit rate. The latter is recommended where at all possible. Dates can be found on the SCQF website at SCQF Partnership also offers bespoke training at a cost if desired Continue to develop documentation as the college builds capacity Documentation will also be required for the actual credit rating process. Examples of this and other proforma are offered in the Appendices (7.0). Nearly all colleges which took part in the Capacity Building College project in found that establishing or improving quality assurance procedures was as important an outcome to them as building capacity was within staff for credit rating and levelling. The main Quality Assurance improvements introduced, as a consequence of project involvement, related specifically to the refinement of both the process and the paperwork. In particular the Rating Grid was modified and enhanced to accommodate the internal processes. John Wheatley College The College had operated the credit rating process separately from its other quality process for these three courses and now wished to review its SCQF rating and levelling procedures and integrate them fully with its approval and verification processes. The College has reviewed and rewritten its approval processes to incorporate SCQF credit rating and levelling. It has introduced a validation process for any locally devised awards that require credit rating and levelling. Borders College We have separated the credit rating of a programme, from the approval to run the programme, in terms of process although both are reviewed by the College Internal Approvals Committee. The Internal Approval Committee will now consider each separately. Kilmarnock College We assumed that everyone knew how to write learning outcomes, performance criteria and assessment tools, in a format that was easy to understand to the outside readers (raters and vetters). This was not the case and we then developed a pro-forma which would, when completed, give an easy to read table of the learning outcomes, performance criteria and assessment tools. This will be used in all future submissions to ensure a consistency of approach and level of detail. Kilmarnock College With the changes in the SQA process for its catalogue of further and higher education qualifications it is less likely that colleges are involved in validating entire awards or units at local level therefore the necessary skills and processes are likely to be less prevalent now within colleges. Borders College 10

11 Borders College has posted their Quality Assurance Policy relating to credit rating on the Borders College website ( has kindly allowed notice of this to be included within this document. The college has also offered to share details of their procedures on request. Kilmarnock and Adam Smith Colleges have made similar offers. These documents are not in any way formally endorsed by Scotland s Colleges or SCQF Partnership but should be very helpful to colleges developing or updating their own systems, as examples of what other colleges have developed. Examples of documents which have been used by a variety of colleges are provided in the Appendices of this document. They can also be found in Word format on the Scotland College s SCQF Community of Interest website External Quality Assurance As outlined in both SCQF Handbook: User Guide and An Overview of the Quality Assurance of SCQF Credit Rating Bodies, it is Education Scotland (formerly HMIE) which is responsible for the external quality assurance of credit rating within colleges. Education Scotland has embedded consideration of the processes necessary to quality assure credit rating activities within the general cyclical arrangements for external review of colleges. This is consistent with the Scottish Government s objective of not overburdening learning providers with audit requirements. Education Scotland 2012 This responsibility should not be confused with Externality which is a requirement set out in Guidelines 19 and 20 of the SCQF Guidelines for Credit Rating. For in-house credit, rating this refers to the requirement for someone external to the team submitting the proposal to be included in the vetting team that makes the final decision as to the credit level and value. The broader element of externality which is explained in the SCQF document Externality Explained would be of interest to colleges that take part in Third Party Credit Rating as it is a requirement for any submitting body external to the college that requests credit rating to be carried out. 3.3 Delivery by Other Organisations A fairly recent development arising from the growth of previously non recognised college devised programmes on SCQF is that other colleges or organisations may be interested in delivering programmes they see on the SCQF database. An example of this is the Learning through Volunteering programme which was credit rated and is owned by Angus College. Many other colleges are now interested in delivering this programme and this has led to Angus College having to consider how they will ensure that the quality and integrity of their programme is maintained. Colleges may need to consider what processes they may wish to put in place for assuring the quality of the delivery of their programme by others. As practice develops, examples should be available to all colleges on either the SCQF or the Scotland s Colleges websites. 11

12 4.0 The Credit Rating Process Colleges credit rating for the first time will probably do so for one of three reasons: They have a college devised programme they wish to credit rate They wish to develop a new programme and credit rate it They have been approached by a Third Party from outwith the college, known as a Submitting Body, that wishes to have a programme credit rated. Each requires a slightly different approach. However, all require the team to have a good knowledge of Level Descriptors and characteristics, Learning Outcomes and Notional Learning Hours. Essential SCQF publications for this are: SCQF Handbook: User Guide SCQF Level Descriptors (revised August 2012) SCQF Credit Points Explained: Notional Learning Hours SCQF Credit Rating Criteria Explained. All of these publications can be downloaded from either the SCQF website or from the Scotland s Colleges SCQF Community of Interest webpage at scqfresources. For a college with absolutely no credit rating experience, they may feel that it may be easier to start with a programme with which they are very familiar. However, this is not always the case as closer scrutiny of even an established programme may lead to a certain amount of amendment. Colleges in this position may find that their original benchmarking of a programme s level does not match up with the actual formal levelling process outcome. In practice, it may be easier to develop a new programme based on the level descriptors and characteristics rather than credit rate an existing programme. This is obviously a decision for individual colleges based on their own circumstances and requirements. Given the timescale of the project, we were perhaps ambitious to try to revamp a full 450 hour programme and credit rate it. It became more manageable after it was divided into three component parts. Next time we would estimate more accurately the time needed for the course development and would have started with a course already established which would have allowed us more time to test our processes. Kilmarnock College 12

13 4.1 Rationale for College Devised Provision When colleges are considering credit rating college devised provision, a brief but clear rationale must be established. A possible framework could be: Aims and justification of the award/provision including details of market research,financial and resource implications and delivery methods Target participant group Likely entry requirements Likely progression routes for successful participants into more advanced provision Employment prospects for successful participants Ways in which opportunities will be provided for participants to develop core skills, personal effectiveness skills, employability skills, citizenship skills and environmental sustainability skills Any specific articulation arrangements Ways in which the award/programme will address the college equal opportunities policy in terms of ensuring there are no barriers Delivery methods, financial implications, accommodation and resource implications. Most colleges will have a committee which deals with curriculum and/or quality issues which will have the responsibility for deciding whether it should go ahead to the next stage or not. This is likely to be no different from the process that a college probably has for approving the introduction of any new programme. Below is an example of additional information which may be required for the original submission. Does this programme consist solely of SQA units? Does this programme require parts/all of it to be SCQF credit rated? If credit rating is required, estimate time for this to be carried out and names of any staff who will require SCQF training. YES/NO Please delete as required YES/NO Please delete as required XX hours If YES, please list SQA units If YES, please list titles of units Names of staff 13

14 4.2 Initial Credit Rating If it is an existing programme which is to be credit rated, then a team must be selected to carry out this process and complete the documentation required by vetters to convene a panel and make decisions. It is probably a good idea that this initial credit rating team consists of at least one subject specialist. Some colleges involve an additional person, possibly someone with overall programme responsibility who acts as a mentor. Note that this mentor will then NOT be allowed to sit on any subsequent vetting panel for the programme. It cannot be over emphasised how important it is that these staff are familiar with SCQF level descriptors and characteristics. The release of staff to be trained by SCQF has been useful as staff have been enthused by the sessions and this has reinvigorated the profile of SCQF and credit rating within the College. Kilmarnock College This stage offers an opportunity for other staff to shadow the development and initial credit rating team. This is particularly useful in a regionalisation context. Elmwood College staff... (worked) alongside Adam Smith College and the LIFT OFF team to have a greater understanding of the processes involved in SCQF credit rating and the procedures they need to start to put in place within the organisation and to also see how the credit rating process works for third party activities. Elmwood College Developing the Programme If this is NOT an established college devised programme, staff will need to develop the learning outcomes and assessments. Even if it IS established then it is essential that it is written in terms of learning outcomes and assessments. Guidance can be found in SCQF Credit Rating Criteria Explained: Learning Outcomes, Notional Learning hours and Assessment. Again, assistance in this is given at the regularly offered SCQF Partnership Capacity Building Workshops. As already stated, in many ways it may be easier to credit rate a programme which is being developed for the first time as the SCQF Level Descriptors can be used to inform the learning outcomes and assessments. Utilising the appropriate language, especially verbs highlighted in the Annex of Bloom s Taxonomy within SCQF Criteria Explained can greatly assist the process. The same applies to the writing of appropriate assessments. Further assistance on writing assessments is to be found in Section 4 and Annex C of SCQF Criteria Explained. 14

15 4.2.2 Submission to Vetting Panel Once the original credit rating team has apportioned its initial level and credit value for the programme, it will probably submit a fully detailed proposal to the vetting panel which will make the final decision on the SCQF level and credit value for the programme. Submitted documents are likely to include: A detailed Course Description which may include rationale, entry requirements, learning outcomes, delivery outline, assessment methodology, and quality assurance arrangements. Some colleges require CVs of staff involved. Details of the proposed SCQF level and credit value. Justification for the proposed SCQF level and value. Some colleges request that the proposal is supported at the meeting by the presence of an appropriate member of the team. Some colleges may have an additional step prior to this before submission to the vetting panel or similar committee. Examples of proformas for most stages of the credit rating process are included in the Appendix 7. These are taken from several colleges and may be adapted as other colleges see fit. Of course, colleges may wish to create their own proformas Vetting Panel Decision The panel will either: Accept the proposed SCQF level and credit value, OR Disagree and propose a different level or credit value. In most instances an agreement will be met between the submitting team and the vetting panel, but in exceptional circumstances they may request that the whole programme be resubmitted to the vetting panel after any issues highlighted have been addressed. Some colleges may wish to consider having a final arbiter in case of disputes. This person should not have been involved in the process before this stage. It is important at this vital stage that any decisions or recommendations are recorded with any justification. This proforma need not be hugely detailed. Examples are to be found in the Appendix 7 along with some pertaining just to the credit value/notional learning hours. Note that these examples are for approving the SCQF level and credit value for a single unit or component. Something similar should record the overall programme SCQF level and credit value if required. Note: Other examples of proforma can be found in the SCQF Credit Rating Criteria Explained booklet which can be downloaded from either the SCQF website at or from the Scotland s Colleges SCQF Community of Interes page at 15

16 For some colleges, this is the end of the process and all that is left to be done is for the programme to be uploaded on to the SCQF database. Depending on the college s quality assurance procedures, the decision may have to be ratified at a higher level Uploading on to the SCQF Database It is a requirement of all Credit Rating Bodies to keep the SCQF database up to date with the CRB s own credit rated programmes. This is a straightforward procedure. A guide is available on the SCQF website or contact the SCQF Development Officer at info@scqf.org.uk or telephone if you require assistance. All colleges in Scotland have at least one designated person who is authorised to do this. Again, if you require assistance in identifying who this person is, contact the SCQF Partnership as above. 16

17 5.0 Extension of Credit Rating Activity to External Organisations 5.1 Third Party Credit Rating Not all Credit Rating Bodies are allowed to carry out credit rating outwith their own organisation. However, all colleges have this included within their credit rating status. Such credit rating for external partners or organisations is called Third Party Credit Rating. The third party submitting provision to the college is referred to as the Submitting Body. It is recommended by SCQF Partnership that colleges should have established their own internal procedures prior to offering this service to other organisations. It is acknowledged that sometimes this is not feasible. However, it is of paramount importance that the college must have the additional quality assurance requirements in place before they embark on such a project. 5.2 Charges for Third Party Credit Rating Third Party Credit Rating can be carried out as part of a partnership agreement or on a commercial basis. Colleges may choose to be solely reactive or may actively seek business opportunities. There is no set charge for such a service and any price will be agreed between the college and the submitting body. However, any costing model should probably include the following important considerations: Time required for release of staff in the required subject area and their availability Time required for liaison with submitting body Time required for release of panel members Size of programme being submitted State of readiness of the submitting body. This state of readiness of the submitting body can have a huge impact on the time taken to carry out the credit rating process. It is therefore very worthwhile to encourage any potential submitting body to attend a free SCQF Partnership Would you Credit It? workshop which is specially designed to help third party organisations to understand what is required of them in their submission. Details of forthcoming workshops can be found on the SCQF website College Procedures The college should ensure that it has a robust quality assurance procedure for third party activity which will include details of annual review requirements of the submitting body. The college should nominate an appropriate person to liaise between the college and the submitting body. This should NOT be someone responsible for the actual credit rating decision. An appropriate panel should be formed to consider third party applications. This may be separate from any panel already in place for college devised programmes. 17

18 The college should give written guidance to the submitting body of its SCQF credit rating processes and criteria. Further information as to what is required is to be found in the SCQF Handbook: User Guide, Section Documented Evidence All SCQF Credit Rating Bodies, including colleges, are required to have documented evidence from submitting bodies which includes: Full details of the learning programme including delivery and assessment methods Evidence on assessment processes at the point of application An explicit policy for the appointment of persons as outlined in Guideline 20 of the SCQF Guidelines for Credit Rating which can be found in the SCQF Handbook: User Guide Appropriate quality assurance procedures which are aligned to the college s own arrangements for quality assurance and standards. 5.5 Externality The quality assurance of the assessment must be carried out by someone who is external to the assessment process. However, this may be someone within the submitting body organisation. The way in which this external assessmentis carried out must be made clear within any submission. This is referred to within Guideline 19 of the SCQF Guidelines. There is also a requirement for a person external to the submitting body to look at the processes around the delivery of the learning programme from start to finish to evaluate whether they are consistent. This would include: The arrangements for staff delivering the programme The recording of where the programme was being delivered and by whom Whether or not the assessment processes and criteria have been applied consistently. This aspect of externality is covered within Guideline 20. A helpful booklet called Externality Explained can be downloaded from the SCQF website at The college may wish to approve any external person nominated by the submitting body for any activity within the submitting body s processes. 18

19 6.0 Further Information 6.1 Publications Helpful publications include: The SCQF Handbook: User Guide Framework diagram SCQF Level Descriptors (revised August 2012) SCQF Credit Points Explained SCQF Credit Rating Criteria Explained Credit Rating & Benchmarking: What s the Difference? Nomenclature Qualifications can Cross Boundaries An Overview of the Quality Assurance of SCQF Credit Rating Bodies. All of the above can be accessed from the Scotland s Colleges SCQF Community of Interest website at: To become a member of the SCQF Community of Interest, follow the procedures outlined on the website. Further information on all aspects of credit rating and SCQF related activities can be obtained from the SCQF website. The website contains a list of the full range of SCQF publications and other relevant documentation which are available to download from The SCQF database can also be accessed from the SCQF website at 19

20 7.0 Appendices This section contains examples of proforma used by various colleges at different stages of the credit rating process. They are not intended to be prescriptive in any way. Word versions can be found on the SCQF Community of Interest website at which can be amended to suit individual colleges needs. 7.1 Completed Course Outline Approval Form 7.2 Initial Levelling Tool - this is a simple aid which could be used to help staff determine what level each characteristic is at. Note that one will be required for each of the characteristics. 7.3 Levelling proforma - this form could be used to record collation of suggested levels for each of the characteristics for a unit along with the justification for these levels. 7.4 Completed Summary Checklist for Levelling (1) 7.5 Completed Levelling proforma (2) - this is an example from a non college Credit Rating Body. 7.6 Credit Value proforma (Notional Learning Hours) - this form can be used to ensure that all learning activities are included in the notional learning hours. 7.7 Submission to an Approval Committee - this form would be completed by the vetting team (or equivalent) before submission to an Approvals Committee or similar, prior to it making a final decision. 20

21 7.1 Example of Completed Course Outline Approval Form Curriculum Group or External Organisation: Contact: Course Title: Aims of the course: The defined aims and objectives of the learning processes should be entered here, including, where appropriate, possible articulation and progression. Example: The main aim of this course is to develop self esteem, respect for others, communication skills and team work through practical participation delivered in a non-school environment. Rationale for the course: Example: You should consider what the requirement is to run this course. 1. The technology in our new campus requires that staff develop their ICT skills to be able to effectively carry out their work role. With Interactive Whiteboards in all classrooms, and an increased use of VLE to support learning, delivery staff will require to become competent in the use of laptops in order to use the new technology. Many support staff will be required to use laptops as touchdown desks do not have PCs installed on them. Furthermore, offsite working will mean that staff will have to use laptops in order to carry out their role. 2. A large number of school pupils find traditional methods of learning difficult and often struggle to sustain appropriate relationships leading to under achievement. Learning through practical activities in a non-school environment offers a different and challenging way to learn, encourages students to engage more positively in school activities and allows a development of self esteem and self belief. Entry Requirements (prior knowledge, experience or qualifications): Enter the minimum qualifications/experience required by the average student to be able to achieve the outcomes in the notional hours. Example: Knowledge of and experience with Microsoft Office and Excel is required as well as basic browser skills. Ideally the ICT Skills course should be completed prior to undertaking this course. Give a brief outline of the planned delivery (attach course outline showing teaching content and student activity as Appendix A): A brief outline of the delivery, coupled with a learning plan which details both lecturer and learner activity should be submitted for this section. 21

22 Learning Outcomes: There should be a clearly defined set of outcomes for the course including a clear statement of the outcomes in relation to the overall aims of the course. Generally, this statement should begin with the phrase By the end of this course the learner should be able to Example: By the end of this course the learner should be able to: Understand the characteristics of oral communication Plan and deliver a short presentationunderstand the appropriate use of voice skills Understand the importance of non verbal communication. Method of Assessment (attach assessment instruments as Appendix B): Documented evidence on assessment processes should be submitted here, including: The principles, procedures, and processes of the assessment outcomes Method(s) of assessment Evidence that the assessment criteria and processes are appropriate to the defined learning outcomes Clear criteria for marking assessments particularly for distinguishing pass/fail. Give details of how the assessments will be quality assured (including independent verification as Appendix C): Where appropriate, evidence of the quality assurance of the assessments should be given to ensure: Appropriateness of methods and instruments of assessment Regular review of assessment strategies and decisions. Quality (attach details of how this course will be quality assured as Appendix D): It is important that all courses are reviewed annually; a statement of where and when this course is reviewed is required here. Example: This course is part of the [insert course name] Course Team provision and therefore reviewed at Course Team meetings where each course is assessed against HMIE Framework. It is included in the College Internal Verification Cycle. SCQF Credit Points: Taken from separate credit rating proforma SCQF Level: Taken from separate credit rating proforma 22

23 7.2 Example of Initial Levelling Tool Knowledge and Understanding The Successful Candidate will be able to: A B Demonstrate and/or work with: Knowledge of simple facts and ideas in a subject/discipline Demonstrate and/or work with: Basic knowledge in a subject/discipline Simple facts and ideas associated with a subject/discipline C D E F G Demonstrate and/or work with: Basic knowledge in a subject/discipline which is mainly factual Some simple facts and ideas about and associated with a subject/discipline Knowledge of basic processes, materials and terminology Demonstrate and/or work with: Basic knowledge in a subject/discipline which is mainly factual but has some theoretical component A range of simple facts and ideas about and associated with a subject/discipline Knowledge and understanding of basic processes, materials and terminology Demonstrate and/or work with: Generalised knowledge of a subject/discipline Factual and theoretical knowledge A range of facts, ideas, properties, materials, terminology, practices, techniques about/ associated with a subject/discipline Relate the subject/discipline to a range of practical and/or everyday applications Demonstrate and/or work with: A broad knowledge of the subject/discipline in general Knowledge that is embedded in the main theories, concepts and principles An awareness of the evolving/changing nature of knowledge and understanding An understanding of the difference between explanations based in evidence and/or research and other forms of explanation, and of the importance of this difference Demonstrate and/or work with: A broad knowledge of the scope, defining features, and main areas of a subject/discipline Detailed knowledge in some areas Understanding of a limited range of core theories, principles and concepts Limited knowledge and understanding of some major current issues and specialisms An outline knowledge and understanding of research and equivalent scholarly/academic processes. 23

24 7.3 Example of Levelling Proforma Name of Programme: Unit Name: Learning Outcome: (one form for each outcome) Learning Outcome and Assessment Approximate Overall Level Justification Note not all characteristics will be relevant and not all aspects of the level descriptor/s will be relevant Knowledge and Understanding Practice: Applied Knowledge and Understanding Generic Cognitive Skills Communication, ICT and Numeracy Skills Autonomy, Accountability and Working with Others Overall for Outcome Overall for Course (if applicable) 24

25 7.4 Completed Summary Checklist to Level a Programme SCQF LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS SCQF Characteristics Best Fit Level Justification Note not all characteristics will be relevant and not all aspects of the level descriptor(s) will be relevant Knowledge and Understanding Practice/Applied Knowledge 4 The theoretical component requires the learner to demonstrate basic knowledge and factual information in the subject. Simple facts and understanding of basic processes is required. 5 Ideas and knowledge are related to personal and practical contexts. Learners are expected to plan, organise and complete some routine and new tasks using knowledge associated with a subject/discipline. Appropriate resources need to be selected and where necessary the learner will follow safe practices. General Cognitive Skills 5 Learners are expected to problem solve to deal with a straightforward situation but where there is a need to take account of or use additional information in relation to a subject/discipline. There is some use of abstract conducts e.g. make generalisations and drawing conclusions. Communication/ICT/ Numeracy Autonomy/Working with Others Estimated Level of Programme/Unit 5 Learners are required to use a range of routine skills e.g. produce and respond to detailed written and oral communication in familiar contexts and use a range of numerical and graphical data in straightforward contexts which have some complex features. 5 Learners are required to work alone or with others on tasks with minimum supervision. They need to agree goals and responsibilities for self and/or work team with management/ supervisor and show an awareness of others roles, responsibilities and requirements in carrying out work. They must contribute to the evaluation and improvement of practices and processes. 5 Almost all characteristics best fit level 5 with one exception (knowledge and understanding which best fits level 4). The learning process is more complex than the actual physical production of evidence which is assessment of observed practice. 25

26 7.5 Credit Value Proforma (Notional Learning Hours) Name of Programme/Unit: Name of Credit Rater: Date of Completion: Learning Activity Details (if required) Typical Time spent on activity Formal taught input Research Self directed study Practical activity Recorded reflection Formative assessment Summative assessment Other Other Total number of notional learning hours Number of Credit Points Total notional learning hours / 10 26

27 7.6 Example of Proforma for Submission to an Approval Committee CREDIT RATING SUBMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR SCQF LEVEL & CREDIT OF COMPONENT APPROVALS COMMITTEE Component Title (unit): Programme: Recommended SCQF Level: Recommended SCQF Credit Points: Organisation: Name: Position: Signature: Date: VETTER S COMMENTS Levelling Agree Disagree Credit Rating Agree Disagree Queries to be addressed Queries to be addressed Comments/ Queries Name: Signature: Date: DECISION OF APPROVAL COMMITTEE SCQF Level Agree Disagree SCQF Credit Points Agree Disagree Comments: Approval Committee Chair Signature: Date: 27

28 Scotland s Colleges is a trading name of both the Scottish Further Education Unit and the Association of Scotland s Colleges. Scottish Further Education Unit Company Limited By Guarantee Registered in Scotland No: Scottish Charity No. SC VAT No Association of Scotland s Colleges Company Limited By Guarantee Registered in Scotland No: Scottish Charity No. SC Tel: info@scotcol.ac.uk Web: