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).

25 If the course in question is also under consideration by a professional body or other external agency, the professional body will be formally advised by the Academic Registrar that the recommendations of the Validation or Review Panel await confirmation and publication. 8.7 The outcomes of any appeals against University Validation Panel or University Review Panel decisions will be fully reported to the next meeting of Academic Council.

26 [BLANK PAGE] 23

27 24 Part 3: Validation of Courses and Modules Section 9: Curriculum Design, Award Titles and External Reference Points 9.1 The academic level of any course is determined by its aims, learning outcomes, syllabus content and its assessment formats and criteria for judging student achievement. 9.2 The structure and content of the curriculum must explicitly support the subject-specific title of the award. The general award title, for example, whether it is an Arts or a Science award, will be determined by the subject content relative to cognate courses within the University. Courses would normally be validated with either an Arts or a Science award; these would not normally be presented as alternatives within the same course scheme. 9.3 All courses validated for conferment as University of Westminster awards must have clear subject specific aims and learning outcomes, which inform the definition of aims and learning outcomes for each module. 9.4 All courses which lead to awards of the University must normally be academically credit-rated, modular and semesterised. 9.5 Although courses are modular rather than linear each named pathway within a course scheme must have academic coherence both at the point of initial validation and subsequently through the addition and/or deletion of individual modules. 9.6 Although the admissions requirements and selection criteria provide a guide to the level of student qualifications and subject expertise required at the point of entry to the course, these factors do not determine the academic level of the course. For example, a graduate may study a different subject at undergraduate, graduate diploma or postgraduate level, or a graduate may undertake further study in the same field as their first degree (a specialised postgraduate course). 9.7 Academic levels in honours degree work correlate broadly to the first, second and third years of a full-time three-year undergraduate course. However, elective modules or option elements need not necessarily be studied in a sequence determined by progressive acquisition of subject knowledge. Therefore each module must be seen both as a discrete unit and a component of the named pathway. 9.8 Particular care must be taken to ensure clarity of definition in learning outcomes of Level 7 postgraduate modules, especially in terms of higher level analytical skills and the expectation of students abilities to sustain advanced independent critically evaluative work, which also underpins much Level 6 undergraduate work. 9.9 There are a range of external reference points for course teams to consider when undertaking curriculum design. Courses seeking Professional Body Accreditation must take into account any requirements of the relevant external body in their curriculum content and design, and make those requirements clear when presenting their course(s) to a University Validation Panel where the external requirements need Course Specific Regulations to be approved. In addition, the QAA has published the Quality Code as a set of reference points for maintaining academic standards and quality.

28 Subject Benchmark Statements (SBS) provide a means for the course team and the wider academic community to describe the nature and characteristics of degrees in a specific subject area. They set out expectations about the standards of awards. They describe what gives a discipline its coherence and identity, and define what can be expected of a graduate in terms of the abilities and skills needed to develop understanding or competence in the subject. Interdisciplinary awards may need to reference more than one SBS The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) is based on the premise that qualifications should be awarded on the basis of achievement of outcomes rather than years of study. Qualification descriptors set out the generic outcomes and attributes expected for the award of individual qualifications. These are embedded into the University s Undergraduate and Postgraduate Frameworks set out in the Handbook of Academic Regulations The QAA Quality Code is set out in three parts; it provides guidance on maintaining quality and standards in Higher Education Institutions. The University takes the guidance set out in each section of the Code into account when developing its own policy and procedures in the relevant areas. Programme Specifications also form part of the Academic Infrastructure and the QAA provides guidance to institutions on producing specifications. Section 10: Validation Processes for New Named Awards 10.1 Clearance is required at University senior management level prior to the consideration by University Validation Panels of new course proposals. Planned course developments are normally included in the Faculty Plan and proposals for new named award proposals are scrutinised by the Academic Portfolio Review Group on behalf of the University Executive Board (UEB) prior to inclusion of new named award proposals in the University Validation Panel (UVP) schedule. ACADEMIC PORTFOLIO REVIEW GROUP 10.2 The Academic Portfolio Review Group (APRG) was established as a replacement for the First Filter Group following agreement by Academic Council in June The remit of the APRG is to: a) review the proposals for new course provision as included in Faculty Plans; b) satisfy itself that the financial, planning, marketing and quality aspects of new course proposals included in the Faculty plan have been considered and signed off and recommend that the course may either proceed to validation or require additional information; c) develop a University-wide portfolio perspective to ensure the avoidance of duplication of course provision across Faculty s; d) receive and approve proposals for changes to existing award titles; e) review and agree arrangements for the revalidation and periodic review of large scale existing courses over the forthcoming two years of the Faculty plans; f) review trends in recruitment and progression for existing courses at University level and make recommendations to UEB on the overall academic portfolio; g) identify the potential for development of new subject areas and modes of delivery in the light of HEFCE/Government level initiatives and pan-european or international developments;

29 26 h) define and oversee cross-faculty protocols on the management of courses in cognate subject areas, and joint inter-faculty programmes and activities Membership of the APRG comprises an independent peer group of 12 members including: a) A Dean (Chair) b) Director of Westminster Exchange c) A Head of Department d) A Faculty Director of Learning, Teaching and Quality e) A Faculty Registrar f) A Faculty Finance Manager g) A Bachelors level Course Leader with multi-pathway delivery experience h) A Masters level Course Leader i) A representative of Estates and Facilities j) A representative of Information Systems and Library Services k) Associate Director Academic Quality and Standards Office l) Director of Planning Following submission of the Faculty Plans, the APRG will invite submission of proposals for new named awards. The APRG will scrutinise the written proposals and will question the Dean of Faculty at individual Portfolio Review meetings to be scheduled for inclusion in the University Calendar each year Each new course proposal includes statements covering the three aspects listed below: Planning Context a) the academic and professional rationale for the new course; b) a summary of the unique features of the proposed course and the subject team s expertise in the specified level and subject, with reference to existing University s courses and/or modules. Where the course is significantly similar to an existing course delivered by another Department/Faculty within the University, the rationale must highlight the similarities and differences, clarifying the differing markets for the courses and the rationale for introducing another similar, cognate course; c) confirmation that the proposed course has been discussed with the Planning Office and a summary of the outcome of the discussion; d) identification of relevant external body involvement in the development of the course and whether Professional Body accreditation will be sought. Market e) confirmation that the proposal has been discussed with Marketing, Communications and Development, a summary of the advice given and confirmation that the Faculty is satisfied that there is a viable and sustainable market for the course;

30 27 Resourcing g) confirmation from the Faculty Finance Manager that the course has been approved and signed off as financially sustainable both in terms of its budgeted income and its direct and indirect costs; h) HEFCE and HESA details including cost centres, qualification aim and expected major source of funding. NEW COURSE DEVELOPMENT 10.7 The Dean of Faculty will establish a formal course development team to prepare each new course for validation. All Course Leaders should hold full-time or fractional contracts of employment with the University; Visiting Lecturers cannot normally be appointed as Course Leaders. It is recommended that responsibilities are clearly designated to identify issues relevant to the proposal and to identify a realistic timescale for the validation of the proposal The Dean of Faculty must ensure that course development is informed by consultation and s/he is responsible for initiating any necessary external consultations with other Faculty, collaborating institutions, employers, subject specialists, professional bodies and external examiners. The Dean of Faculty must also ensure that the course conforms to the requirements of the University and of any external validating and professional bodies. CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT ENHANCEMENT WORKSHOPS 10.9 These workshops are intended to support Course Teams in planning their curriculum in preparation for course validation or review. The workshops will put an emphasis on considering how to deliver the curriculum to support student learning and achievement and to fulfil the University s aspirations of the Learning, Teaching and Development vision and the current Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy. The Faculty is responsible for scheduling these workshops with the Westminster Exchange. Each workshop will be tailored to meet the needs of the Course Teams participating to take account of the identification of current strengths and areas for further development. These workshops take place before the Initial Validation or Review meeting. INITIAL VALIDATION MEETING 10.6 Once a course has been included in the University Validation Panel schedule, the Panel membership is identified, and the Initial Validation meeting is convened. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the Panel with information about the scope of the course and to determine the most appropriate means by which the proposal(s) should be scrutinised, thereby planning the approval process and determining which Panel members and independent subject specialist advisers should be involved at each stage. The initial meeting is normally of minutes duration. Relevant information, including papers received by the APRG a draft Programme Specification, proposals for any Course Specific Regulations and nominations for External Advisers, are circulated to the participants who include: the Panel Chair, the Panel Secretary, Learning, Teaching and Quality Representatives from another Faculty, the Head of Department, and the Course Leader (designate). The Dean of Faculty is invited to attend but the meeting will proceed if they are unable to be present.

31 28 Initial Meeting Agenda 10.7 There is a standard agenda for all Initial meetings. Each agenda is customised by the Panel Secretary to take account of the characteristics of the individual proposal. The standard agenda items are set out below: BACKGROUND TO THE COURSE PROPOSAL a) to discuss the background to the proposal including any developments since the original submission of the new course proposal and to agree if any further submission to the APRG is necessary; b) to discuss the relevant external context for the course, including the implications of any external body involvement in the course approval process; c) to discuss the market for the course, as presented in the new course proposal form, including consideration of any competitor courses; DRAFT PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION d) to consider the draft programme specification for the course(s) under consideration including: (i) any proposed course specific regulations; (ii) any changes to standard modular framework; (iii) admissions to the course including English Language requirements and AP(E)L and APCL; (iv) course management; (v) student feedback arrangements; (vi) consistency with relevant University policies; (vii) employability; (viii) PDP; (ix) support for students with disabilities. PLANNING FOR FINAL VALIDATION EVENT e) to determine whether the Developmental Steering Group process should be used, or whether a single stage meeting would be more appropriate; f) to discuss and agree the involvement of and nominations for external advisers to the Panel; g) to agree provisional dates, membership and locations of the validation meeting(s); h) to agree the format, submission dates and number of copies of documentation required for validation. Two submission dates will be agreed, the first for internal circulation and agreement within the Faculty, and the second for submission to the Panel; i) to note that once the final validation date has been agreed, the Panel Secretary will advise the Course Team of the date by which conditions set at the validation meeting must be responded to, normally within 4-6 weeks of the meeting, and to confirm the deadline for completion of the validation process which includes submission of a definitive course handbook, no later than 31 May;

32 29 j) to confirm that the course may be advertised with immediate effect with the caveat subject to approval NB Normally, course approval must be secured at least three months before the planned start date for the course, for clearance to be given for enrolment to proceed and by 31 May for courses starting in Semester 1 and by 31 October for courses starting in Semester The agenda for the first meeting of the University Validation Panel with the presenters should give precedence to curriculum content relative to course structure, and to the teaching and learning strategy for the course/subject. Course teams are encouraged to submit their own suggestions for the agenda Issues identified at the Initial Validation meeting which do not fall within the remit of the University Validation Panel should be referred to the appropriate body. UNIVERSITY VALIDATION PANEL - REMIT The remit of a University Validation Panel approved by Academic Council is as follows: Validation Panels are convened to ensure that proposed courses are of an academic and professional standard appropriate to the level and nature of the proposed award, are consistent with the University s academic regulations and are supported with appropriate resources. To do this the Panel will, through consideration of the documentation presented to it: a) assess the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed delivery for new courses; this will involve consideration of: overall philosophy, aims and objectives of the course admissions policy and selection criteria curriculum content, balance and relevance of the course(s), with reference to the appropriate QAA Subject Benchmark Statement(s) where available and the requirements of the Professional Body where appropriate teaching and learning strategy (including consideration of how the course encourages student centred active learning) skills policy and provision for Personal Development Planning (PDP) assessment strategy, criteria and methods course output and level of award (in the context of the QAA Framework for Higher Education Qualifications and the QAA Academic Credit level descriptors) expertise, leadership and development of the teaching team(s) resource provision and facilities for the course scheme(s) course management arrangements student involvement in quality assurance and enhancement of the course(s); b) evaluate the level and credit weighting of each module within the course, and the level of the course as a whole within the context of the QAA Framework for Higher Education Qualifications; c) to consider the rationale for proposals for variants to the University's Modular Framework, and, in consultation with the University Academic Registrar and

33 30 Dean with responsibility for Academic Quality, to recommend approval to Academic Council; d) seek clarification from the Dean of Faculty in the first instance, and subsequently from the appropriate resource manager, of any issues which do not appear to have been resolved in the context of the agreed resource provision; e) set conditions of approval and recommendations for further actions required at the end of the validation meeting; f) agree the period of approval for the course(s); g) agree the report of the meeting for consideration by the Faculty Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee, and for onward reporting to Academic Council At its final meeting, the Panel will make one of the following decisions: approval without time limit (with a review within six academic sessions) approval for a specified period (up to six academic sessions) non-approval, possibly with encouragement to resubmit after suggested revision The aspects which should be given the closest attention in discussions between the Panel, its advisers and the presenting team must include the following: the aims and learning outcomes for the subject at the specified level cross-mapped to the aims and learning outcomes for all the core modules and course specific options the subject-specific syllabus content of modules the rationale for the assessment methods specified in the documentation assessment criteria for each module to demonstrate how they are used to measure the attainment of the learning outcomes the processes of subject-specific peer scrutiny at Departmental and Faculty level applied to the design of modules and assessment formats, and moderation of assessed work the involvement of students in ongoing course development and review Particular emphasis should be given to the need to ensure the inclusion of skills, knowledge and aptitudes which help to enhance students employability and career management skills and, where appropriate, these key transferable skills and subject knowledge should have an international focus. Self-reliance and the potential for continued development through lifelong learning are key characteristics which the University must develop in its students.

34 31 STEERING GROUP PROCESS This is intended to be an overtly developmental process and the Panel will conduct its work through a sequence of meetings. Normally at least two and not more than three meetings will be held. The schedule of meetings, the members of the University Validation Panel who will be required to be present at each meeting, and the documents to be considered at each meeting will be agreed at the Initial Validation meeting. If the Panel considers that insufficient progress has been made on the proposal and/or if course approval is judged unlikely, the Panel Chair and Secretary will advise the Head of Quality and Standards and the Dean with executive responsibility for Academic Quality. Following discussions between key staff at University and Faculty level the Panel may either continue its scrutiny of the proposal, although the planned start date for the course may be delayed, or the Panel may adjourn until such time as the proposal has been sufficiently re-developed to facilitate further discussion. SINGLE STAGE PROCESS A Single Stage validation would normally be appropriate for: a new course proposal with a number of modules already in approval a collaborative proposal for the external operation of a course currently approved for delivery within the University a re-validation of a course in time-limited approval where extension of approval is likely, with few modifications to the course. DOCUMENTATION The Dean of Faculty, in consultation with the Head of Department, is responsible for ensuring that the documentation for presentation to the Panel and its external advisers is of a high standard. Validation documents must be checked and approved at Faculty level prior to transmission to the University Validation Panel. The signature of the Dean of Faculty is required on the standard form confirming that documents are approved for circulation to the Panel and its External Advisers The following documents will normally be produced for the validation of a new course: Course Handbook (see Section 27) Faculty document with staff CVs (see Section 30) Programme Specification (see Section 28) If the course replaces any existing course a Critical Review document in respect of the current course should be produced (see Section 31) If a group of courses is proposed it is recommended that a Module Document should be produced Submission dates for this documentation, and the number of copies required, will be agreed at the Initial Validation Meeting. REPORT OF THE VALIDATION Summary conclusions, conditions and recommendations should be made available to relevant participants within five working days of the final meeting. A draft outcomes report on the validation process should be circulated to all participants within ten working days of its completion. A confirmed and agreed report should then be

35 32 submitted to the Head of the Quality and Standards Office for report to the Faculty Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee and for the annual overview report to Academic Council. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL All conditions of approval specified by the Panel must be satisfied by the date agreed at the (Re)Validation Panel meeting, normally a date no later than three months prior to the start date for the course. The Panel must identify the means by which the Course Team s response to the conditions of approval will be considered, e.g. by the Panel Chair, or full Panel, with or without one or more of the external advisers. It is the responsibility of the Dean of Faculty to ensure that conditions of approval set by a Panel are fulfilled by the date(s) specified. Section 11: Re-Validations 11.1 The same validation processes for validation of new awards are used for the revalidation of courses in time-limited approval. It is expected that courses which may have been given limited approval at the point of initial approval will be re-validated without time-limit if the review demonstrates that the courses have run satisfactorily in all respects Courses offered in collaboration with a partner institution always require re-validation A revised Course Handbook is required, together with a Critical Review document as described in Sections 27and 31 respectively. Section 12: Course and module modifications 12.1 Following the Validation or Review of a course there is still an expectation that courses and modules may require modifying to respond to advances in the academic discipline, research, improved technology enhanced learning opportunities, student feedback, Professional Statutory Body and external examiners feedback. In order to ensure the approved course outcomes are maintained, avoid validation drift and to ensure appropriate actions identified through annual monitoring the University operates a proportionate course and module modifications process The modifications process recognises that there is a balance between the transparency of information provided to applicants and students and the need for curriculum, assessment and learning outcomes to be continuously enhanced in line with best practice. Those proposing and approving the modifications do so on the basis of a shared responsibility and shared goal for improving the quality of the course in the interests of staff, students and applicants There are four categories of modification Minor, major, structural and exceptional retrospective this is to ensure proportionality in the approval process. In addition annual updates to module proformas are expected. i) Minor modifications will normally be expected to have no impact on the overall course aims, course outcomes, objectives, philosophy, balance of the course, subject benchmarks and Professional Statutory Body requirements and are normally a single or very small number of changes to linked modules.

36 33 ii) Major modifications are more extensive changes often across multiple modules where a courses overall outcomes, balance and overall philosophy may potentially be affected. This category requires additional evidence over and above that required for a minor modification. Such modifications are normally expected to form one coherent clear proposal. iii) Structural changes are those that impact on the overall structure of an award. iv) Retrospective changes In highly exceptional circumstances a module or course may be required to change for the current academic year. Such changes can only be approved by the University Quality Review Committee Chair or nominee. The modifications table provides full details of the approval mechanism, a summary of the information and evidence required and examples Those proposing and approving the changes have a shared responsibility to ensure that the impact on the learning outcomes, assessment rationale, assessment criteria have been articulated to national expectations, for example appropriate level learning outcomes. In proposing minor, major or structural changes it is expected that consideration of the potential impact at course level is considered by the course leader or equivalent e.g. course outcomes, Professional Body expectations, subject benchmarks, and Franchise implications prior to submission. External points of reference: threshold academic standards Quality Assurance Agency Setting and Maintaining 12.5 Minor and major modifications are considered on behalf of the Faculty Quality Committee. Each Faculty Quality Committee establishes the process for consideration of the proposals. Approval by the Faculty Quality Committee Chair is normally expected, except where there may be a potential conflict of interests Structural modifications must be approved by a University Validation Panel Chair, member of Academic Council or Faculty Quality Committee Chair from outside the host Faculty. This level of approval ensures such modifications are proportionate with the independent peer review Validation and Review process. Where changes are occurring to a course validated or Reviewed within the last two academic years, where possible the proposal should be considered by the relevant UVP Chair The University will set deadlines each academic year for the consideration of proposals. The deadlines take account of the opportunities for student feedback, staff reflections, discussions with external examiners and to allow for a rigorous approval process, whilst balancing the need for other necessary requirements which help improve the student experience e.g. timetabling and the communication of accurate published information. i) Minor modifications to modules taught within semester 1 and yearlong modules should be submitted no later than the academic staff year end preceding the change (mid July). Semester 2 modules can be submitted up to the end of the first week in September, such modifications made just prior to the start of the academic year can potentially result in inaccuracies in published information e.g. course handbooks; course teams will be expected to ensure the documentation will be updated for the start of term. Normally, proposals for minor modifications will be considered within 10 working days of receipt of the full set of required evidence.

37 34 ii) There is an expectation that major and structural changes will be submitted no later than the end of the spring term, allowing for appropriate communication. It is recognised that continuing students may however have been required to register for modules prior to the deadline and applicants may already have accepted a place based on the current published information, course teams are therefore strongly encouraged to submit proposals earlier where feedback opportunities have already taken place and consultation with the relevant external examiner has been possible. Proposals for major modifications should normally be considered within 20 working days. Structural modifications should normally also take approximately 20 days however may take longer depending on the scale of the proposed changes and potential requirement for a face to face meeting with the course representatives. In all cases, formal written approval must be secured before the proposed changes are communicated as approved. iii) iv) The principles outlined for modification deadlines should also apply to nonstandard starting courses e.g. January start courses should where possible allow for student feedback following one semester of teaching. Credit-bearing modules which are not part of a University of Westminster award can be approved by the Faculty Quality Committee. There is an expectation that the relevant external examiner or a specialist external advisor for the subject discipline will be consulted regardless of the credit level and this evidence is submitted as part of the proposal In exceptional circumstances it is recognised that changes to courses and modules may be required during the academic year and are therefore considered retrospective. It is anticipated that at course level these will be exceptionally rare. In such cases these must have the approval of the Faculty Dean and Chair of the Quality Review Committee, discussions with students and the external examiner will also be expected. Where changes to modules are felt required during the academic session these are also presumed to be exceptional and must be approved by the Chair of the Quality Review Committee or nominee The Quality and Standards Office are expected to formally communicate approval of any changes to the relevant Faculty and Registry staff. In addition, it is important that communication with Recruitment, Marketing and Admissions and the Planning Office (where applicable) takes place to ensure the accuracy of published information e.g. on web pages, prospectuses, course promotions. Records will be kept by the Faculty Quality and Standards Officers on behalf of the Faculty Quality Committee Following approval of modifications, it is the responsibility of the Course Leader or nominee to ensure students and the external examiner are informed of the changes. Students should be informed at the earliest opportunity following approval. In the case of structural changes communication should be explicitly to applicants and students affected Changes to modules which take account of individual students disability needs are also expected, in such cases these are normally approved by the Disability Learning Support Unit and/or Student Welfare Panel on a case by case basis. In the case of Collaborative partners this decision making will be the responsibility of the partner institution.

38 Changes to courses and modules run by a partner institution follow the same modifications process. All collaboration modifications should be submitted directly to the relevant Liaison Tutor for onward approval on behalf of the Faculty Quality Committee. It is fully expected that the partner institution engages fully with the approval process Changes to award titles and proposals for additional named awards must be submitted to and be approved by the relevant University Committee; these cannot be approved by the modification process.

39 35 Annual updates to module proformas that do not require approval. Summary List of examples Evidence expected Indicative syllabus, module Annual updates to modules leader changes, reading N/A proformas are expected in some lists, articles and other areas to ensure information is learning resources. accurate and up to date. Changes to student learning and teaching hours table Approval No approval required. Other action The Academic Liaison Tutor/Library should be informed of updated reading lists. Where a Module Leader changes the Faculty Registry Office and Quality and Standards Office should be notified to update the student record system 1)Module proformas are expected to be updated where there has been an adjustment to the hours between differing types of teaching methods as described in the indicative student learning and teaching hour s table, but where there is crucially no change to the total hours of nonindependent study. An example is a move from 20 hours of lecturers to 18 hours of lectures and two hours of seminars, i.e. there is no change to the overall time spent in classes hours. N/A No approval required because this does not impact on the total scheduled teaching hours No other University level action required.

40 36 2) Changes to total hours of scheduled learning and teaching. In the case of Undergraduate provision where the total hours of scheduled activity in a module is changing this is not considered a modification as the hours are not subject to approval. However the summary data for Undergraduate courses is publicly available as part of the Key Information Set (KIS) as time spent in classes and therefore there is important associated action outside the modification requirements. 2013/14 total independent study 120 hours 2014/15 total independent study 130 hours No modification approval required. However: If the proposed change is for the forthcoming year please ensure that the new hours are recorded in the annual KIS data collection exercise via your Faculty Registry Office. It is important that the hours advertised to students in the module proforma match those collated for the KIS exercise. In the case of Postgraduate courses the information simply requires updating in the module proforma.

41 37 Formal Modification process Modification type Minor module modifications Description Examples Evidence to support proposal Approval required. Minor modifications will normally be expected to have no impact on the overall course aims, course outcomes, objectives, philosophy, balance of the course, subject benchmarks and Professional Statutory Body requirements. Examples of these types of modifications are provided. The potential impact of minor changes on course outcomes is however recognised. An example might be the removal of a presentation on a core module, that may result in a course outcome aligned to verbally communicating. The course leader or equivalent is expected to ensure minor modifications are not impacting on the overall course outcomes. Where the course outcomes are changing please refer to major modifications. Changes to Module Learning outcomes, assessment methods, assessment weightings, pre or co requisites, qualifying marks/sets, assessment criteria, the way the module is delivered (teaching and Learning methods), module titles. The addition of an extra already approved option module with no associated withdrawal of modules is considered a minor modification. 1) A brief and clear explanation describing the proposed changes, and the date from which they would be implemented. E.g. change from exam to coursework. 2) Academic rationale E.g. the academic purpose for the change from exam to coursework. 3) A list of the courses to which the amended module contributes, as either a core or a named option, 3) Old and new proforma, 4) In the case of existing option modules being added the Programme Specification must also be updated. 1)Module Leader 2)*Course leader (s) or equivalent. In signing the course leader or equivalent is also confirming there is no impact on the overall course outcomes. *where the module is core across more than one named award it is expected that approval on behalf of each course is provided 3) Approval on behalf of the Faculty Quality Committee 4) Endorsed by the Faculty Quality and Standards Officer or nominee.

42 38 Modification Description Examples Evidence to support proposal Approval required. type Major Major modifications are more Extensive changes to 1) A very brief explanation extensive changes often across assessment, learning outlining what the changes are, multiple modules where a courses outcomes, across normally from the course leader As above overall outcomes, balance and current modules. or equivalent and when they will overall philosophy may be affected. be implemented. This category requires additional Changes to overall evidence over and above that course aims, course 2) Academic Rationale this required for a minor modification.. outcomes, objectives, describes in more detail the Such modifications are normally philosophy. academic purpose of the expected to form one clear proposal. changes. Changes to admissions 3) Old and new proforma(s) requirements. The adding or deleting of existing option modules within a wider suite of modules. In the case of credit bearing short courses with no named award or associated structure, these can be approved by the Faculty Quality Committee as long as there are comments from an external examiner or examiner advisor from the relevant subject discipline. 4) Updated Programme Specification if appropriate. 5) Consultation with students where appropriate, determined with shared responsibility by those proposing and approving the changes, the Chair of the Faculty Quality Committee making a final judgment. This is normally expected to be through the course committee, student representatives or evidence from student surveys. 6) External examiner consultation where appropriate; determined with shared responsibility by those proposing and approving the changes, with

43 39 the Chair of the Faculty Quality Committee making a final judgment. 7) PSB reports or guidance where appropriate. Where an accumulation of minor modifications results in significant changes across a named award in one academic year the Chair of the Faculty Quality Committee can ask for the above information to be provided. In determining if the changes are extensive the overall course structure number of credits involved, extent of the course outcome changes will be considered. Formal modification process which requires approval from outside the Faculty Modification Description Examples Evidence to support proposal Approval required. type Structural Structural changes are those that Changes to: The required evidence is as per changes impact on the structure of the core and optional a major modification; however an course. choices updated Programme Approved by the credit value Specification, student and 1) Faculty process, The only exception is where an credit level external examiner consultation 2)Approved by a UVP additional option module(s) are mode of study are requirements. Chair, academic being proposed, such modifications Council member or

44 40 can be dealt with under the major modification process as the expectations of students are not being impacted. Changes to course specific regulations The approval of new modules on a named award. Where a mode of study is being introduced or changed this must be approved by the Dean of Faculty, a statement from the course leader will be required to confirm how students on the new mode of study will be supported. Director of Quality from, outside the host Faculty. The scrutiny of the proposal(s), will normally take place by correspondence however a meeting may be required for more complex proposals. Retrospective exceptional modifications In highly exceptional circumstances a module or course may be required to change for the current academic year. Such changes can only be approved by the University Quality Review Committee Chair or nominee. Examples may include urgent external examiner comments identified after the start of term. The evidence is the same dependent on the type of modification being proposed; in addition confirmation of what has been published in the course handbook may be required. Note: Course specific regulations must be approved by the Associate Director of Quality and Standards. University Quality and Review Committee Chair, Head of Department and Faculty Quality Committee Chair.

45 41 Section 13: Additional Named Awards 13.1 Proposals for the approval of additional named awards to an existing course scheme have to secure approval from the Academic Portfolio Review Group and are normally considered by a University Validation Panel Where proposals for new awards are developed as part of the course review process their scrutiny will normally be undertaken by the University Review Panel. Section 14: Introduction of New Modules 14.1 Proposals for new modules (up to a maximum of 5% of the course scheme) are considered for approval under the arrangements for minor modifications. Modules must be presented in the standard format, with a covering paper justifying their introduction in the context of existing modules within the course scheme and in the University. The comments of an External Adviser from outside the University must also be appended to the proposal; a currently appointed external examiner may be the most appropriate person to comment, given their familiarity with the aims and objectives and modular structure of the whole course. Section 15: Replacement of Existing Modules 15.1 Where new modules have been approved to replace existing modules, care must be taken at validation and in records kept at Faculty level to use titles and codes which differentiate the new from the old, and the existing modules should be retained on the Student Records System until such time as all students undertaking reassessments have had the opportunity to complete them It is University policy that wherever possible, duplication of modules should be avoided. Therefore it is the responsibility of Course Development Teams to check whether there is a risk of duplication with existing modules. Where duplication is unavoidable a clear justification must be presented at the new course proposal stage (see Section 10.1) for subsequent verification. The Panel Secretary should ensure that the existence of similar modules is checked before any approval decision is taken. Section 16: On-Line Learning and Distance Learning 16.1 The inclusion of distance learning material, in both paper and electronic form in parttime and full-time courses is positively encouraged. Staff preparing such material should consult models of mixed mode and distance learning courses available within the University and in other HEIs A University Validation Panel for a distance or mixed mode course must assure itself that the provision of the study packs or other supporting material for the first calendar year of course operation is at an appropriate standard. Material for at least one module, plus representative sections of other modules must be scrutinised by the Panel and its External Advisers. In addition, Subject Specialist Assessors with distance or on-line learning experience must provide detailed scrutiny of and comment on the content of the materials and their delivery. The nominations of such Subject Specialist Assessors must be considered for approval by the Panel. The written comments of the Subject Specialist Assessors must be submitted to the Panel while it is in progress. Following approval for a course to be delivered in distance learning or on-line learning, the written

46 42 comments of the Subject Specialist Assessors on the remaining module materials must be submitted to the Faculty Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee for reference in the annual monitoring process External subject specialists or distance/on-line learning specialists are nominated by the Faculty s developing the proposal for consideration and approval by the University Validation Panel Chair. Contracts for payment of fees by the Faculty and detailed briefing notes for the Subject Specialist Assessors may only be issued once their nominations have been recorded and approved on behalf of the University Validation Panel. Guidance on the contract (which must include clauses on the level and quality of assessors comments and specify sanctions against missed deadlines) is available from the Academic Services Department and the Finance Department The material to be reviewed by the External Assessor: outline for one or more modules sample material for one or more modules second draft of one or more modules The aim of the scrutiny of the materials is to ensure that they are technically accurate, up to date and cover the learning outcomes at the required level. In giving feedback to the developer of the module, the assessor should look for: recognition of knowledge and skills of the user suitability of style relevance of items covered coverage at the appropriate level of all relevant items accuracy clear presentation of text features (activities, assignments, feedback, projects) variety of activities, assignments and projects to support students active learning appropriateness and suitability of feedback currency of content. ON-LINE DELIVERY 16.6 Many University staff make use of the centrally supported virtual learning environment (VLE) Blackboard as well as other Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in course delivery. Blackboard will increasingly be used to: add extra dimensions to on-campus face-to-face delivery support students on distance learning courses. Staff are encouraged to explore the quality enhancement opportunities that Blackboard and ICT present. Where the use of ICT, and particularly Blackboard, leads to an alteration in the extent of planned face-to-face contact with students, this needs to be explicitly addressed in course design and approval procedures. The reduction in faceto-face contact will vary in extent and from subject to subject. However, achieving the

47 43 stated learning outcomes for the module/course is paramount and should inform staff who are introducing the ICT based or VLE component The use of ICT, including Blackboard, can either be used for an entirely new course or an adaptation of an existing course, so that a course or module may contain a mix of face-to-face and on-line or virtual activities. Where for new courses the extent of the face-to-face contact with students is proposed to be lower than that typically found on a traditional, wholly face-to-face course, of similar length and level, the Faculty proposing such a course is asked to take a range of issues into account (see below). These are critical to the successful delivery of such a hybrid course (part face-to-face, part on-line or virtual). University Validation Panels will include these issues in their scrutiny of such new courses. These include: how far the proposed course has taken into account how other courses have successfully used ICT to change to a hybrid delivery clarity about what outcome should result from the use of ICT the balance of face-to-face versus on-line contact/activities the way that ICT support students active learning management of the demands of on-line contact delivery such as student communications and student contact structure of the course: which aspects will be on-line; information provision; discursive elements; group work; assessments/examinations support for the course team: technical, pedagogic, ICT resources how students will access materials or essential communication tools placed online student access off-campus via their own computer and Internet connection induction and support for students to use the required technology how far targeted students will be familiar with working on-line, have taken on-line assessments, or be familiar with the type of on-line activities planned on-line activities or materials must take due account of the requirements of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) A University Validation Panel will assure itself that the intended on-line learning activities, when combined with the face-to-face contact opportunities, will enable the overall delivery of the course learning outcomes. In addition the Panel should be satisfied that the way in which the course team intend to manage the on-line learning activities match the need to deliver the learning outcomes with the resources available. In addition the University Validation Panel must be clear that the course team have considered the implications of the SENDA for the delivery approach that they intend to take It is possible for a hybrid course to distribute materials but not to rely on those materials in the same way that a truly distance learning course might. For example materials may be distributed on-line in a hybrid course in order that students prepare for a faceto-face classroom based activity. This is in contrast to materials that might be considered to be self-standing, i.e. contain carefully designed exercise and review opportunities so that the materials themselves become more than an information delivery mechanism. Materials to be used substantially in a hybrid course in the latter

48 44 way are subject to the same requirements as outlined in Sections for distance learning courses Many existing University modules and courses will shift progressively to a hybrid pattern of delivery that mixes face-to-face activity with on-line approaches. In some instances the only change to an existing course or module delivery will be the inclusion, for example, of on-line as opposed to paper based short answer testing. In other circumstances a tutor or course team may decide to replace lectures with on-line materials and/or introduce on-line methods for discussion that could replace previously classroom-based seminars or tutorials. In either circumstance, any change which results in a reduction of previously published hours of face-to-face contact (i.e. the number of contact hours included when the curse or module was first validated) must be approved through the minor modification procedure (see Section 12). Section 17: Course Publicity 17.1 Normally, clearance for publicity for a proposed new course will be given following the Curriculum Assessment and Enhancement Workshop and confirmed at the Initial Validation Meeting If Faculty s wish to publicise courses prior to confirmation at the Initial Validation Meeting, they should provide the Panel Secretary with confirmation of the following: a) the course title as approved by the APRG and assurance that this will not change prior to entry; b) that the course intends to recruit for entry in the upcoming academic year; c) the wording for each programme that needs to appear on the University course search pages. NB: this will need to be approved by the Head of the Quality and Standards Office to ensure it meets external requirements and that it is as approved by the APRG; d) that there is sufficient course structure and content to provide potential applicants with suitable information that will accurately describe the nature of the course Publication of new courses at this stage will have been agreed by the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee subject to the understanding that Faculty s must fully consider the implications and potential risks of the early publication of new courses All proposed new courses which are advertised must include the caveat "subject to validation" until the award has been approved by the Validation Panel, and, if conditions are stipulated by the Panel, until all validation conditions of approval have been satisfactorily fulfilled It is the responsibility of the Dean of Faculty to ensure that course publicity is accurate and conforms to the University s house style as determined by the Marketing, Communications and Development Department, and to check that any course or module not yet approved is advertised with the caveat "subject to validation".

49 45 Section 18: Course Records at University and Faculty Level 18.1 The Panel Secretary will complete and circulate a formal course record form once validation approval of the new course or re-validated course has been confirmed on behalf of the Panel. This form will be circulated to the following: Dean of Faculty Head of Department Course Leader Faculty Registrar Faculty Learning, Teaching and Quality Director Head of Quality and Standards Office Admissions Marketing, Communications and Development It is the responsibility of the Quality and Standards Office and the Faculty Registrar to ensure that an appropriate course code is allocated for the new award and that the code, award title, mode, duration, and start date are entered correctly on the Student Record System. It is the responsibility of the Academic Registrar to ensure that the same details are entered on the University s Conferment Record. Section 19: Module Handouts 19.1 Minor modifications are made to syllabuses and their assessment in the period between validation and subsequent review. It is the responsibility of the Head of Department to ensure that all members of teaching staff in his/her subject area update their module handouts and ensure that students are issued with the currently approved version within three weeks of the start of the module, with a copy lodged with the Faculty Registry. Section 20: Communication with External Agencies and PSBs 20.1 All formal correspondence with external agencies concerning validation approval of courses, award titles, modules, external examiners and student registration must be conducted by the Academic Services Department.

50 46 Part 4: Review Section 21: Introduction 21.1 All taught courses leading to validated University of Westminster awards are subject to annual monitoring, and periodically (within six years of the last approval date) the cumulative outcomes of monitoring inform a longer term review of the course and the named awards within the course at undergraduate and postgraduate level Formal course reviews are conducted by Review Panels, organised by the Quality and Standards Office and with delegated powers from Academic Council for courses with unlimited time validation approval for which such review is due in the sixth year of the period of approval of the course The student experience of the course must be central to the review process, and all programmes of study must be included, irrespective of whether students are registered for an award. All taught courses and programmes of study are subject to review irrespective of whether they are subsidised by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) Since 1998 the UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) has held responsibility for the quality assurance processes formerly conducted by Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) and HEFCE respectively since Section 22: Internal Course Review PROCESSES 22.1 Reviews of full-time, part-time, short courses and semester or year-long courses should be conducted at least once in each six-year cycle. Externally validated and franchised courses and some new courses are given time-limited approval and revalidation is conducted by a University Validation Panel The material for the review should be cumulatively produced through the annual monitoring process; no new documents or data should be needed apart from a succinctly drafted cover document, which provides a critical self-evaluation by the subject team (see Section 31). A Course Handbook and Programme Specification which incorporates the changes proposed in the Critical Review must be presented The review will be conducted by a University Review Panel which will be organised by the Quality and Standards Office. The Chair of the Review Panel will be nominated by the Quality and Standards Office for approval by the Dean with executive responsibility for Academic Quality and will be from another School. At least two representatives of another School s Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee will be Panel members; they must be independent of the courses and subject under review. Normally External Subject Specialist Advisers will also participate (see Sections ) The grouping of courses by subject for the purpose of review is determined centrally, by the Quality and Standards Office, in consultation with the relevant Deans of School and Heads of Department. Determining factors include the HEFCE and the Quality Assurance Agency's academic subject groupings, the Joint Academic

51 47 Categories of Subjects (JACS) codes used for HEIs, admissions through UCAS, external reporting purposes and Professional and Statutory Body (PSB) accreditation The process of review will normally start with a Curriculum and Assessment Enhancement Workshop, followed by an Initial Review meeting and will normally include meeting(s) between the Review Panel, the External Subject Specialist Advisers and the Head of Department and Course Team, with or without the Dean of School, and a meeting with a representative group of students (who must be selfselected), and, where possible, recent graduates. INITIAL REVIEW MEETING 22.6 Once a course has been included in the University Validation and Review Schedule, the Panel membership is identified, and an Initial Review meeting is convened (once the Curriculum and Assessment Enhancement Workshop has been held). The purpose of this meeting is to consider the initial findings from the Critical Review of the course; to confirm the extent of changes proposed for the course(s) under review, and to determine which Panel members and independent subject specialist advisers should be involved at each stage. The Initial meeting is normally of minutes' duration. Relevant information to be circulated in advance includes the report of the previous validation, the Critical Review document, a draft Programme Specification, any proposals for new Course Specific Regulations, and nominations for External Advisers. The participants will normally include: the Panel Chair, the Panel Secretary, the School LTQC Representative(s), the Head of Department, and the Course Leader. The Dean of School is invited to attend but the meeting will proceed if they are unable to be present. INITIAL MEETING AGENDA 22.7 There is a standard agenda for all Initial Review meetings. Each agenda is customised by the Panel Secretary to take account of the characteristics of the courses. The standard agenda items are set out below: CRITICAL REVIEW a) To consider the Critical Review of the course(s); b) To discuss the degree of anticipated change to the course(s) including: (i) any proposed course specific regulations (ii) any proposed deviation from the standard Modular Framework; c) To discuss the current external context for the course, including the implications of any external body involvement in the course review process; d) To discuss the ongoing market for and recruitment to the course(s) including consideration of any competitor courses; e) To discuss Transitional arrangements. PLANNING FOR REVIEW EVENT f) To determine whether the Developmental Steering Group process should be used, or whether a single stage meeting would be more appropriate;

52 48 g) To discuss and agree the documents to be provided for the final review event; h) To discuss and agree the involvement of and nominations for external advisers to the Panel; i) To agree provisional dates, membership and locations of the review meeting(s); j) To agree the format, submission dates and number of copies of documentation required for review. Two submission dates will be agreed, the first for internal circulation and agreement within the School, and the second for submission to the Panel); k) To note that once the final review date has been agreed, the Panel Secretary will advise he Course Team of the date by which conditions set at the review meeting must be responded to, normally within 4-6 weeks of the meeting, and to confirm the deadline for completion of the review process which includes submission of a definitive Course Handbook, no later than 31 May The agenda for the first meeting of the Review Panel with the course presenters should give precedence to curriculum content relative to course structure, and to the teaching and learning strategy for the course/subject. Course teams are encouraged to submit their own suggestions for the agenda Issues identified at the Initial Review meeting which do not fall within the remit of the Panel should be referred to the appropriate body. UNIVERSITY REVIEW PANEL - REMIT The remit of the University Review Panel approved by Academic Council is as follows: Review Panels are convened to ensure that courses are of an academic and professional standard appropriate to the level and nature of the award, are consistent with the University s academic regulations and are supported with appropriate resources. To do this the Panel will, through consideration of the documentation presented to it: a) assess the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed delivery for new courses; this will involve consideration of: overall philosophy, aims and objectives of the course admissions policy and selection criteria curriculum content, balance and relevance of the course(s), with reference to the appropriate QAA Subject Benchmark Statement(s) where available and the requirements of the Professional Body where appropriate teaching and learning strategy (including consideration of how the course encourages student centred active learning) skills policy and provision for Personal Development Planning (PDP) assessment strategy, criteria and methods course output and level of award (in the context of the QAA Framework for Higher Education Qualifications and the QAA Academic Credit level descriptors), expertise, leadership and development of the teaching team(s) resource provision and facilities for the course scheme(s) course management arrangements

53 49 student involvement in quality assurance and enhancement of the course(s); b) evaluate the level and credit weighting of each module within the course, and the level of the course as a whole within the context of the QAA Framework for Higher Education Qualifications; c) consider the rationale for proposals for variants to the University's Modular Framework, and, in consultation with the Director of Academic Services and Academic Registrar and Dean with responsibility for Academic Quality, recommend approval to Academic Council; d) seek clarification from the Dean of School in the first instance, and subsequently from the appropriate resource manager, of any issues which do not appear to have been resolved in the context of the agreed resource provision; e) set conditions of approval and recommendations for further actions required at the end of the validation meeting; f) agree the period of approval for the course(s); g) agree the report of the meeting for consideration by the School Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee, and for onward reporting to Academic Council The aspects which should be given the closest attention in discussions between the Panel, its advisers and the presenting team must include the following: the aims and learning outcomes for the course at the specified level crossmapped to the aims and learning outcomes for all the core modules and coursespecific options the subject-specific syllabus content of modules the rationale for the assessment methods specified in the documentation assessment criteria for all modules to demonstrate how they are used to measure the attainment of the learning outcomes the inclusion and assessment of employability and career management skills the processes of subject-specific peer scrutiny at Departmental and School level applied to the design of modules and assessment formats, and moderation of assessed work the involvement of students in ongoing course development and review Particular emphasis should be given to the need to ensure the inclusion of skills, knowledge and aptitudes which help to enhance students' employability and career management and, where appropriate, these key transferable skills and subject knowledge should have an international focus. Self-reliance and the potential for continued development through lifelong learning are key characteristics which the University must develop in its students At its final meeting, the Panel will make one of the following decisions:

54 50 continuation of approval without time limit (with a review within six academic sessions) withdrawal of approval without time limit, with limited approval granted instead for a specified period (up to six academic sessions) withdrawal of approval, possibly with encouragement to resubmit after suggested revision. REVIEW MEETING AGENDA Typically this is based on a list of types of evidence; the agenda of the Review Panel might include checks for: the extent to which the teaching programme for the semester matches the official syllabuses for the module quality and standards in coursework and/or examination requirements and student work the extent to which the content, organisation and design of the curriculum have been updated induction and staff development of all staff involved in delivery consistency between the course or subject aims and learning outcomes and the aims and learning outcomes defined at module level an appropriately wide range of teaching, learning and assessment methods which correspond to the aims and learning outcomes clear assessment criteria published for students and all staff clearly articulated and assessable HE and career management key transferable skills the integrity of the admissions process in consistency between the published entry requirements and the background and qualifications of those admitted consistency in the application of APL statistical evidence of progression and completion evidence of an effective academic and personal tutorial system evidence of effective quality assurance and enhancement mechanisms means for gathering, recording, and responding to student feedback. DOCUMENTATION FOR REVIEW The Dean of School, in consultation with the Head(s) of Department, is responsible for ensuring that the documentation for presentation to the Panel and its external advisers is of a high standard. Review documents must be checked and approved by the Dean of School prior to delivery to the Review Panel The following documents will normally be required for a Review: Critical review document (see Section 31)

55 51 Programme Specification (see Section 28) Course Handbook (see Section 27) Module Document (where applicable) (see Section 29) REPORT OF THE REVIEW Summary conclusions and recommendations should be made available to relevant participants within five working days. An outcomes report on the review process should be circulated to all participants within ten working days of its completion. A confirmed and agreed report should then be submitted to the Head of the Quality and Standards Office for report to the School Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee and for the annual overview report to Academic Council. SUBJECT SPECIFIC AIMS AND LEARNING OUTCOMES The review of aims and learning outcomes for course schemes and named award pathways should ensure that they are subject specific rather than just educational. The aims and learning outcomes should be: written succinctly and with clarity specific to separate academic levels consistent with the University's mission and strategic objectives up-to-date and judged relevant by external subject specialists owned by staff in the delivery team familiar to students demonstrably achievable There are many ways of reviewing existing aims and learning outcomes. Teaching staff should: cross-map the subject aims and learning outcomes to course aims and learning outcomes and module aims and learning outcomes to ensure consistency within the matrix ensure that Visiting Lecturers are involved as well as permanent members of staff identify strengths and articulate them well elicit comments from a good cross-section of students from the courses at each level and ask them to help identify possible areas for enhancement emphasise the input from former students and external subject specialist advisory groups make good use of the research and consultancy activities of staff within the School in contributing to the review involve academic support staff - technicians, librarians, careers staff, administrators - in the review process at the appropriate point.

56 52 CUMULATIVE SELF-MONITORING Annual monitoring by Departments and Schools ensures a structured and continuous review of all taught courses and modules. While there may be some local variation in each School to take account of the scale and character of the courses and modules, there are standard University-wide requirements for monitoring, which are set out in Section 38. The cumulative annual monitoring documentation provides the base documentation for course or subject review and/or re-accreditation by a professional body. EXAMPLES OF STUDENT WORK Evidence of the quality and standards of achievement on a course or modules is provided by examples of student work accompanied by marks and written feedback to the student, in the context of the specific requirements for assessment. Exemplars of student work at each level should be made available to internal and external reviewers both as part of the process of self-evaluation (i.e. when preparing the selfassessment) and for discussion with peer reviewers during the review event or visit. Section 23: External Review 23.1 The UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) conducts audits which take place at institutional level on a six-year cycle. 1 Following the Institutional Audit, institutions will be subject to a three-year mid-point visit to review progress since the previous audit and to discuss the institution s intentions in respect of managing quality and standards in the three years until the next audit The Institutional Audit methodology is evidence-based and will examine the effectiveness of an institution s quality assurance structures and mechanisms and the way in which the quality of courses and the academic standards of awards are reviewed and resulting recommendations are implemented. Institutional Audit will also consider the effectiveness of arrangements for the maintenance of academic standards on postgraduate research programmes and will examine the accuracy and completeness of the information that an institution publishes about the quality of its courses and the standard of its awards Collaborative provision will be included within the audit process unless the provision is large or complex enough to warrant a separate collaborative audit The evidence base for the audit will include the information on the Unistats website, previous QAA and other external body reports. Much of the evidence base consists of existing documentation available within the Institution. However, some documents are written specifically for the audit, the institutional Briefing Document, a Student Written Submission (SWS), although this is not compulsory, prepared by the Students Union and other documentation identified as necessary Central to the audit process is how an institution manages the security of the academic standards of its awards and the quality of the learning opportunities which it provides to students to achieve those standards. It also considers the approach to 1 A new institutional audit method will apply from 2011 to This will involve greater flexibility so that [the QAA] can respond to issues as they arise; a dual approach in which each institution will receive the same core audit but [with] the auditors [able to] look at a greater range of aspects called themes...and student members in all audit teams.

57 53 quality enhancement. The Audit Team will conduct Sampling Trails which follow the implementation of institutional policies and procedures form institutional to course level and back again There are three visits to the University in the audit process. The Preliminary visit takes place 36 weeks before the Audit Visit. The QAA Assistant Director will visit the University and provide a briefing on the process, guidance on the Briefing Document and the SWS and confirm the size and scope of the provision. Following submission of the University s Brieifng Document and the SWS, the Audit Team conduct a three day Briefing Visit to meet with staff and UWSU representatives five weeks before the audit visit. At this Briefing Visit the Audit Team will identify the Sampling Trails for the visit, confirm the programme for the visit and identify additional documentation required before or during the visit The Audit visit will last five working days and will include opportunities for the Audit Team to meet with staff and students and to read the documentation that has been provided. The report of the Visit will set out the Team s judgement of confidence. There will also be recommendations for consideration by the University and areas of good practice may be highlighted. Section 24: Professional and Statutory Body (Re)-Accreditation 24.1 Named awards within specific course schemes may be accredited by one or more Professional and/or Statutory Body (PSBs). Such bodies usually have a quinquennial review and re-accreditation process and they normally provide detailed guidance on the format for the presentation of documentation. This may correspond closely with the University's requirements in terms of course documentation. However, evidence of annual monitoring and of student achievement may need to be formatted separately to accord with PSB requirements. Section 25: Liaison with Professional and Statutory Bodies 25.1 The first point of contact between the University and a Professional and/or Statutory Body is located within the School which holds responsibility for the courses which are the subject of accreditation. Normally this would be the Dean of School, Head of Department or Course Leader. At University level, the formal contact is the Head of the Quality and Standards Office for all correspondence relating to accreditation and the annual review of courses in accordance with PSB requirements The nomination and appointment of external examiners for professionally accredited courses must be conducted through the Quality and Standards Office Preparation for PSB visits is organised jointly by the School-based contact with the PSB, the School Manager and the Quality and Standards Office The dates of visits by PSB representatives must be agreed by the Head of the Quality and Standards Office and the Vice-Chancellor s Office in advance of their confirmation. The PSB panel s schedule should include meetings with the Vice- Chancellor and with the Director of Academic Services and Academic Registrar or nominee. The Dean with executive responsibility for Academic Quality or nominee should also be invited to meet the PSB panel,

58 Arrangements should be made by the Head of Department and Head of the Quality and Standards Office to brief all University representatives involved, as well as students and external examiners The draft documentation, together with the PSB criteria and guidelines, must be drafted by the School. Normally this stage of preparation is conducted through the School Registry, and the submission is checked for consistency of presentation and up-to-date references to University and School policies and procedures. All student statistical reports and analyses will be provided by the School Manager The final draft documentation should then be submitted simultaneously to the Head of the Quality and Standards Office and the Vice-Chancellor for formal approval. Normally documentation is submitted to the PSB by the Quality and Standards Office but this may be delegated to the School Manager or the Head of Department by arrangement The draft report of the PSB panel should be submitted to the Head of Quality and Standards Office for collation and drafting of the formal response on behalf of the University. The draft report and School response to it will be discussed and reviewed by the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee on behalf of Academic Council All reports and an up-to-date record of PSB recognition and accreditation should be maintained by the Quality and Standards Office, to facilitate planning visits and approval of the prospectus and other promotional material.

59 [BLANK PAGE] 55

60 56 Part 5: Documentation for Validation and Review Section 26: Presentation 26.1 The Course Leader(s), Panel Chair and Panel Secretary should determine at the Initial Validation/Review Meeting the most appropriate format in which to submit documentation and the necessary number of copies. All documents submitted must be double sided, page-numbered and have a contents list. Module descriptions must indicate whether or not they are new or previously validated (the date of their approval should be given). The Dean of School must ensure that copies are received by the Panel Secretary electronically and in hard-copy, for circulation not less than two weeks prior to the meeting. Late submission may result in cancellation of the Panel meeting and re-scheduling within the session may not be possible. The Dean of School or nominee must check and approve all documents prior to their submission to a validation or review meeting. The Dean of School must sign the approval form to indicate that the documentation has been checked before circulation to the Panel. The Panel Secretary will advise the Course Leader of the number of sets of papers needed at each stage. Section 27: Course Handbook 27.1 This document will serve as the definitive approved reference document for the course until the next validation or review event, but it is expected that modules will be updated annually. The Course Handbook will also serve as the main reference for students, academic staff, School Registry staff and external examiners. It must include the following information: General information: course title, duration, modes and all named award titles; course aims and learning outcomes; rationale for the course; links with professional or external validating bodies, if any; means by which the course meets the University's general educational aims and specific policies Philosophy/learning outcomes: a clear statement of the philosophy of the course scheme and its relationship with cognate courses, and a summary of the learning outcomes for students completing the course at each stage Admissions requirements: knowledge and skills; Access arrangements; credit transfer; APCL/APEL; selection procedures; student induction; equal opportunities Award Specific Regulations: these should be drafted in line with the pro forma Course Specific Regulations included in the template. A clear diagrammatic representation of the course structure should be appended to the course specific regulations Assessment: details of assessment strategies and rationale; schedule of assessment; Assessment Board arrangements; details of penalties for late submission of coursework; approaches to preventing plagiarism Course delivery: teaching and learning strategies; student workload; patterns of attendance; specialisms and pathways; teaching timetable; assignments and project work; study or work placements; extra-university activities

61 57 Course management: detailed information about the course team, course management team responsibilities and teaching commitments; arrangements for induction, staff development and enhancement for all staff, including PT staff; responsibilities for guidance on programme planning; arrangements for academic and personal tutorial support, including educational and careers guidance; information on how to contact tutors; administrative support for the course Skills policy: skills strategy statement, an identified skills set and programme skills map. Skills cross-referenced to subject benchmarks and any PSB requirements, details of personal development and resources identified for skills development and Personal Development Plan (PDP) Student feedback arrangements: guidance on the operation of the Student- Staff Consultative Committee with details of arrangements for the election of student representatives and approximate dates of meetings where known; other arrangements for obtaining student views Syllabuses: (except where separate Module Document) including information about module leader and other teaching staff involved; aims and learning outcomes and a description of assessment methods designed to test their achievement; full details of subject content with an indication of time allocated; duration; credit weighting; core/option; pre-requisites/co-requisites; teaching and learning methods; bibliography (recommended/required with publishers and dates). Module information must be summarised in accordance with the standard pro forma, including information on the timetable slot. A standard template can be found in Annex 1 (Part 5) and is available on the Intranet at Staff: full staff CVs drafted in accordance with the standard University format must be provided for validation as a separate document, although only brief summary CVs are included in the handbook for post-validation use. Where staff have not yet been appointed, the Head of School must provide a proforma CV for all such staff and a statement confirming the resources available to support the appointments Where a group of awards form a course scheme, it may be judged more appropriate to produce the Course Handbooks collectively in a single document to avoid duplication of scheme-wide information. Schools may also choose to provide common student support information in a School handbook or a Department handbook A template Course Handbook is provided by the Quality and Standards Office and includes pro-forma regulations and generic information relating to University policies and procedures. Section 28: Programme Specification 28.1 A Programme Specification is a course synopsis presented as section one of the Course Handbook for each qualification conferred by the University. The University s standard format takes into account guidance and exemplars produced by the QAA. A standard template is available within the Course Handbook template on the Academic Services Department webpages.

62 Normally, Draft Programme Specifications will be considered at the initial validation meeting for new course validations, and re-validations and reviews of existing courses The primary users of these documents will be current students and applicants, external examiners, PSBs and other external agencies, potential employers of graduates and placement students, professional, commercial and industrial advisory groups, Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) for training and skills surveys, British Council, and other national agencies and QAA Teams. Section 29: Module Document 29.1 Where a group of courses, or a course scheme with several named award pathways is to be considered, it may be judged more appropriate to present the module syllabuses in a separate Module Document, giving an overview of all modules and how they are shared between the group of courses. A Module Document would include syllabuses drafted in accordance with the standard pro-forma (see Annex 1). Section 30: School Document 30.1 For large course schemes and/or reviews it may be appropriate for the Course Handbook to be supplemented by a School Document. The School Document should present an account of the School's past (since the last review) and future (until the next review) activities related to curriculum development in the designated subject area(s) in the context of the overall School Plan. It should include the following: current statement of the School's work and achievements details of the academic management structure and staffing arrangements an outline of planned future developments including a staff development and research plan for the following five years a record of the staff development, research and consultancy activities undertaken by members of the teaching teams in the subject area in the period since the last review specimen timetables for staff to indicate the relationship between large group and small group teaching, and the integration of full-time, part-time and visiting lecturers an updated curriculum vitae for each member of staff, indicating which course schemes/pathways/modules they are expected to teach The School Document must also include a statement on resources which details the human and physical resources (including accommodation) which support its courses, and indicate the sources of funding and student numbers.

63 59 Section 31: Critical Review Document 31.1 The Critical Review document comprises two elements: the monitoring material, and the critical self-evaluation. BASE MATERIAL FOR THE REVIEW 31.2 The cumulative monitoring material for the previous 3 years will form the basis for the review: Student Record System (SITS) data on student performance and progression external examiners' reports and responses from the Dean of School or nominee First Destination Survey Statistics on first degree graduates provided by the Careers and Student Employment Service (CASE), augmented by information updated at Department level Data from internal and external student surveys, included Module Feedback Questionnaires minutes of Course Committee meetings or other student/staff consultative processes notes or outcomes reports of teaching team meetings reports of liaison with external subject specialist advisers outcomes reports of annual staff development and enhancement activities, including peer observation report from PSBs, if available The Head of Department in collaboration with the Course Leaders/Pathway Leaders for the constituent awards within the subject must write a cover paper providing a self-assessment of teaching and learning in the course subject as described in Section with reference to the material listed under Section THE SELF-EVALUATION 31.4 The process of self-critical evaluation by the teaching team or subject group is central to the review process whether conducted for internal University purposes in periodic progress review (normally once every six years) or external subject review or reaccreditation by a PSB The format of the self-evaluation is normally that of a single written document but it may be complemented by presentation of examples of work and/or diagrams which illustrate the mapping of subject aims and learning outcomes to core syllabuses at each level, or diagrams which chart the processes of course review, with examples of modules and student work Recommended headings for this written self-evaluation are: curriculum design, content and organisation

64 60 teaching, learning and assessment student progression and achievement student support and guidance learning resources quality assurance and enhancement. Guidance on drafting is available from the Quality and Standards Office. In consultation with the Chair of the Review Panel and the Panel Secretary, Deans of School may decide to customise these headings to reflect more closely the characteristics of the courses under review The principal expectations of the self-evaluation process are that there should be: evidence of a reflective approach within the teaching team a clear definition of aims and objectives clearly defined assessment methods and criteria which are aligned with the learning outcomes for the specific modules clear and up-to-date Course Handbooks for each award pathway or the whole course scheme evidence of a range of teaching, learning and assessment processes relevant to the learning outcomes and consistent with the Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy (LTAS) effective methods of internal review which draw on current and former student opinion and links with external organisations, i.e. industry, the commercial sector, public sector agencies and PSBs where appropriate The document should be succinctly drafted and presented. It should include an account of the achievements of staff and students related to teaching, learning and research, with prioritised plans for continuing enhancements. The evaluative aspects should identify strengths and weaknesses, and provide indicators of ongoing improvements. The self-evaluation and supporting documents set the agenda for the review exercise whether internal or external.

65 61 MODULE PRO-FORMA Full Module Title: (in capital letters, large font) Short Module Title: (maximum 30 characters) Module Code: (from Quality and Standards Office ) Credit Value: Credit Level: (3, 4, 5, 6, or 7) Length: (1 or 2 Semesters/ Study Abroad) School and Department: Module Leader(s): Extension: Host course: Status: (core, subject specific option or Westminster Elective) Subject Board: Pre-requisites: (short module title and code and details of if the module must be passed or condoned in order to met the prerequisite requirement) Co-requisites: (short module title and code) Assessment: (weightings e.g. 50% examination / 50% coursework, deadlines for coursework submission and details of exam length in hrs and if open or closed book, etc) Study Abroad: (where applicable please detail the alternative assessment that study abroad students will be required to take in place of an examination) Qualifying Mark(s) for Assessment(s): (the standard qualifying mark for all final assessment is 30% however this may for example, through course specific requirements, be 35%. Qualifying marks for individual and/or sets of assessment should be detailed here) Special features: (e.g. Study Abroad prior knowledge; fieldwork; placement; facilities) Access restrictions: (e.g. limit on student numbers; dis-requisite modules) Summary of Module content: (short summary with key words. Please note this text will appear on SRSWeb) NB: Information above this line will be used for SITS. Module Aims: (These should be specific to modules but linked to the course aims and objectives) Learning outcomes: (see Section 45 of the QA & E Handbook) Indicative syllabus content: (This should be general enough to allow for annual updating, while indicating the breadth and depth of the module relevant to its academic level. A week-by-week summary is more appropriate for the Module Handout provided for students at the start of the module) Teaching and Learning Methods: (indicative breakdown of contact hours, including typical number of lectures, tutorials, seminars, Guided Independent Study, laboratory sessions etc) Assessment Rationale: (A brief summary of the justification of the chosen assessment methods relative to the module aims and learning outcomes) Assessment criteria: (The assessment criteria should serve as a guide to students, all FT and PT teaching staff, external examiners and external reviewers on how achievement of the module learning outcomes will be measured and assessed. Criteria should be balanced between being useful and informative whilst at the same time not being overly binding or restrictive) Assessment Methods and Weightings: (This section should indicate the full range of assessment formats as well as providing the % weightings for coursework and examinations and detail the qualifying mark for both individual and/or sets of assessment as appropriate. The standard qualifying mark is 30% however this may be increased in line with School/course/module specific requirements. For example this information could be set out as: Name of assessment Weighting % Qualifying mark/set %) Sources: this section should be sub-divided eg: Essential reading (author, date, publisher, volume/page), Further reading (author, date, publisher, volume/page), Periodical references, www references, Additional references (software packages, databases, CD-Rom, film video, audio-tape) Date of Initial Validation: Dates of approved modifications: Date of re-validation/review:

66 [BLANK PAGE] 62

67 [BLANK PAGE] 63

68 64 Part 6: Monitoring Section 32: Responsibilities of all Teaching Staff 32.1 Teaching staff hold the primary responsibility for educational quality and good academic standards at the University of Westminster. The design and delivery of modules provides the framework for the student experience. Continuous selfmonitoring of delivery is central to the achievement of good quality delivery. Collaboration between colleagues at Departmental and School level enhances the ongoing review process. Section 33: Heads of Department 33.1 Each School is organised on the basis of complementary disciplines within the overall subject of its title. Each subject specialist team is organised into a Department; some are single subjects, others represent cross-disciplinary subjects Responsibility for providing management and leadership for the teaching and research staff within these subject specialist units lies with the Head of Department. Specifically, this encompasses management of academic quality of delivery, and monitoring student achievements, within the University's framework of policies and processes for quality assurance The generic job description of the Head of Department includes responsibilities for managing and monitoring the quality assurance of courses, modules and other educational programmes provided by the Department, and to ensure the provision of academic and pastoral support for students studying programmes in the Department. Heads of Department are members of the School Executive Group The Head of Department's specific responsibilities for taught courses will reflect the scale and character of the courses, but would normally encompass: assessment (including liaison with internal and external examiners, and arrangements for the scrutiny of all draft coursework and examination requirements) monitoring and review (including the aggregation of student feedback from local sources of student evaluation and the University module feedback questionnaire for analysis by the course teaching team; preparing the annual self-monitoring report; and coordinating the preparation for periodic internal course review, external review and/or re-accreditation). Section 34: Course Leaders 34.1 Within the Statutes and Principles of the University approved by Privy Council in 1992, the appointment of a member of staff as leader of the course or named award programme is specified, with the responsibility of ensuring that: the course/programme meets its specified aims and objectives

69 65 it is conducted in accordance with the appropriate regulations and academic administrative requirements it meets the requirements of the University s Skills Policy and the Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy documentation is provided for monitoring and review The role of the Course Leader may vary within and between Departments to reflect the level and mode of the course. However, the responsibilities of the Course Leader would normally encompass: student induction and support including course-specific induction, organisation of elections for student representatives and Course Committee or Student-Staff Consultative meetings which should normally be held once each semester; and overseeing the effectiveness of the Personal Tutorial System for students registered for named awards within the course scheme in consultation with the School Senior Tutor course definition keeping an overview of the consistency between subject-specific aims and learning outcomes and the aims and learning outcomes for core and subjectspecific option modules; ensuring that assessment criteria for each module are published for reference by students, teaching staff (PT as well as FT), external examiners and external accrediting agencies; and updating and circulating the Course Handbook, in accordance with the requirements specified in Section 27. Section 35: Students Rights and Responsibilities 35.1 Applicants admitted to a named award at the University of Westminster are bound by the University's regulations and codes of practice in terms of assessment, equal opportunities and behaviour Students must enrol fully for the named award at the beginning of each academic session or semester as specified, and all students have a responsibility to familiarise themselves with the full University and Course Assessment Regulations and the detailed contents of Essential Westminster which is part of the University s Academic Regulations. This is available on the University website and on request from all the School Registry Offices It is the responsibility of students to ensure they are properly registered on the correct modules and to ensure that their programme of study corresponds with the course specific regulations Students have the right to receive tuition as set out in the module syllabus and to be assessed impartially on the basis of their own work It is the responsibility of students to advise the relevant School Registry Office of any disability or difficulty on the basis of which they are requesting special examination or assessment arrangements Punctual arrival at classes and full participation in all aspects of the teaching and learning activities designed for each course are expected of all students.

70 Submission of coursework for assessment must be made within the published procedures and deadlines. Students are responsible for providing the Mitigating Circumstances Board in advance of its meeting with any relevant information and personal circumstances which may have affected performance and which they wish to be taken into account in assessment Students should ensure that all their work submitted for individual assessment is attributable wholly to them, with proper references to sources used. Students should keep a copy of all coursework submitted for assessment, on disk or in hard copy Students should check that all coursework is returned with grades or marks and feedback comments, check marks against those on the end of semester Student Module Profile and advise the Module Leader of any discrepancy The effective operation of the student feedback system depends on timely and carefully considered input from students through local sources of student evaluation, the annual University-wide student survey and submission of comments to student representatives for the Course Committee or other formal Student -Staff Consultative Committees Internal examiners have the right to examine any student by viva voce (oral examination); it is the student's responsibility to ensure that they are available for an oral examination on the day of the Subject Board or other Assessment Board meeting, or at another time as advised by the appropriate member of staff. Oral examinations are allowed in exceptional circumstances such as illness or concern about the authenticity of a student s work, or if it is a validated part of a module assessment strategy Students are expected to take up any re-assessment opportunities offered to them, notably examination resits or re-submission of coursework by the stipulated deadline (usually a date in July) To safeguard the interests of all students in assessment, it is a regulatory requirement in all courses that students must provide a statement of any financial supplement(s) related to assessed work, over and above any contributions made, directly or indirectly, from University budgets, and that such statements be made available for reference by both internal and external examiners Plagiarism and other offences defined within the University's Assessment Regulations are subject to formal investigation. It is the student's responsibility to ensure that the work they present for assessment as coursework or examination is wholly their own. Source material should be suitably cited and referenced, except where governed by group work protocols. The Academic Regulations prohibit any student gaining an unfair advantage over other candidates by dishonesty or unethical conduct. Section 36: Formal Student-Staff Consultation Processes This section should be read in conjunction with the Student Representatives' Handbook, which is updated annually Students on taught courses are represented by their peers in formal meetings (Course Committee) of student and staff representatives at least once each semester.

71 Such formal meetings have the following characteristics: the dates for the meetings are published in advance the composition (i.e. the numbers of students and staff and the years, levels or constituencies they represent) are agreed at School level and published at the first meeting of the academic or calendar year, as appropriate for each course the agenda (i.e. list of issues for discussion) is published in hard copy and/or by prior to the meeting a minimum attendance requirement (a quorum) is set by the School separate individuals must undertake the roles of Chair and Secretary (NB the Secretary may be a student) a summary of discussions and a record of agreed decisions and actions must be recorded in the notes or minutes of the meeting, with a list of all those present, indicating whether staff or student representative, and the date Each course must have a formal meetings process for consulting with and gathering feedback from student and staff representatives, usually in the format of a Course Committee (see Section 36.4 below). However for part-time, postgraduate, block mode and distance learning courses a different format may be necessary which allows the remit defined for Course Committees to be fulfilled. Periodic meetings of the whole year or cohort group may work well, or learning sets' may be more appropriate. Consultation by group can be very effective. Whatever the format, the primary task is to consult actively and provide timely feedback on the outcome. Provided that a formal set of notes or minutes records those participating in the consultation, its dates and the outcomes, the title of each meeting need not be that of a Course Committee The Course Committee has responsibility for considering the effective management of the course, including enhancement of provision. The remit of the Course Committee covers the: academic welfare of students, and specifically the course induction and the Personal Tutorial system student feedback on course operation, curriculum content, teaching, study skills, support, assessment, facilities, library and computing support, and administrative support monitoring information/comment on previous year's course audits, operation of course academic standards, i.e. the Course Leader's annual report plus progress statistics' of students enrolled, progressing, graduating (and withdrawing); summaries of external examiners' reports; reports of University Review Panels and University Validation Panels or external bodies which accredit the course consultation on proposed changes to module content, assessment and/or course structure. The Course Committee minutes provide a formal record for the Annual Monitoring Evidence Base, and periodic review (every six years) Good practice in committee organisation indicates that:

72 68 the Course Leader should organise a pre-meeting for all student representatives in advance of the first Course Committee meeting of the session, and provide copies of the previous year's Course Committee minutes agendas should be circulated one week ahead and put on course notice boards/ Blackboard meetings should be held at least once each semester but preferably twice a Secretary (staff or student) should be appointed at the first meeting of each academic year the total membership of student representatives and staff should not be more than 30, of whom 50% should normally be students at least 40% of members must be present before formal decisions are taken issues raised at the Course Committee should be reasonably representative of the student and/or staff group and not just of a minority urgent practical problems (e.g. access to IT facilities or teaching rooms) are to be raised with the Course Leader and/or Head of Department in between Course Committee meetings, rather than delayed draft minutes or notes should be approved by the Chair and circulated within 3 weeks of the meeting the list of issues raised at the meeting and decisions taken are recorded on an action list', and reported back to the next meeting as Matters Arising All students can channel their comments through their tutor or another member of teaching staff but the view put across by the elected course representative is much more likely to be seen as presenting the case of the student group as a whole. Constructive criticisms of the way the course is run or the facilities available may be reported to the School Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee, and Universitywide issues highlighted in this way are likely to be followed up at a senior level precisely because it is recognised that they provide an overview of student opinion Aspects of study not covered by Course Committees are: personal problems of individual students academic difficulties of individual students allegations of unfair or inappropriate treatment by staff or other students. These sorts of issues should be handled confidentially (as private concerns) and, with the advice of the Course Leader, they should be referred to the appropriate staff member such as the student's Personal Tutor, the Head of Department, the Dean of School, the University of Westminster Students Union (UWSU) Welfare Officer or President, or the Counselling and Advice Service If general student comment highlights a problem, potential or actual, it should be reported to the Course Leader (without identifying the individual source of the comments) by a student representative; the Course Leader may be in a position to resolve the matter or may need to refer it to the Head of Department, Dean of School, or manager of the relevant service, for resolution and report back to the next meeting of the Committee. If comments relate to the approach taken by individual staff members, they should always be referred to the Head of Department, who will

73 69 meet the students concerned and later with the staff member. If it is not possible to resolve the issue, the Dean of School will be asked to convene a further meeting with the staff member to identify appropriate action. Any such meetings, with staff or students, will remain confidential as far as possible Obviously formal committees (and monitoring and review meetings) are not the appropriate places for dealing with potential student complaints about an individual member of staff; the University has a student complaints procedure for this purpose, details of which are published in the University handbook Essential Information. Section 37: Student Surveys 37.1 All students are invited to complete an online Module Feedback Questionnaire (MFQ) at the end of each module. Satisfaction scores and comments are made available to the Module Leader to share with the module teaching team. It is expected that the Module Leader will reflect on the outcomes of the MFQ in their Module Leaders Report and identify necessary modifications or enhancements from the MFQ feedback. Both qualitative and quantitative module results will be made available, beyond the module teaching team, to the relevant academic managers in the School as determined and formally agreed with the Deputy Vice Chancellor by the Dean of School (typically the Dean and Heads of Department). Quantitative MFQ data will be provided to Schools to enable this information to be reviewed and considered by appropriate University, School, Departmental and subject groups (e.g. Annual Monitoring Sub-Committee, School LTQE Committee, School Board) The annual course level Student Experience Survey (SES) is issued to first and second year undergraduates and taught postgraduates online. The SES provides equivalent data to the externally-administered National Student Survey (NSS), which is for final year undergraduates only. International students receive a number of tailored surveys throughout their studies. The satisfaction scores and comments from internal and external student experience surveys will be made available to the relevant academic managers in the School as determined by the Dean of School (typically the Dean and Heads of Department). Quantitative data will be provided to Schools to enable this information to be reviewed and considered by appropriate University, School, Departmental and subject groups (e.g. Annual Monitoring Sub- Committee, School LTQE Committee, School Board). Schools are required to identify actions for improving the student experience and to monitor their effectiveness in partnership with the Learning, Teaching and Student Support Committee. Section 38: Annual Monitoring PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW 38.1 The purpose of annual monitoring is to provide an objective, robust and timely assessment of the quality of taught course provision and the associated local quality assurance and enhancement procedures These systems aim to provide: (i) a system which recognises the transition from quality assurance to quality assurance and enhancement with local delivery but university-wide accountability;

74 70 (ii) (iii) (iv) a risk based approach to intervention based upon clearly defined Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) so that, where the University is confident in the effectiveness of local monitoring procedures and the quality of the student experience, less formal monitoring is required. Where there is less confidence or where issues emerge and remain unresolved, more detailed monitoring and greater level of intervention are required; objectivity and rigour delivered by a University level Monitoring sub-committee of the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee; a lighter administrative burden The annual monitoring of taught course provision comprises: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) collation by each School of their Quality Assurance Evidence Base which will incorporate statistical reports and other evidence; a School managed review of the Evidence Base which is focused on the KPIs and leads to the generation of the Annual School Monitoring Review and Planning Document (ASMRPD); the option of a School appointing a Critical Friend to support the School in the process and the production of the ASMRPD; presentation of the ASMRPD to the Monitoring Sub-committee of the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Sub-committee by the Dean of School; the submission by the Sub-committee of recommendations on the outcomes of the annual monitoring process to the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee. RESPONSIBILITIES 38.4 The Dean of School is responsible for the quality assurance and enhancement of all taught course provision within the School, for the operation of Annual Monitoring procedures at School level and for the preparation of the ASMRPD. This includes the provision of appropriate feedback on issues raised by stakeholders as part of the Annual Monitoring process The Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee is responsible for the management of the annual monitoring procedures for taught course provision at University level The School is responsible for the download of statistical reports via SRSWeb which form part of the evidence base for Annual Monitoring. Specified other parts of the evidence based will be supplied by other administrative departments. TIMESCALES 38.7 In order to expedite the resolution of any issues, all Annual Monitoring processes are to be completed at the earliest opportunity and no later than six months after the monitoring and review period;

75 The statistical components of the Evidence Base will be available to download from SRSWeb by mid-august; 38.9 Completed Annual School Monitoring, Review and Planning Documents are to be submitted to the Quality and Standards Officer (Monitoring and Review) no later than 15 October; All Annual School Monitoring, Review and Planning Documents are to be considered by the Monitoring Sub-committee no later than the start of the Christmas closure; The outcomes of Annual Monitoring are to be considered by the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee no later than 31 January and by Academic Council no later than 28 February; The Annual Monitoring of postgraduate taught courses will follow a similar pattern except that the outcomes of the monitoring of project/dissertation work will be deferred until the next academic session. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS A range of KPIs have been developed to inform the risk based approach to Annual Monitoring. These indicators articulate university-wide performance thresholds that are to be applied uniformly across the University to highlight potential areas of concern over quality outcomes or quality assurance procedures. They are used to inform the operation of Annual Monitoring processes and to help focus effort and resources on the activities or areas most in need of attention Schools are expected to consider their performance against each KPI as part of their internal monitoring processes Performance against each KPI and any actions initiated or planned by the School as a consequence will be reviewed by the Monitoring Sub-committee of Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee and may be used as the basis of recommendations for remedial action by the School Details of the current KPIs are available on the intranet at Amendments to the KPIs may be made annually prior to the start of each session by the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee on behalf of Academic Council. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH ANNUAL MONITORING The University values student input into the Annual Monitoring processes as a key contribution to work to enhance the student experience, course delivery, student focus and the general well-being of the University community Student feedback is sought formally through the following mechanisms: (i) (ii) the Evidence Base which includes information derived from Module Feedback Questionnaires, the Student Experience Survey, Course Committee minutes and may include the outcomes of the National Student Survey; student representation on the Annual Monitoring Sub-Committee and the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee.

76 Schools are encouraged to consider additional ways of engaging the student community as part of Annual Monitoring processes by, for example, seeking input from the Students Union or the use of IT Discussion Boards The University is committed to providing feedback on the outcome of issues raised as part of the Annual Monitoring process. This will be achieved by: (i) (ii) placing the responsibility for delivering appropriate feedback with the committee, office or individual member of staff who is first notified of the concern; providing for the progressive escalation to more senior committees or offices for issues that remain unresolved. ASSESSMENT BOARDS Assessment Boards play a key role in determining student results and in maintaining academic standards. The detailed terms of reference for Assessment Boards are specified in the Handbook of Academic Regulations Through their role in determining student results and maintaining academic standards, Assessment Boards also make a major contribution to quality assurance and enhancement The work of Assessment Boards contributes to Annual Monitoring through the inclusion of Assessment Board Minutes and External Examiner Reports within the Evidence Base. EVIDENCE BASE The Evidence Base will comprise: (i) (ii) (iii) Statistical reports available from the University Planning Office or SRSWeb; First destination statistical report generated by CaSE; Other documents provided by the School; Further details of the evidence base are attached as Appendix C. ANNUAL SCHOOL MONITORING, REVIEW AND PLANNING PROCESSES Schools are required to develop their own consultative and reflective approaches to review the Evidence Base and prepare the Annual School Monitoring, Review and Planning Document In order to recognise the importance of local delivery in effective quality assurance and enhancement, these procedures are deliberately not prescriptive about the type of approach used by Schools to complete this task. Schools are therefore free to develop their own approach which may, for example, include: (i) (ii) (iii) round table discussions by Course Teams; school or departmental away days; cognate groups;

77 73 (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) focus groups; events facilitated by the critical friend or other group external to the School; reviews of the evidence base; discussions of good practice Schools are encouraged to involve representatives from Corporate Service departments in their annual monitoring process in any issues which fall within their remit and are encouraged to ensure ongoing liaison with Corporate Service departments to facilitate the early resolution of issues before it becomes necessary for them to be raised as part of annual monitoring. CRITICAL FRIENDS Schools can choose to appoint Critical Friends from elsewhere within the University to support the Annual Monitoring process. This may include the facilitation of departmental review meetings, the provision of advice or other forms of support agreed between the School and the Critical Friend(s) Critical Friends will be full-time staff based in a different School within the University of Westminster. They will come from a variety of backgrounds but their profiles are likely to include: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) substantial teaching experience; an enthusiasm for innovation in learning, teaching and assessment; experience of course validation and review; a commitment to enhancement of the student experience. ANNUAL SCHOOL MONITORING, REVIEW AND PLANNING DOCUMENT Schools are required to use their own internally developed processes to review the evidence base and prepare the Annual School Monitoring, Review and Planning Document which will comprise: (i) (ii) the evidence base (both the statistical reports and other documents provided by the School); the School Commentary The Annual School Monitoring, Review and Planning Document should include: (i) (ii) confirmation of those KPIs that have been met; details of all instances where KPIs have not been met on a course by course or module by module basis as appropriate. Any non-compliance should include a commentary explaining what actions are being taken, or will be taken, to address each deficiency The Annual School Monitoring, Review and Planning Document is to be regarded as a living document which evolves from year to year. Although it is possible that the document may be entirely re-written on occasions, there is no requirement for this to happen each year. Many components of the Evidence Base are provided

78 74 from sources external to the School and other sections prepared by the School are likely to be suitable for use outside the Annual Monitoring process Annual School Monitoring Review and Planning Documents are to be submitted to the Quality and Standards Officer (Monitoring and Review) in accordance with the date agreed by the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee. MONITORING SUB-COMMITTEE The Annual Monitoring Sub-Committee is a Sub-committee of the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee. The role of the Sub-Committee is: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) to receive Annual School Monitoring, Review and Planning Documents and associated oral presentations by Deans of School; to scrutinize the written submission and question the Dean of School on any aspect of the annual monitoring process and related outcomes including, in particular, performance against the KPIs; to formulate recommendations to the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee identifying those schools, courses and modules that are found to be satisfactory and those where additional specified action is required; to identify and report upon issues requiring attention at university level and examples of transferable good practice and quality enhancement; to report on the operation of the Annual Monitoring processes The Monitoring Sub-committee shall comprise: (i) (ii) The Chair of the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee or nominee; Members drawn from the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee. The actual membership for each Sub-committee meeting shall be determined by Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee to ensure that the appropriate skill set is available and that no member is asked to consider a submission from their own School. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE The Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee: (i) (ii) (iii) is responsible for the management of the Annual Monitoring procedures for taught courses at University level; is responsible for determining the actual membership for each Sub-committee meeting to ensure that the appropriate skill set is available and that no member is asked to consider a submission from their own School; will approve any proposed changes to the KPIs at the end of each academic session;

79 75 (iv) (v) (vi) will, at its January meeting, consider reports from the Monitoring Subcommittee on the outcomes of the Annual Monitoring processes and any associated recommendations; will facilitate the involvement of Corporate Service Directors before issues which fall within their remit are reported to Academic Council; will report to Academic Council on the outcomes of annual monitoring and, in particular, on any issues requiring attention at university level; (vii) will ensure that issues raised as part of Annual Monitoring processes that remain unresolved are escalated to achieve resolution and that appropriate feedback is provided to stakeholders. ACADEMIC COUNCIL At its February meeting, Academic Council will receive a report from Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee on the outcomes of Annual Monitoring for the previous session including, in particular, any issues requiring attention at University level. ANNUAL MONITORING OF COLLABORATIVE PROVISION These provisions shall apply to collaborative provision unless alternative equivalent arrangements are approved at validation or by the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee on the basis of confidence in the internal systems operated by the partner institution.

80 76 Annual Monitoring : process diagram SRSWeb Annual Monitoring reports available for download Monday 23 rd August 2010 Other data and documents generated by the School, Planning Office and CaSE Evidence Base Annual Monitoring Review of the Evidence Base by the School School Commentary School Annual Monitoring report document Annual Monitoring Sub- Committee reviews all Annual Monitoring reports and submits recommendations to QAEC January 2011 Dean of School meets with Annual Monitoring Sub- Committee to present the Annual Monitoring report December 2010 Dean of School submits School Annual Monitoring Report to Annual Monitoring Sub-Committee Deadline: Friday 15 th October 2010 Further Report submitted to QAEC QAEC considers recommendations and confirms what action is to be taken Issues requiring additional monitoring or action Additional Annual Monitoring/Action initiated No issues Annual Monitoring outcomes reported to Academic Council February 2011 End of Process

81 77 Section 39: Peer Observation 39.1 Peer observation of teaching aims to encourage reflection on teaching activities and to promote the collaborative dissemination, debate and exchange of good practice for continuous academic enhancement in teaching and learning. It provides a framework for staff feedback in parallel with team teaching and student feedback on modules. It is a confidential process for all participants. It provides staff with a means to identify whole school issues in teaching and learning, within their cognate disciplines, for the purpose of the advancement of academic development Schools or Departments devise their own peer observation processes with reference to the following points and the guidance document provided by the Westminster Exchange. Whilst the observation process is confidential, Schools develop reporting processes which provide a foundation for academic development issues and quality enhancement. Schools evaluate their peer observation process and associated academic development issues annually Peer observation is a formative process conducted by two or more participating observers in an exchange arrangement. Subject teams could form the basis of a grouping, though cross-subject observation is also encouraged so as to widen the range of experiences to feed back into the teaching and learning process. Constructive and supportive comment is integral to the process. The arrangements for peer pairs or groups are facilitated by the School and Departments. Pairing or grouping of new and experienced staff is encouraged. Reviews of pairs or group composition are conducted annually Teaching sessions observed should include all forms of interaction with students including lectures, seminars, laboratory sessions, studio classes, critical reviews of student work, individual and group tutorials. The focus may often be the interest in the subject-specific content or methodology of the sessions. This can be particularly valuable with innovative or reflective approaches to delivery. Taught sessions which give feedback to students on assessment are also included. Observation by individuals or groups of video recordings of e.g. classes, presentations, interviews or oral examinations may be included where feasible Arrangements for peer observation should take into account the following aspects: staff new to teaching, researchers who teach, Visiting Lecturers and experienced teachers may all benefit from peer observation; participants may be grouped by subject specialist teams the aims and objectives for the series of observations should be self-generated and not too ambitious an Observation Sheet should be devised by Schools/Departments (see Westminster Exchange guide for a model) the frequency of observation/feedback should be determined by Schools/Departments feedback should be oral with brief written support a brief action plan may be drawn up by the observed teacher, with comment from the observer

82 78 confidentiality of both the Observation Sheet and the action plan should be honoured by the participants Identification of whole school issues for academic development or enhancement should be reported, in a confidential manner, to a School or Departmental individual/group with responsibility for facilitating teaching and learning enhancement A supportive staff development workshop led either by the Westminster Exchange (or by a group external to the School or Department) should be organised prior to the start of the observation programme or as a periodic review of an ongoing programme. Such a workshop would focus on purpose, criteria, and protocols of peer observation, with advice on how to give feedback in a positive way An Observation Sheet is offered by the Westminster Exchange guidance document as a model for customisation by staff. It should reflect the focus they have identified relative to their own teaching practices. The prompt points identified may not be relevant to every type of class. A range of Observation Sheets is reproduced in the Staff & Educational Development Association (SEDA) Paper 79 entitled Observing Teaching; copies are available from the Westminster Exchange Schools or Departments responsibilities include: devising the specific process and operation of peer observation facilitating the establishment and review of peer observation pairs or groups recording the operation of peer observation for annual evaluation providing a confidential mechanism for the identification of whole-school development issues in teaching and learning providing an annual review of process and outcomes. Section 40: Sample Protocol and Feedback Sheet for Peer Observation 40.1 SAMPLE PROTOCOL FOR PEER OBSERVATION all interactions during the observation, and in the feedback session which follows, should be strictly confidential the sessions which will be observed will be agreed in advance the lecturer giving the class will outline his/her intentions to the observer before the start of the class the peer observations and feedback should be undertaken with a supportive and constructive attitude the observer will not participate in the teaching session the observer will be discreet and diplomatic during the session the observer will stay for the whole session or leave at a pre-arranged point (e.g. a coffee break) after staying for an agreed minimum period no ideas or materials generated for a class should be used or disseminated by the observer without the permission of the generator feedback on the session will be provided as soon as possible, and no later than 48 hours after the observed session

83 79 the observer's role is to help the lecturer reflect on the achievement of his/her objectives, not to impose a different view of what should be done Peer observation exists to enable colleagues to share insights into teaching. It does not form part of a formal evaluative process although the follow-up by the individual member of teaching staff observed may usefully contribute to the annual peer appraisal discussion. Things to look for in observing a session are as follows: the objectives of the session are clearly identified and expressed the session was linked to previous and future sessions the content is relevant and appropriate the methods are varied and appropriate personal skills, enthusiasm, politeness good rapport with students involvement of the students in their own learning students have opportunity to ask questions students are stimulated/challenged by the session clear explanations good command of the subject checking understanding of students student contributions valued and used respect for student diversity session well summarised/concluded orderly development of session session keeps to time delivery and presentation: o voice appropriate pace, clarity, audible o eye contact o use of room o well produced and useful AVA. Obviously it will not be possible to look for all of these elements in any one session, but the things which are particularly strong, or any weak points, will stand out. It might be useful for the presenter and observer to agree any particular areas where the presenter is uncertain, particularly if undertaking ongoing observations Discussion of the descriptive notes taken by the observer will help the presenter to decide on an action plan. It may help to focus on the aspect which worked really well and to identify other aspects to work on for the future. The action plan is confidential to the observer and the presenter, unless all parties agree to share their discussions with others.

84 80 Part 7: Good Practice in Assessment of Students Section 41: Principles of Assessment 41.1 There are many purposes of assessment. These include those elements about making a judgement on the student s learning; the assessment enables students to demonstrate that they have: met all the learning outcomes for each module fulfilled the objectives of the programme of study on which they are registered achieved the standard required for the award. It allows staff to: determine the grading which will contribute to final degree classification/certification possibly ensure that the student is fit to practise (professional body requirements) indicate to potential employers or other educational institutions/organisations a student's strengths and weaknesses in specific subjects and in generic skills and abilities. However, there are wider functions of assessment which are very important for students learning. These are: the opportunity to provide feedback to students on their performance helping students remedy mistakes, and to develop and improve providing further opportunities for learning; these might be opportunities to work independently, to explore aspects of learning only possible outside the classroom eg. Archive-based research, work-based learning, live projects developing students understanding of processes of enquiry and research relevant to the subject providing students with an opportunity to reflect on their own learning approaches and abilities enabling students to develop a wider range of skills helping students determine their choice of options/subject specialisms. There are also aspects of assessment which are helpful to the University in developing and enhancing its provision. These include:

85 81 checking students' learning progression in order to evaluate our provision diagnosing the further support for learning that students might need indicating the academic standards of the learning achieved The following should be considered in the design of assessment at both course and module level: Assessment should be designed as an integral part of the teaching and learning process, in module and course design, ensuring that students can learn through the assessment Assessment requirements should be valid; what the students are asked to do should be appropriate to measure the learning outcomes of the module, and the delivery of the module should support the student in being able to complete the assessment (the principle of constructive alignment) the purpose of the assessment and how it will help students learning must be transparent to students Assessment should be free of bias in both design and marking Assessment requirements should be designed to ensure that they do not give undue advantage or disadvantage to students from specific backgrounds, or those with particular disabilities Assessment criteria, determined by the learning outcomes, should be given to students at the time the assessment task is set and should be used by all staff to inform their marking, and in providing feedback to students Assessment workload should be realistic and comparable between modules at the same academic level and credit weighting Assessment formats across a course should encompass a wide range of methods, fit for the purpose of measuring the achievement of the learning outcomes Both formative and summative aspects of assessment should be included in all modules. Formative assessment is that which is designed to give students feedback on their learning and what they need to do to improve; this need not be a separate assessment task but can often be embedded within the module as a learning activity. Summative assessment is that which provides marks which contribute to the marks for the module. Summative assessment can also have a formative function, when it is used to provide feedback to students. Feedback on performance in coursework can be given through a variety of routes, and it is not sufficient to simply give marks. Routes for feedback include comments to groups on overall performance (online or in class), the use of model answers, the use of peer and self assessment, the use of feedback pro-formas and individual comments on the work. Feedback should always be on the basis

86 82 of the assessment criteria by which the work was marked and it should always include advice on how the student can improve All students during the period of their studies must get at least one opportunity to receive individual feedback on their examination performance. Again there are a variety of routes through which feedback can be given to groups on their examination performance Effective assessment may achieved by: Explicitly providing advice to students on the assessment criteria and marking schemes The use of specific graded assessment criteria for each piece of assessed work Explaining in the Course and Module Handbooks how the chosen assessment methods support the students learning and how they link to the learning outcomes Avoidance of over-dependence on standard word essays and 2-3 hour exams in favour of a more diverse range of assessment formats chosen through a fitness for purpose analysis of what students must demonstrate to pass to each particular module, and how the work will encourage students further learning Creative use of formative assessment, which ties in with the guided independent study, and avoidance of summative only assessments Explicit assessment of a variety of skills, which support learning and employability, including assessment of students capability in the enquiry and research approaches characteristic of learning in that discipline Use of objective testing where appropriate to measure achievement of the learning outcomes, e.g. multiple choice questions, numeric tests, matching/correspondence tests. This may be particularly helpful for online formative assessment Pacing assessment throughout the module to test different learning outcomes (some of which need to be demonstrated once only) to spread the marking load In undergraduate courses, discerning use of the 30 credit modules, with a range of formative and summative assessment points throughout the period Using group work by students for assessment, particularly for formative assessment where peer assessment is used, and for summative assessment where reflection on the student s role in a group, and the development of team work expertise, is part of the specified learning outcomes of the module Involvement of students in identifying the assessment criteria, with or without attribution of marks to self or peers Using feedback sheets which relate to the assessment criteria and using statement banks of tutors' comments for the whole module group, so that students can compare comments

87 83 Timely feedback mechanisms for performance in examinations, with reference to model answers where appropriate Good internal moderation processes for coursework, in line with University Academic Regulations and clear advice to students on who marks their work and the involvement of external examiners. Section 42: Aims and Learning Outcomes 42.1 Each taught course leading to a named award of the University must have clear and simply stated aims and learning outcomes, which are informed by the QAA subject benchmarks, and which determine those identified at individual module level Student attainment at module level is described by the learning outcomes, and these must identify the specific skills, knowledge, and attributes that a student will be able to demonstrate on successful completion of the module The student will demonstrate achievement of the learning outcomes through the assessment process. The learning outcomes hence describe the threshold level of achievement. Students who perform above this threshold level are recognised by the award of higher marks or grades It is also be appropriate to define the aims and learning outcomes for each academic level for undergraduate courses, where students are expected to progress through the levels sequentially All modules must have simply expressed aims which may be cross-related to the aims of the overall subject and course scheme/named award The learning outcomes specified in the Course Handbook and Module pro-formas make what is expected of students on this module at this level visible for the students, all teaching team members (including PT/Visiting Lecturers and guest speakers) and external examiner(s) Learning Outcomes should be written with active verbs to facilitate the aligned definition of assessment criteria used to judge the students performance. If the learning outcomes are not clear and specific it makes it much harder to develop appropriate assessments. It is also important that the learning outcomes reflect the level of study. Examples of active verbs suitable for this purpose are: State, Describe, List, Summarise, Select, Compare, Apply, Explain, Design, Construct, Plan, Develop, Formulate, Define, Justify, Explore, Analyse, Critically evaluate, Interpret. Weaker phrases which should be avoided include:

88 84 to be familiar with to have a grasp of to appreciate to understand to acquire a knowledge of. Bench-marked learning outcomes, i.e. those which assume progressive development relative to (prior) levels of attainment, should be avoided except where the module has pre-requisite requirements or where students are given diagnostic tests before starting the module; alternatively, they could be cross-referenced to the learning outcomes for the earlier level. Examples include: to develop further skills in to improve techniques of to demonstrate a better understanding of Learning outcomes must be achievable by all students admitted to the module. They should be realistically framed for the level of work and the credit-weighting of the module Students must meet all of the learning outcomes in order to pass the module It helps students' learning processes (and staff marking loads) if assessment tasks are staggered through the module. Assessments may judge different learning outcomes at different stages of the module; there is no need for each piece of assessment to judge all the learning outcomes, as long as overall the assessment covers all of the learning outcomes. Section 43: Assessment and Marking Criteria 43.1 The assessment criteria are determined by the learning outcomes for the module and hence will reflect the academic credit level 3, 4, 5, 6 or General expectations of attainment at specific levels are defined within the QAA Framework of Higher Education Qualifications. This defines the descriptors for qualifications at each level which are included in the Frameworks for Undergraduate and Postgraduate courses in the Handbook of Academic Regulations Assessment criteria for assessed coursework should be given to students at the same time as the assessment task is set, and the assessment criteria must be provided to External Examiners 43.4 Whereas learning outcomes identify what students should be able to demonstrate they have achieved at that point or on completion of the module, assessment criteria are statements which convey to the students, other staff and External Examiners the

89 85 basis on which the work will be assessed. Assessment criteria can be expressed in a variety of ways. The main approaches are: Threshold criteria General criteria Graded criteria Threshold criteria are more detailed statements which expand on the learning outcomes to show what the student must do to pass the module. They relate specifically to the learning outcomes and the content of the module. This is the most useful approach at the module level and for the purposes of the Module Proforma General criteria are more general statements about what is looked for in a student s work such as: Demonstrates good use of literature Presented in the form of a scientific paper Presents a clear and logical argument. These can be very useful for a course in identifying what is expected from the most common methods of assessment, but do not relate to individual modules and do not help students and markers to determine what will be the benchmark of success in any particular module Graded criteria provide a statement of the work required for each classification of performance (i.e.. 70+, 60+, 50+, 40+, 30+, fail). Such criteria are particularly useful for specific items of work, but can be used for categories, e.g. essay work, presentations, practical reports. Graded criteria should take account of the level of the work (70+ at Credit Level 6 demands a different level of achievement from a 60+ at Credit level 4). When setting graded criteria it is important to start at the pass level, which reflects the achievement of the learning outcomes and then work up and down from there for the other bands. This assures that the basic pass standard is securely set. Further guidance is available from Westminster Exchange. Section 44: Design of Assessment Formats 44.1 A good variety of assessment within a course is beneficial; it ensures that a range of skills and abilities can be assessed, it recognises the different learning styles of different students, and it ensures that students do not become bored by the assessment.. The following chart indicates a range of possibilities although there are many more methods of assessment which can be used. TYPES OF ASSESSMENT

90 86 Type of assessment Examinations: Time constrained Unseen paper or pre-prepared answer or subject area Open or closed book Multiple choice answer/test Range of skills, knowledge and abilities assessed Work under pressure Time management Recalled knowledge Lateral thinking Organisation Written presentation Numeracy/quantitative skills Essays, critical review, journal article Research and collation of information Time management Organisation of material Self-editing skills Coherence of argument Critical independent thinking Written presentation Ability to focus Depth of subject knowledge Breadth of perspective Selection and attribution of sources Reports (including laboratory reports), case studies Research and collation of information Time management Organisation of material Professionalism of presentation showing familiarity with report format Awareness of end user(s) Analytical and evaluative skills Self-editing and writing skills Quantitative skills IT skills Seminar presentations, papers and posters Video, audio tape, slide presentation Oral presentation skills Developed use of body language Interactive communication skills Use of audio-visual aids Group work skills Planning and time management Problem solving Planning and organisation Teamwork Editing skills Interactive presentation skills Imaginative breadth Integration of image and text Critical appraisals of studio work (crits) Oral and visual presentation skills Reasoned defence of own work

91 87 Progressive development Awareness of current professional practice Planning and time management Creativity Problem solving Option selection Projects (individual) Research and collation of information Problem solving Application of knowledge Decision-making Time management Awareness of current professional practice Research skills Collation and organisation of material Ability to focus Oral and written communication skills Time management Self editing Presentation skills Depth of subject knowledge

92 88 Group work Teamwork and collaborative responsibility Delegation Time management Decision-making Leadership Negotiation Accountability processes Creativity Application Logs, journals, diaries, minutes Organisation of material Time management Self-critical awareness Succinct, recording technique Ability to focus Reflective analysis Creative studio-based projects Conceptual skills Problem solving Imaginative breadth Knowledge of materials Technical skill Contextual knowledge Visual aesthetics and expressiveness Planning and organisation Professional presentation skills Progressive development of ideas and their realisation Integration of theory and practice Portfolio/collection of diverse material Progression and level of achievement Application of theory Self-editing skills Presentation skills Organisation of material Reflective analysis Dissertation Research skills Selection and attribution of sources Written presentation Collation and organisation of material Coherence of argument Development of a hypothesis Critical independent thinking Breadth of perspective Depth of subject knowledge

93 89 Section 45: Higher Education Skills and Abilities 45.1 Students need to develop a range of skills, to inform their current learning, their personal development, their future employment and their lifelong ability to study. These form an integral part of their study in HE, to enhance their flexibility, adaptability and autonomy in learning. As such these skills should be included in the learning outcomes, and hence assessment, of the modules on any course. They are more likely to be effective if delivered as part of a course where students engage in work-related and work-integrated learning activities (such as live projects, work placements, real-life case studies, employer input etc.) These skills include the ability to reflect and review, to plan, to make decisions, to use information sources effectively, to create and to take opportunities, to make provision for lifelong learning; they form an important component of the Personal Development Planning aspects of the course and to a great extent characterise HE study. The precise selection of skills included in a course are defined by the team developing the curriculum but such skills include, amongst others, the following: gathering and evaluating information organising and manipulating data critical thinking conceptualising and solving problems effectively communication ( orally and in writing) collaborative working self-awareness self-management action planning networking decision making negotiation developing self confidence In selecting the skills to be embedded in any particular course, course teams will be guided by the relevant subject benchmarks and by appropriate professional body requirements Students' employability should be enhanced by their increased awareness of their skills and abilities. Certification makes such attributes visible to prospective employers and the opportunities for students to gain dual academic and professional qualifications through parallel assessment processes should be maximised. Further guidance is available from Westminster Exchange. Section 46: Personal Development Planning 46.1 Personal Development Planning (PDP) is a structured and supported process undertaken by individual students to reflect upon their own learning, performance and/or achievement and to plan their personal, educational and career development. PDP processes provide students with opportunities to reflect on their skills, acquired through studying a course, and to formulate plans for further development. The primary objective for PDP is to improve the capacity of individuals to understand what and how they are learning, and to review, plan and take responsibility for their own learning.

94 The opportunity for students to participate in PDP is a required element of all undergraduate and postgraduate courses, supporting the students self-awareness, and intellectual and skills development. In order to be effective it is imperative that students receive feedback on their development, although this could be purely formative. Course teams, Schools and Departments determine how PDP is delivered and supported. PDP is likely to be most effective when it is linked to the learning outcomes of programmes; and course documents should reflect the support for the delivery of work-integrated learning and skills. Section 47: Group Work 47.1 Assignments for students working in groups are beneficial at all academic levels but the inclusion of group work must be rigorously justified The advantages can include: simulation of professional practice/real work situation development of a range of skills which would not otherwise be acquired individually sharing of student expertise/shared learning broadening of perspectives variation of learning methods away from lecturers, seminars, essays and examinations encouragement for organised use of learning time outside taught classes encouragement of social cohesion promotion of research/information collection Disadvantages can include difficulties such as: ensuring quality and equality of contribution, if appropriate balancing the range and abilities of each group justifying a common mark for all group members ensuring a similar level of staff support for different groups working in parallel or consecutively limited availability of student time The contribution of group work to the students' learning experiences should be included in the module learning outcomes. It is important that as well as undertaking working a group they also acquire an understanding of the dynamics of group work and that they can reflection on the contribution that they individually make to the process. This must be included in the learning outcomes, assessment methods and assessment criteria In using group work as part of the assessment you might consider the following aspects:

95 91 Group size should be appropriate to the volume of the task, and the nature of the work. If there are too many students working in a group it is more likely to result in free-loading by some individuals Groups may be formed randomly (to mimic work situations), they may be selfselected, or members may be selected by the teaching team to ensure that each group is balanced to reflect the characteristics and abilities of the semester or year group. Although students may prefer to work in self-selected groups they often learn more from the challenge of working with people they know less well; this aspect could be included in reflection which forms part of the assessment Peer assessment within the groups is a very effective learning device. However, it is better if the students set the assessment criteria from the start, and if they draw up a group contract from the outset, which identifies how the group will function, how any non-engagement by students will be dealt with and states the ground rules for behaviour within the group Such assessment by the group work may be used as a means of formative assessment, with self-evaluation by the students but without an allocation of marks, or as summative assessment It is essential that the marking system is made clear to the students from the outset The marking system may include allocation of a common mark to all group members, allocation of different marks according to individual contributions, or shared marks allocated by the group members following group evaluation of the completed assignment, with adjudication by the teaching team or staff member Individual students may submit a written statement on their contribution, or all group members may be asked to submit such statements Students may be given a viva/oral examination to verify their contribution to the group assignment if this is a stated part of the assessment strategy. Section 48: Feedback to Students on Coursework and Examinations 48.1 Students benefit from timely formative feedback on their work as well along with the marks (for summative assessment). Course teams must indicate to students when work will be returned, and also if there has been any unavoidable delay in achieving this. It is expected that the work is normally returned within two or three weeks of its submission, depending on the size of the class and whether the work is doublemarked or not Feedback on coursework assignments justifies the mark given; consistency of comments and marks is important for the individual student and the group, as feedback is compared Feedback on coursework should be related to the assessment criteria and should provide guidance to students on their performance and its strengths and weaknesses. It should indicate what the student should do in order to improve his/her performance in future..

96 All students must have the opportunity to receive feedback on at least one examination, although more might be provided for those under performing Group tutorials can provide an effective way of giving feedback on coursework and exams, as the advice to students is often common to the semester or year group The use of feedback pro-forma can be effective in use of staff and student time. Each feedback sheet should reflect the assessment criteria for the task Students do not always recognise feedback, particularly if it is oral, group-based, delivered online or resulting from inter-active teaching and formative assessment integrated in the learning activities. It is very helpful to explain to students how they will receive feedback on any module. Guidelines on giving feedback are available from Westminster Exchange.

97 [BLANK PAGE] 93

98 94 Part 8: External Examiner Involvement Section 49: Requirements for External Examiners 49.1 The main purposes of external examining are: to verify that standards are appropriate for the award elements which the external examiner has been appointed to examine to assist in the comparison of academic standards across higher education awards and award elements to ensure that assessment processes are fair and are fairly operated in line with University Regulations External examiners must be appointed to take part in: assessment of all modules at Undergraduate Credit Levels 5 and 6 and Postgraduate Credit Level 7; External Examiners are appointed to Credit level 3 and 4 for discrete programmes leading to a University award only conferment of all final University of Westminster awards and all decisions on exclusions on the grounds of academic performance Subject Board external examiners are appointed to provide subject area expertise. The size of the team should be such that each external examiner has a reasonable and broadly equitable workload in terms of modules/subject areas covered and student numbers for each. Occasionally a sole approval will be sufficient. Each approval term covers up to four academic sessions in the first instance though this may be extended for one further year subject to satisfactory performance and continuity is provided through staggered end dates of approvals Conferment Board external examiners are normally approved for a cluster of cognate courses and do not necessarily work as a team. The external examiner will be involved in conferment decisions for all final awards and decisions to exclude a student from a course on academic grounds. Familiarity with course coverage (rather than detailed subject knowledge) is required. The examiner should have experience of modular or credit accumulation schemes and expertise in assessment. Each approval term normally covers four academic sessions Where an external examiner is appointed to a Board and subsequently to a different Board, for example a Subject Board and Conferment Board, the total period of service should not exceed six years Where possible external examiners for franchised or other collaborative courses should be the same individuals as those appointed to the equivalent course (or set of modules) taught at the University.

99 95 Section 50: Procedures for Approval of External Examiners 50.1 The Dean of School which hosts an Assessment Board is responsible for securing and submitting external examiner nominations for membership of the board (in consultation with the Chair of Department and the Head of any other School which shares responsibility for the subject or course). Approval of nominations should be sought in the semester before the external examiner is required to be involved in the assessment process All nominations must be made on a standard form which is available from the Academic Services Department s intranet site. All sections of the form must be completed in full. Incomplete forms will be returned to the Dean of School or Head of Department. A summary curriculum vitae (six pages or less) must accompany each nomination While the agreement of the individual should be sought for a copy of the CV and for submission of the nomination, no commitment to an approval can be made prior to the formal decision at University level being made. In no circumstances should a nominee be involved in assessments or conferments unless notification of the approval has been given by the Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners). Approvals cannot be made retrospectively Decisions are normally made within a month to six weeks of a nomination having been submitted but if extra information is required a final decision may take longer. Section 51: Criteria for Approval of External Examiners 51.1 Criteria for approval relate both to the individual nominee and the combined expertise of all externals on assessment boards. However, the overriding criteria for all nominations are that the proposed external examiner possesses the necessary subject expertise at the appropriate level (Subject Boards) and an understanding/experience of credit accumulation (Conferment Boards), and, that s/he is wholly independent of the internal examining team and the Dean of School and Head of Department Within each team there should be: prior experience of both internal and external examining at the relevant level a gender balance where possible and representation from a range of ethnic backgrounds where possible representation from industry, commerce or professional practice (where appropriate) alongside academic membership a spread in the host institutions of the external examiners: normally only one examiner will be drawn from a particular institution or organisation except where a clear justification is made at nomination. In the case of a Board which has only one external examiner, these criteria apply to successive appointments At the individual level the following criteria apply to all external examiners:

100 96 the nominee should not hold more than two other current appointments as an external examiner to ensure that s/he is not overburdened by conflicting commitments at assessment time for Subject Boards the nominee should not have previously served as an external examiner at the University within the last ten years. This restriction does not apply to Conferment Board nominees who may have acted as a Subject Board external examiner prior to transferring to Conferment Board membership the nominee should not have been a member of staff at the University within the last five years the nominee should not have any substantial private or professional connection with the School or Department to which the approval would be made; this includes significant collaborations on research, publications or other productions. (All connections must be declared on the nomination form including arrangements in external examining involving staff from the University of Westminster at the nominee's host department, and the nominee's membership of University Validation Panels etc.) NB Reciprocity is prohibited by this and other universities Lack of prior experience of external examining does not preclude an approval so long as other examiners on the relevant board do have such experience. Where a sole external examiner is required, lack of previous external examining experience should not prevent approval as long as the nominee has significant and relevant internal assessment experience. In addition, induction can be provided by making an early approval and so providing a period of overlap with the outgoing, experienced examiner. Section 52: Exemptions to Criteria for Approval of External Examiners 52.1 In certain subject areas the requirement for gender balance in the examiner team may be difficult to fulfil, or the requirement of representation from practitioners may not be relevant. If these circumstances are judged to apply the responsible Dean of School may present a reasoned case for a standing exemption to the particular criteria to the Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners). Other criteria will be waived only where exceptional circumstances have been fully demonstrated. Section 53: Applications for Extension and Changes in Responsibilities of External Examiners 53.1 Requests for extension to an external examiner's term of approval must be made on the standard extension request form and supported by a statement from the Dean of School. An extension into a fifth year will be considered where external examiners have executed their responsibilities with particular merit. An extension beyond this will only be considered in exceptional circumstances, for example, if a course is due to be discontinued, it may be inappropriate to make a replacement nomination for one year only Any amendment to an external examiner s terms of approval (such as a proposed move to a new Board, perhaps as part of a general reorganisation of coverage of Boards, or other revision of responsibilities from that stated in an examiner's approval letter) requires formal approval from the Quality and Standards Officer (External

101 97 Examiners) who will act in consultation with the Dean with executive responsibility for Academic Quality. Section 54: Approval of Nominations of External Examiners 54.1 A detailed consideration of the nomination will be undertaken with reference to the criteria for approval, noting the external examiners currently and previously approved to the Board. The Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners) will request further information where necessary Recommendations are made in writing, with a copy of the nomination form, and are sent to the Dean with executive responsibility for Academic Quality for a decision on whether to approve or not and comments where appropriate. Any conditions of approval will be agreed at this stage Notification of approval will be sent to the Dean of School, the Subject Leader, and the relevant School Registry Manager with a copy of the approval letter. In cases of non-approval, the Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners) will write to the Dean of School to explain the reasons for non-approval and agree a profile of an examiner who would be a more appropriate nominee. Conditions of approval will be highlighted on the memorandum signifying approval. Section 55: Approval of External Examiner Nominations by Professional Bodies 55.1 Approval of an external examiner by a professional body, for example, for a course accredited by that body, must be sought only after a nomination has been agreed by the University All such submissions to professional bodies are made by the Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners) on the advice of the Dean of School or Head of Department concerned and require the signature of the Director of Academic Services and Academic Registrar It is particularly important to make such nominations well in advance of the proposed date of the first Assessment Board which the external examiner should attend to allow sufficient time for the required two stages of consideration. Section 56: Briefing External Examiners 56.1 If a nomination is approved, a letter giving details of the approval is issued by the Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners) to the approved candidate accompanied by a copy of the current Handbook of Academic Regulations and the general guidance note on external examining at the University The Dean of School/Head of Department (in association with the Course Leader) is responsible for ensuring that new external examiners are briefed on the specific subject area or course(s) which they will consider, and their role in relation to the internal examiners Subject Board external examiners must receive full details of the syllabuses and assessment procedures for every module within the remit of the Board to which they have been appointed, with briefing on which modules are their special responsibility. They should also receive briefing on the courses to which these modules contribute.

102 98 (Where a large number of courses have common modules, it is best to provide a précis of details of these courses, rather than sending each external examiner an unwieldy set of course documents.) 56.4 New Conferment Board external examiners must be sent all relevant definitive course documents and the course and award specific assessment regulations (including details of foundation certificate programmes where these are part of the course scheme). University Validation Panel reports and reports from outgoing external examiners should also be made available The advantage of early approval is that good induction can be provided, e.g. attendance at an Assessment Board as an observer and/or a more informal meeting with staff and students Opportunities should be organised for external examiners in the same team to meet as a group at least once a year As well as providing initial briefing it is important to inform external examiners of subsequent changes to module or course content and/or assessment regulations. Where changes are made across the whole institution, for example in University Assessment Regulations, such updating will be provided by the Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners). Section 57: Protocols for External Examiners 57.1 External examiners should not be asked to take on responsibilities which are outside their original contract with the University as specified in the approval letter unless this has been formally approved and the external examiner has consented to the change Good notice should be provided of scheduled assessment dates and in particular of days when attendance at the University will be required. Wherever possible provisional dates should be cross-checked before being finalised to avoid a clash of Assessment Boards or other engagements. School Registry Offices are responsible for notifying dates of Assessment Boards to External Examiner and once notified to external examiners, Board dates should only be changed in exceptional circumstances Draft assignment briefs and examination papers as well as papers to be set for deferred re-sits must be sent to external examiners with adequate time for checking and, within the overall time constraints of examination and Board schedules, every effort should be made to give external examiners adequate time for review of marked scripts and other work The sampling methods used to decide which work will be sent to an external examiner must be agreed with him/her in advance; the examiner has the right to request to see any assessed work The examiner may request any information relevant to his/her responsibilities from the University. Depending on the nature of this information such requests should either be addressed to the Head of Department, Course Leader or to the Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners).

103 99 Section 58: Role of External Examiners on Subject Boards 58.1 The role of Subject Board external examiners is to judge whether students, as a group, have been fairly assessed in relation to the objectives and syllabus of modules and have reached the required standard. Such judgements are made in the context of knowledge of standards applied in comparable courses elsewhere and of levels of student attainment in previous years. External examiners also attest that assessment regulations have been fairly applied ensuring parity of judgement for all students taking a module and comment on the assessment process and procedures. The subject specialist external examiner's primary role is that of an arbiter of the assessment process and of standards set by internal examiners. The external examiner must not be asked to offer assessment judgements in individual cases or to act as a third or additional marker This role requires Subject Board external examiners to: a) visit the University or its collaborative partner normally at least twice each academic session, either to attend Subject Board meetings and/or to view coursework assignments and meet staff and students; b) advise on all assessments for work at Undergraduate Credit Levels 5 and 6 and Postgraduate Credit Level 7; c) approve the form and content of examination paper; and in-course assignments contributing 30% or more of a module assessment; d) comment on a representative sample of internally marked work to ensure: i. that students are assessed fairly in relation to the module syllabus and regulations; ii. that students have fulfilled the learning outcomes of the module and reached the required standard; e) provide an overview of the consistency and appropriateness of standards of assessment set by the internal markers; f) attend Subject Board meetings and formally agree marks and decisions on reassessment in the case of failed modules; g) agree the formal record of the Subject Board meetings; h) be consulted on any significant proposed changes to course regulations or such minor changes as directly affect students already taking a module; i) submit an annual report commenting on: i. the coherence of the policies and procedures relating to External Examiners; ii. iii. their access to the material needed to make their judgements; issues raised in previous reports;

104 100 iv. the design and structure of assessments; v. the procedures for assessments and the effectiveness of internal moderation; vi. vii. viii. ix. examples of good practice they think could be applied more widely in the University; the comparability of student performance with those of similar programmes in other UK Higher Education Institutions; the quality of teaching, learning and assessment methods; the level of marking and the appropriateness of the academic standards set for the awards; x. the students strengths and weaknesses demonstrated in the assessments. Section 59: Role of External Examiners on Conferment Boards 59.1 The role of Conferment Board external examiners is to ensure the fair and equitable application of the University's regulations on credit accumulation, and the coursespecific regulations for each award, in decisions on the award of qualifications to students. This includes decisions on the classification of awards (where relevant) and decisions on exclusions. The external examiners take part in all work of Conferment Boards including the award of intermediate awards, which may include discrete Foundation Certificates. Pass lists cannot be released unless the results have been formally ratified and signed by the external examiner(s). Conferment Board external examiners are also asked to provide comments to the University on the assessment process and procedures This role requires Conferment Board external examiners to: a) attend Conferment Boards for final awards and exclusions except for intermediate awards, where, with prior agreement, they may be involved by correspondence; b) agree awards, and classifications of these awards, and participate in any decision to exclude students from programmes of study on academic grounds; c) contribute to the discussion of cases concerning compliance with course assessment requirements and qualifications; d) agree the formal record of the Conferment Board meetings; e) be consulted on any significant proposed changes to course specific assessment regulations and approve any such changes which directly affect students already taking a course; f) submit an annual report in accordance with the standard format approved by Academic Council commenting on:

105 101 i. the overall performance of candidates on each course; ii. iii. iv. the distribution of results across classifications; the implications of results for the course design, or the work of Subject Boards; Conferment Board procedures; v. assessment regulations; vi. vii. issues arising from assessments of course schemes as a whole; the conduct of assessment boards. Section 60: Attendance at Boards Subject Boards 60.1 For modular courses, external examiners have the right to attend any Subject Board for which they are approved to act but the Board will not be invalidated by the unavoidable absence of an external examiner provided that: sufficient expertise is judged by the Chair to be available to enable the board to fulfil its role the absent external examiner has reviewed assessments for which they are responsible and has provided comments to the Board and has signified consent to the continuation of the Board in his/her absence the absent external examiner agrees the recommendations of the Board in writing before results are published (or gives reasons for dissent) where possible, the external examiners present at the Board reflect the University s policy in respect of balance of academic and professional experience and gender. Conferment Boards 60.2 External examiners must attend all Conferment Boards considering final awards except where the board follows referred or deferred assessment and the external examiners have agreed that this may be conducted by correspondence and, except where intermediate awards are being considered, where, with prior agreement that they may be involved by correspondence; they are not required to attend Boards considering Credit level 3 or 4 only, except where a professional body may make such a requirement or where such modules compose a discrete award External examiners in non-modular courses must attend all Assessment Boards considering results which will contribute to the final award Recommendations for conferment of any intermediate awards, i.e. Certificate of Higher Education or Diploma of Higher Education or (non-honours) Degree, may be agreed by a meeting of internal examiners and the School Manager or nominee, and confirmed subsequently by external examiners in correspondence, provided that this arrangement has the prior written approval of the external examiners.

106 102 Section 61: Procedures for External Examiners' Reports 61.1 External examiners are required to report annually after the last relevant Assessment Board. However, they may submit additional reports at any time during the session. Reports should respond to the issues listed in the University s Report Guidance Note Reports must be returned within six weeks to the Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners) in the Academic Services Department; reports received by other staff should be passed on immediately In addition to reporting annually, the external examiner is also invited to, at the end of their appointment, report on any changes or common themes which have emerged during the term of office All reports are acknowledged on receipt and published on the University s external examiner information system The Dean of School with academic responsibility for an Assessment Board, is responsible for ensuring that a written reply is sent to each external examiner and that appropriate action is taken in response to the points raised by the external examiner. The task of writing responses may be delegated for example to the Head of Department or the Course Leader. These responses must be sent to external examiners no later than the end of the term following the Board meeting to which they relate The Dean of School should identify any issues (e.g. on resources) which are outside his/her control and refer the report to the Deputy Vice Chancellor Reports are discussed during the relevant annual monitoring exercise and they are included by the Course Team in Course Review documents at Review (each six years), with a commentary from the Course Team. External examiner reports for the previous three years are normally made available to Quality Assurance Agency Review teams as part of their external inspection The Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners) will conduct an annual audit of all external examiner reports for the previous session along with the responses to them. A critical read will be undertaken to identify any general points, particularly on assessment procedures, issues of concern and to draw out aspects of good practice worth disseminating. The conclusions may lead to recommendations to Academic Council for changes to policy or guidelines on external examining The Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners) is responsible for ensuring that external examiners are reminded of the need to submit their reports promptly. Section 62: Fees and Expenses for External Examiners 62.1 Fee and expense claim forms are provided to external examiners at boards and completed forms should be returned to the Quality and Standards Officer (External Examiners). Fees are subject to tax and national insurance deductions, before payment in the case of undergraduate Boards The fee due to each external examiner is agreed at the point of formal approval and is stated in the contract. A supplementary fee will be paid for necessary attendance

107 of more than two visits per year. Payment of the fee is conditional upon submission of the annual report and attendance at the University at least once during the year. 103

108 104 Part 9: Partnerships with other Institutions and Organisations Section 63: Partnerships 63.1 Teaching partnerships are developed by the University in collaboration with other institutions in the UK and internationally for the promotion of: Student exchange Staff exchange Curriculum design Scholarship and pedagogy Research and Knowledge Transfer programmes The policy frameworks which govern partnerships are those which define expectations for courses delivered internally within the University. These are the Learning, Teaching and Assessment Policy, and the Research, Enterprise and Knowledge Transfer Policy, whose development and implementation is overseen by the two lead policy committees of Academic Council. The operating framework for all Partnerships is overseen by the Partnerships Sub-Committee of the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee, the third lead committee of Academic Council The University s strategic priorities for the development of transnational education are encapsulated in the International Strategy Framework which is being implemented in 2009/ The principles on which the selection of institutional partners is based are: commonality of institutional mission a shared commitment to student-centred active learning an open, collegial and accountable culture alignment with best practice models in UK and international HE enhancement through professional development Due diligence in respect of the academic, financial, legal and governance status of prospective and continuing partners is a pre-requisite for consideration of all proposed partnerships involving programmes which lead to an academic award of the University of Westminster. The identification and management of risks and opportunities form part of this exercise Individual members of University staff are not empowered to undertake partnership obligations with other institutions and all proposals for new or extended partnerships are subject to formal approval processes The Collaborations Handbook provides a detailed summary of the relevant polices and processes which guide the development and continuation of teaching partnerships with other institutions both in the London region in the UK and internationally.

109 [BLANK PAGE] 105

110 106 Part 10: Accreditation PREAMBLE In addition to its validated awards, the University offers an accreditation service to employers and other training providers for identifying and assuring the academic value, in terms of volume and level of credit, of their provision. University of Westminster Schools may also use the Service to accredit their short course provision. Section 64: The University of Westminster Accreditation Service 64.1 The Accreditation Service is located within Westminster Exchange. It is responsible for: a) Initial consultation with all queries related to quality assurance and credit-rating of external providers courses; b) Ensuring that a potential client is an appropriate accreditation partner for the University; c) Advising clients in the preparation of an application for course accreditation; d) The management and quality assurance of all contracts for accreditation approved by the Accreditation Board in terms of the conditions set by the Accreditation Board. The Service will ensure that accreditation assessors, advisors and link tutors are appropriately prepared for these roles; e) Initial annual monitoring of accredited provision, which then feeds into the annual monitoring processes of Westminster Exchange. The Service will work in collaboration with Schools to ensure that the client has the benefit of appropriate expertise that is congruent with the disciplinary focus and related sectors. Section 65: The University of Westminster Accreditation Board 65.1 The University of Westminster Accreditation Board is constituted under the authority of Academic Council (approval date 16 April 2010). The Accreditation Board, which sits within Westminster Exchange, is responsible for the academic standards of the credit that it awards, which must be assessed to the same standards and rigour as a University of Westminster award. Credit is awarded for demonstrated learning and not for time or effort alone. In determining the level of credit consideration will be given to: The stated learning outcomes The appropriateness of resources including human resources The forms and criteria for assessment QAA generic level descriptors. In determining the volume (number) of credits consideration will be given to the total hours of learning effort.

111 107 The function of the Board is to: determine the credit value and volume of appropriate educational provision and to set the terms and conditions under which successful participants on that course may be awarded credit award credit to claimants who have demonstrated completion of an accredited course that has been delivered and assessed according to the contract Composition of the Board The University Accreditation Board is constituted as follows: Director of Westminster Exchange (or nominee) as chair Director of the Accreditation Service A practice-based learning External Examiner (appointed to the Board). Where the learning outcomes of the course indicate specialist knowledge, an External Examiner from that field will be appointed and attend for business related to those programmes The Quality and Standards Officer (External Examinations) The specific advisor and assessor to any client with an application for accreditation before the Board on the day (in attendance) The specific link tutor to an accredited programme with a claimant list and annual monitoring to be considered by the Board on the day (in attendance) School and Westminster Exchange representation who act as assessors and advisors for the Board. At least one representative in addition to the advisor, and link tutor or assessor associated with business before the Board, will be present at a Board An administrative secretary Terms of reference 1. The Accreditation Board is constituted to consider the following: a) Applications to credit-rate the learning outcomes and assessment of externally managed provision or educational activity in relation to the Higher Education credit framework. Decisions will be made as to the number and level of credits, the appropriateness of the proposed assessment and resources including staff resources. Decisions to accredit can be made subject to specified conditions being met; b) Applications to credit rate internal short course (non-validated) provision of the University c) The award of credit for demonstrated learning achievement by claimants in relation to programmes previously accredited by the Board; d) Resolution of any failure to agree on a pass list between the University s link tutor and the client s assessment team. This will be done through the Chair in consultation with the members of te Board as appropriate. 2. The Board may award general credit only. 3. The Board may award credit at academic levels 4 7. The smallest amount of credit awarded will be 5 credits (mapping onto approx 50hrs of learning effort). 4. Assessments for accreditation credits will be subject to scrutiny by external examiners and University of Westminster moderators. 5. The Accreditation Board will meet at least three times per year.

112 The role of the external examiner The generic responsibilities of External Examiners, as outline in the Handbook of Academic Regulations 2010, apply to External Examiners for accredited provision. Where the learning outcomes of a course proposed for accreditation identify specialist knowledge, an External Examiner with understanding of the specialist field will be appointed for the accreditation and for subsequent ratification of claimants pass lists Right of appeal Where an accredited programme is owned and managed by the client, the University encourages clients to formulate a complaints process that is appropriate for their context to resolve issues arising within the course delivery. Course participants and claimants for credit have a right of appeal to the University s Director of Academic Services and Academic Registrar in respect of material irregularity in the assessment moderation and the process of the Board. In respect of credit award decisions for programmes owned and managed by (a School of) the University, participants have the same rights, using the same procedures as any other student of the University Annual monitoring The Service Director is responsible for assuring the annual monitoring of clients provision in accordance with the Accreditation contract and with the University s annual monitoring cycle. The Link tutor for each contract will support the client in the completion of an annual monitoring statement, which must be signed by both the client and the tutor and forwarded to the Accreditation Service. The Director, a member of the Quality and Standards Office, and an accreditation advisor will review and report on these statements, and relevant External Examiner reports, into the Westminster Exchange annual monitoring cycle.