NOTES FOR PANEL MEMBERS FOR PROGRAMME APPROVAL AND REVIEW

NOTES FOR PANEL MEMBERS FOR PROGRAMME APPROVAL AND REVIEW 1. INTRODUCTION Panels are convened to consider the initial approval and periodic review of programmes leading to University of Greenwich awards, for delivery within the University or in collaboration with an external partner. The Panel s role is to help ensure that the academic standards and quality of these awards are appropriate for higher education. Panels include internal members from the University who are independent of the Faculty or Department concerned and external members from other higher education institutions or from industry or the professions. All Panel Members receive copies of the relevant documents in advance, with a deadline date for preliminary comments to be provided (in writing) or for requests for further information. 2. NEUTRALITY OF PANEL MEMBERS All Panel Members must now declare that they are neutral in respect of the programme(s) under approval or review. In practice, this means Panel Members must be independent when they contribute to Panels, with no connection or affiliation to the programme(s) that is(are) the subject of the approval or review event. For example, Panel Members cannot be or have been a member of the development/ Programme Team for the programme(s) under consideration. In addition, for collaborative provision, Panel Members cannot be, or have previously been, a member of staff of the partner institution, a consultant to the partner, or have any other personal connection with staff at the partner institution. The concept of neutrality must also underpin the composition of membership for sequential events: Panel Members are not permitted to serve with the same colleagues on sequential Panels in a manner that appears to involve a quid quo pro. If there could be any doubt over neutrality, potential Panel Members are required to declare any previous involvement with the proposal or partner and the matter can be presented to the University s Learning, Quality and Standards Committee (LQSC) for advice. 3. THE PANEL MEETING The Panel convenes for a whole or half day, when the timetable includes an initial briefing meeting with the Chair, plus face-to-face or video-conferencing meetings with Senior Managers and the Programme Team. Where the event involves more than one partner organisation the Chair should ensure that all partners are able to make a contribution and that the issues discussed are clearly differentiated. For non-franchised provision, this would be to discuss the background, academic context, and resourcing of the proposal, to examine the structure, content and level of the curriculum and the individual courses, and to consider the likelihood of effective learning and a positive student experience. For franchised Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix P2a (September 2016) page 1

provision, the meetings would seek to establish the capacity of the partner to deliver the programme successfully and provide a positive student experience. There may be a brief presentation about the proposal; for delivery online or at a distance, examples of structured learning materials will be available, and in all cases, the information that will be provided to students (Appendix D8) should be made available, albeit in draft form. When an existing programme is being reviewed, there must also be a meeting with a sample group of students, and where this is possible, alumni. Private meetings will enable the Panel to take stock, and at the end of the day there is an oral feedback of conclusions to Senior Managers and the Team. As part of any event, the Chair/Panel/Team should seek to identify any examples of innovation or good practice for commendation. In approving programmes for delivery, whether within the University or in collaboration with an external partner, the Panel needs to be satisfied: that whatever the mode, there is an appropriate Programme Specification the award aligns with the National Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) that there is an appropriate teaching team, i.e. the host Faculty is satisfied that the Team is qualified to teach the programme, and the staff CVs confirm this is the case the Team as a whole has a firm understanding of the proposal, demonstrates a commitment to appropriate professional development, and to research and scholarly activity, and is able to build on the complementary relationship between the latter and curriculum development and delivery A copy of the Essential Information for Students has been provided that if it is a NEW programme (rather than an existing programme for franchising), the proposal has a rationale, aims and learning outcomes at the appropriate FHEQ level and will meet the needs of students and employers, and that the structure and content are such as to enable the aims and learning outcomes to be met meets appropriate subject benchmark statements and professional statutory and regulatory body (PSRB) requirements specifies the progressive knowledge and understanding, and the intellectual, practical and transferable skills that students will acquire makes progressively greater demands in terms of levels of analysis and synthesis, and supports the student in moving towards increasingly independent forms of study Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix P2a (September 2016) page 2

helps students develop their research skills and employability where appropriate, has realised the potential for permeating the curriculum with an international/global dimension involves an appropriate range of learning and teaching strategies has a clear assessment strategy and that the proposed weight and methods of assessment relate to the stated aims and outcomes of the proposal(s) is in line with the University s policies (eg on credit, assessment, equal opportunities, access, diversity, graduate attributes and employability, medium of instruction etc), and, where appropriate, those of any PSRB has a full statement of the regulations for admission, progression and assessment, and details of management and quality assurance arrangements is likely to result in a positive student experience 4. PARTICULAR ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION The issues to be addressed will vary with the nature of the proposal, as outlined below. 4.1 Approval of a NEW Programme (for delivery within the University, or in collaboration with an approved partner): the institutional base (Faculty or the Partner context) the programme as a whole: clarity of Programme Specification; rationale and background; currency, relevance, coherence and balance; aims and learning outcomes; structure and content; internationalisation of the curriculum; entry and exit standard; opportunities for progression; compliance with the FHEQ; reference to subject benchmark statements new courses (and/or the re-use of existing courses from other programmes and their appropriateness in relation to this programme): coverage; credit level and volume the teaching team: expertise and experience; their understanding of and commitment to the proposals; evidence of research and scholarly activity, and their staff development plans entry requirements learning and teaching strategies and learning design, whether personal and/or electronic: evidence of the Team considering learner needs and expectations; learning environment and context (face-to-face or virtual); mediating interpersonal exchanges, tools and resources, and the ways in which learning outcomes are achieved assessment arrangements and their moderation resources: library, IT and specialist facilities; student support services Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix P2a (September 2016) page 3

quality assurance: programme management structures and monitoring arrangements. 4.2 Franchising of EXISTING programmes For the franchising of existing programmes for delivery in another (approved) institution, panels must address the issues outlined in para 3.1 except that, in this case, the programme has already been approved, so the Panel is expected to concentrate on the local Team s understanding of the curriculum, how it will be interpreted in the new location, and whether the partner institution has the capacity for quality delivery to the required standard of the award (see also paragraph 4.4 below on Partnership Provision). The curriculum of the programme for franchising cannot be changed, although a small amount of local-level customisation of the curriculum may be necessary and permissible to accord with the partner s context. 4.3 Programmes involving WHOLLY OR PREDOMINANTLY ONLINE/DISTANCE LEARNING Where the use of structured electronic/distance learning materials predominates (whether or not the programme also involves periods of off-campus teaching in intensive schools ), panels must pay close attention to the students experience of learning, through: the opportunity to test-drive a sample of the proposed provision satisfying themselves that the arrangements made by the Programme Team for monitoring student engagement and trouble-shooting student difficulties are appropriate ensuring that mechanisms for the development and updating of the online experience are in place (see paragraph 3.61 of the QAH). 4.4 PARTNERSHIP PROVISION, whether franchised, validated or externally validated programmes The University collaborates with external partners in the UK and overseas for the delivery of some of its awards. Such external partners must have gained University approval as an appropriate environment for the delivery of the University s awards. Many of these external partners apply to offer an EXISTING University of Greenwich programme (i.e. as a franchise), but some seek validation of for a NEW programme that they have in development, or external validation of programmes that they already offer. Whatever the model of collaborative provision, the Panel must confirm: that a formal Memorandum of Agreement has been drafted, to underpin this partnership programme that there is a satisfactory report about and/or opportunity to inspect the resources for this programme, library, IT, and any specialist facilities that there is a named host Faculty with a member of staff formally designated as Link Tutor to liaise between the University and the partner Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix P2a (September 2016) page 4

that the host Faculty has in place arrangements for quality control at a distance covering annual programme monitoring reports, regular liaison and staff interchange, and close oversight of staff recruitment and student admissions that there are secure arrangements for record-keeping and examinations. In addition, for OVERSEAS COLLABORATIONS, the Panel must be satisfied: that the host Faculty has a sufficient understanding of local laws, the local HE system, and local educational traditions and conventions (including any local registration/recognition requirements) that there is scope for localisation of the curriculum that the teaching and/or assessment is to be in English, that all members of the Team are fluent in English for academic purposes, and that there are mechanisms to assess students English language skills for academic purposes. 4.5 For Foundation Degrees The Panel must be satisfied that as far as possible: employers (or their organisations) have been consulted and involved in the design and development of the programme and will participate in programme delivery students have adequate opportunities for work-place, work-based, or work-related learning, and that there are secure arrangements in place for assuring the quality of this aspect of the student experience; and that there are opportunities for progression to at least one named degree programme. 4.6 Periodic Review A Review Panel is expected to address the same issues as at the original approval (see above); however, in addition to the revised documentation and discussions with the Programme Team, Review Panels have the benefit of the Team s critical reflections on the programme in action, External Examiner comments, and past monitoring reports. They also meet a representative group of students and should have access to students views through written feedback. Review events will need to explore: the Team s analysis of and comment on cohort statistics relating to enrolment, progression, completion and employment points raised (in annual monitoring and/or in preparation for review) by External Examiners/moderators, students, staff, employers, professional bodies, and the Team s response to these details of changes introduced to improve provision, to remedy weaknesses, and/or to capitalise on strengths. The extent to which the programme is addressing university teaching and learning initiatives. For example, from 2015-16 the university has a thematic approach to Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix P2a (September 2016) page 5

reviewing embedding employability skills in undergraduate programme structures and student experience, defined around seven key skill sets at Levels 4,5 and 6: 1. Cognitive Skills Level 4: Be exposed to different sorts of problems, start making reasoned judgements and reflect on these judgements. Level 5: Exposure to a wider set of problems with greater emphasis on assessing risk and drawing conclusions. Practice in drawing conclusions, justifying judgements, attention to detail and reflection on skills gained. Level 6: Opportunity for solving problems independently. Opportunity to make sensible assumptions in real life scenarios. Reflection on skills gained and the impact of the proposed solution. 2. Generic Competencies (could be in PDP/PPD/APD where such courses exist) Level 4, 5, 6: Group work set goals including influencing, planning, questioning, listening, persuading, interpersonal sensitivity. Group work tasks should include an element of reflection on how the task was managed and how the group worked together. Include presentations at all levels note that this could be short presentations in personal tutorial groups. Level 4: Introduce the concept of CPD (ie acquiring additional skills known to be attractive to your discipline but outside your core curriculum) and suggest suitable opportunities. Exposure to writing in different formats with emphasis on clarity, spelling and grammar. Level 5: Opportunities for further CPD. Build on above writing skills including writing for different audiences with emphasis on clarity, spelling and grammar. Level 6: Substantial written element emphasising clear formatting, spelling and grammar within a clear, well-reasoned narrative. 3. Personal Capabilities (probably in PDP/PPD/APD where such courses exist) Level 4: Introduction to the job market (including selection procedures) in relevant degree discipline and plan how to get desired career. Level 5: Practice applying for jobs, placement and/or internship in relevant degree discipline and revisit plan to check it is on track. Level 6: Encourage actual applications in line with plan (including graduate job and further study). Offer extra-curricular opportunities such as careers events, outside speakers, entrepreneurship, team-building exercises, further group work or group competitions. 4. Technical Ability Level 4: Introduction to some of the practical skills and technologies needed for careers in this discipline if applicable (check that this has not changed since last review). Opportunity to reflect on these skills. Level 5: Consolidate skills in these applications and further reflection. Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix P2a (September 2016) page 6

Level 6: Introduce an extra niche technology or more advanced skills (practical and/or technology-based) in previous applications. Further reflection on the value of these skills for the appropriate subject/discipline. 5. Organisational Awareness Level 4: Opportunities to find out about organisations and/or structures within relevant sector / entrepreneurship. Level 5: Understanding organisational goals and structures. Awareness of issues around management and leadership in sector-related organisations. Level 6: Where professional body requirements permit there should be opportunities for research into current trends and understanding how sectors are linked. 6. Practical and Professional Elements Level 4: Introduction to the characteristics of professionalism and the importance of networking. Encourage effective applications for mentoring and internship opportunities. Provide networking opportunity. Level 5: Demonstrate increased professionalism and encourage effective applications for placement, internship or mentoring within industry. Provide a further networking opportunity. Level 6: Reflect on own job-readiness regarding professionalism and skills obtained. Evaluation of work experience/placement etc what skills, and competencies were gained? 7. Developing Professional Online Identity (partly within PDP where such a course exists) Note: All teaching and assessments regarding this must adhere to the University policy on Social Media. Level 4: To instil a basic understanding of what a professional online presence means. Introduce LinkedIn, or similar sector-relevant tool, to establish a professional online identity through establishing a profile and an online network of peers. Level 5: To instil an understanding of what online professional presence means within the subject discipline e.g. selecting sector specific skills on profile. Developing an awareness of key online influencers relevant to a chosen career sector. Level 6: Encourage an established professional online identity on LinkedIn through relevant posting and contributing to professional discussion on groups. Awareness of the benefit of actively seeking out new connections including UoG alumni in relevant geographical or sector specific areas. 5. OUTCOMES: The formal outcome, determined by the Panel, will consist of one of the following: (a) that the proposal be recommended for approval as presented, with no conditions or requirements placed on the programme team; (b) that the proposal be recommended for approval with conditions that must be met BEFORE the programme can commence, and/or with requirements to be met during the first presentation of the programme, and/or with recommendations to be considered by the programme team; Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix P2a (September 2016) page 7

(c) that the programme not be recommended for approval (or that the programme be referred for further work). NOTE ABOUT GENERAL PREREQUISITES FOR ALL PROGRAMMES: In all cases, the Essential Information for Students (Appendix D8) must be finalised prior to delivery commencing and a draft presented to the Panel for consideration. For all partnership approvals the Faculty is also responsible for confirming that, for the named programme(s), the partner has arranged for all necessary staffing appointments, library facilities and internet access, and that any local registration/recognition requirements are complete (see Appendix C3) The start date for delivery and the period of approval should be made explicit. A shorter period of approval must not be used as a safeguard for a situation in which the Panel has doubts about the Programme Team s capacity to deliver the programme successfully and ensure a positive student experience. If that is the case, the programme should be referred for further work, rather than approved. All programmes must always have a formal panelbased review at the end of the stated approval period (maximum 5 years), but see also QAH Section 6 for circumstances in which approval might be given for this date to be altered. Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix P2a (September 2016) page 8