introduction - the manchester college | tmc.ac.uk · web viewtmc-proc-he-approg revision history...

Approval of New Programmes Procedure

Approval of

New Programmes

Procedure

TMC-PROC-HE-APPROG


TMC-PROC-HE-APPROG


Version Control

Version: 2.0

New or replacement: Replacement

Approved by (Committee): HE Quality and Standards

Date approved: 20th January 2016

Title of author: HE Manager Academic Standards

Date issued: January 2016

Date for Review: January 2018

Document reference: TMC-PROC-HE-APPROG

Revision History

Version New/Replacement

Summary of Changes

2.0 Replacement Procedure updated to reflect UK Quality Code and changes in partner HEI processes

2TMC-PROC-HE-APPROG


Contents1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................4

2. Purpose and Function.............................................................................................................4

3. Stages of validation................................................................................................................5

4. Support and Guidance............................................................................................................5

5. Timescales..............................................................................................................................6

6. Stages of Internal Validation..................................................................................................6

7. The Internal Validation Panel (Stage 3)..................................................................................7

8. Procedure for Internal Validation Panel Meetings.................................................................9

9. External Participation...........................................................................................................10

10. Student Engagement........................................................................................................10

Appendix 1: Quality Criteria Checklist (including examples of possible evidence).......................11

Appendix 2: Validation Panel Documentation..............................................................................15

3TMC-PROC-HE-APPROG


In using this procedure other documents may need to be considered:

Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) Subject Benchmark Statements Foundation Degree Benchmark Statements (where applicable)

If you need any further advice on how the procedures work, you should contact the Higher Education Management Department.

Department Contacts: Higher Education ManagementOpenshaw Campus, OP124Tel: 0161 67 41406

Additional guidance can be obtained by visiting www.qaa.ac.uk and referring to the UK Quality Code for Higher Education: Chapter A – Setting and maintain academic standards and B1: Programme Design and Approval

This document is available in alternative formats on request to the Higher Education Management Department

4TMC-PROC-HE-APPROG

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code


1. Introduction

This procedure builds on the regulations and policies set by awarding institutions and/or partner Higher Education institutions (HEIs) that govern matters relating to validation processes at The Manchester College. These awarding institutions and/ or partner HEIs include:

Manchester Metropolitan University University of Salford Sheffield Hallam University

In every instance this procedure must be read in conjunction with the relevant regulations, policies and/or procedures as defined by the relevant awarding institution and/or partner HEI.

The procedure embeds and builds upon principles of fairness, equity and justice and recognises that the validation processes are integral to the College’s practice towards rigorous control of standards.

The College recognises that the validation process will differ according to the awarding institution.

2. Purpose and FunctionThe College is responsible for initiating the development and approval of all programmes of delivery and is therefore responsible for managing the process through liaison with awarding institutions and/ or partner HEIs.

The purpose of this procedure is to set out the principles and process that apply in the validation process for the development and approval of all programmes.

Validation will occur for all programmes which are classed as new programmes or programmes going through major amendment. Definitions of major amendments are located within the relevant awarding institution’s regulations:

Manchester Metropolitan University University of Salford

In common with awarding institutions and partner HEIs, the College recognises in every instance the functions of the validation process. Validation processes assist the College in ensuring that:

I. procedures for the approval of new programmes are robust, transparent and streamlined

5TMC-PROC-HE-APPROG


II. the development of programmes of study fit with the College’s strategic direction

III. the development of programmes of study are well designed, academically coherent, intellectually challenging and that they are informed by research and capable of enriching the student experience

IV. threshold academic standards of each award and its component parts is set and maintained at the appropriate level

V. assessment is designed in accordance with relevant external reference points such as the components of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education including the framework for higher education qualifications, and/or the requirements of professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRB)

The College recognises the importance of assessing and evaluating the effectiveness, relevance and validity of its programmes alongside the quality of the student experience. The College therefore values the involvement of students in programme design and student views will be sought at all stages of the process.

College validation procedure does not replace the annual approval process that applies to all college courses through the business planning.

Although the documented procedures are an important aspect of any validation, the most crucial activity in this process is careful discussion and consideration of proposals by members of the programme planning team in consultation with their Assistant Principal and the HE Managers. It is also important that cross college teams which may be involved in the support of the proposed programme are consulted, including Guidance and Welfare and Learning Resource staff.

3. Stages of validation As noted earlier the college recognises that the validation process will differ according to the awarding institution.

Please use the appropriate link for relevant documentation for the approval of programmes (dependent on awarding institution).

Manchester Metropolitan UniversityStrategic approval for new provisionAcademic Scrutiny

Sheffield Hallam University

4. Support and Guidance The HE Management department is committed to supporting departments in the validation process for the development and approval of programmes, through providing

6TMC-PROC-HE-APPROG

http://www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/event/approval-preparing.php

http://www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/event/approval-strategic-approval.php


advice and guidance as required and facilitating links with academic and other staff experienced in relevant areas, such as the writing of intended learning outcomes and the devising of assessment strategies

5. Timescales Timescales for the validation process will differ depending upon the awarding institution.

It is the responsibility of the HE Management department to inform the proposers of programme development of the relevant awarding institutions timeframe for the validation process. This will include timeframes for development of new programmes and those programmes undergoing a major amendment.

It is the responsibility of the HE Management department to manage this process.

It is the responsibility of the developing team to inform the HE Management department of the programmes being put forward for validation. This must be conducted in a timely manner.

6. Stages of Internal ValidationIn every instance an internal validation event will occur for every programme regardless of awarding institution.

Planning and internal validation of a new programme is essentially a three stage process as outlined below:

Stage 1 involves gaining initial approval for the new development;

Stage 2 the detailed planning and preparation of documentation for the programme and

Stage 3 the internal validation event.

Evidence should be provided that all relevant quality criteria listed in 3 below have been met during programme planning.

Support and advice at any stage in preparing a submission for validation, can be accessed via the HE Management department.

Stage 1

Programme team discuss proposal for new (or revised) programme with Head of Department and the appropriate HE Manager.

7TMC-PROC-HE-APPROG


If approved to go ahead, programme team develop initial proposal using Quality Criteria, outlined in Stage 1 checklist (appendix 1).

Programme team submit proposal to Head of Department and the HE Manager.

If approval is granted programme team progress to Stage 2.

Stage 2

Programme team work on curriculum, documentation and staff development.

Programme team compile portfolio of evidence including evidence which supports the student perspective

Internal Validation Panel date set by HE Management department.

Stage 3

Submitting tutor(s) present(s) submission to Internal Validation Panel.

Internal Validation Panel gives either unconditional or conditional approval

Conditions are set and recorded and a timescale for meeting them agreed between the submitting tutor(s) and the Chair of Internal Validation Panel.

Programme team carries out further curriculum/staff development as identified in the conditions and submit condition report to panel Chair by date set by Internal Validation Panel.

Panel Chair verifies all conditions have been met and unconditional approval is given or if conditions have not been met programme development is rejected

Submission forwarded to awarding institution or partner HEI for approval.

Programme is added to college portfolio subject to validation by awarding institution or partner HEI.

7. The Internal Validation Panel (Stage 3)Once stage 2 planning is underway, submitting tutors need to seek a date from the Higher Education Lead Manager for their submission to be considered by an internal Validation Panel.

A register of panel members is made up of volunteers from a wide cross-section of teaching and support staff colleagues. All have an interest in or experience of curriculum planning. A wide range of expertise in validating, moderating and verifying

8TMC-PROC-HE-APPROG


programmes is represented within the register, which can be added to at any time on approval by the HE Quality and Standards Committee.

Internal validation will be conducted by The Manchester College staff for all programmes regardless of awarding institution. The panel for pre validation events will consist of the following:

Assistant Principal or nominated member of the ‘approved list of register of panel members (from differing HE department to that of the proposer)

HE Management Representative Academic staff member (from differing HE department to that of the proposer)

from the ‘approved list of register of panel members’ Student Representative

The purpose of pre validation is to ensure all documentation presented to the awarding institution for full programme approval is professional, accurate and coherent.

The pre validation process will endeavour to ensure that the proposed programme meets:

I. The standards of the proposed programme are compatible with the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (with regard to level, credit value and award title), relevant national subject benchmarks and, where appropriate, with the requirements of professional, statutory and regulatory bodies.

And that:

II. The overall relevance and intellectual integrity of the programme is appropriate III. The programme is coherent in terms of design, delivery and structure, and up-

to-date in terms of content IV. The content and level of the curriculum is designed to enable students to

achieve the intended learning outcomes V. The curriculum promotes progression so that the demands on the learner in

intellectual challenge, skills, knowledge, conceptualisation and learning autonomy increase during the course of the programme

VI. The curriculum is informed by scholarship and research and that the links between these are explicit

VII. The assessment methods are designed to measure student achievement of the intended learning outcomes

VIII. The assessment criteria are clear and designed to discriminate between different levels of achievement relative to intended learning outcomes

IX. ix. Learning and teaching methods are designed to enable students to achieve the intended learning outcomes

X. There is confirmation that necessary resources are available to support the programme

9TMC-PROC-HE-APPROG


XI. That appropriate consideration has been given to equality and diversity issues and any necessary provision made for all potential students

XII. The employability of students on completion of the programme has been appropriately considered

The submission and all supporting papers are made available to panel members two week before a panel meeting. Panel members are expected to read all the paperwork in the light of the quality criteria and prepare questions and comments in advance of the panel meeting.

8. Procedure for Internal Validation Panel MeetingsPanel members meet an hour before the start of the meeting so that the Chair can co-ordinate questions and comments, to ensure that the meeting progresses as quickly as possible.

The submitting tutor(s) present(s) the submission to the panel – a brief outline and background, to support the paperwork.

The panel raises questions and comments for response by the submitting tutor(s).

The submitting tutor(s) withdraw(s) whilst the panel considers the submission and reaches a decision.

The panel makes a decision on whether the submission is approved.

a) Unconditionally or

b) Conditionally

The submitting tutor(s) are informed immediately of the panel’s decision verbally.

Minutes are taken of the panel meeting which are used to write the panel report. This will be circulated afterwards by the HE Administrator within 5 working days to all concerned with a copy kept by the HE Administrator.

The Chair is responsible for completing the Chair checklist, to ensure the correct procedure has been followed.

i) Unconditional Approval

Submissions approved unconditionally will then go forward to the external validating body.

ii) Conditional Approval

10TMC-PROC-HE-APPROG


Submissions approved conditionally will need further development work to meet conditions clearly specified by the panel. A timescale will be set for this work. The Chair of the Validation Panel is responsible for verifying that the conditions have been met within the agreed timescale.

Once fully approved (including by the awarding/validating body), details of the new programme are sent to marketing and promotion of the new programme can begin.

9. External Participation It is the expectation of the college that the process of validation is underpinned by academic and professional peer review by internal colleagues and external subject specialists, representatives from professional bodies and potential employers.

The college recognises three principal forms of external opinion (‘externality’) which are relevant to the consideration of a programme proposal:

An opinion of the likely viability and sustainability of the proposed programme in terms of recruitment

An opinion of the comparability and appropriateness of the academic standards of the programme provided by someone qualified to comment but independent of the University and partner institution

The opinion of the person who may be asked to act as external examiner for the programme.

10.Student Engagement Students are able to make a valuable contribution to their own higher education experience and that of others.

Student participation in the validation process for the development and approval of new programmes may be formal or informal, and involve a spectrum of different levels of engagement.

It is considered exemplar practice to involve students in the development and approval of new programmes.



Appendix 1: Quality Criteria Checklist (including examples of possible evidence)

This checklist will be useful both for submitting tutors and the internal validation panel.

Stage 1 Checklist Tick

1. Outline programme description.

2. Clearly identified client group.

3. Rationale and demand for programme (based on market research), including indication of how programme fits with college Strategic Plan and HE Strategy.

(Records/outcomes of consultation with named local/national employers, careers service, relevant HEIs, local schools, appropriate professional bodies, students on likely feeder courses, the marketing department. Information on any similar provision offered in the college or by other local colleges, number of local/regional firms offering employment, number of jobs advertised locally/nationally, existing college programmes for which new programme would offer progression. NWDA and SSC evidence of demand/fit with priorities)

4. Identified progression routes for programme completers.

(Specific HE programmes, specific employment prospects)

5. Appropriate accommodation and other resources identified

(e.g. IT or other expensive equipment).

6. Appropriate staff or staff requirements identified.

(List of likely programme team members, CVs detailing relevant qualifications and experience, provisional breakdown of staffing hours)

7. Viable costings for first 2 years, including identification of programme funding.

(Detailed financial breakdown, including staffing, equipment and materials, HEI validation and quality assurance costs, HEFCE funding and student fees)

8. Staff development activities identified.



(List/details of relevant events attended, list/details of events planned/required)

9. Programme development time indicated.

10. Possible awarding bodies/validating partner(s)



Stage 2 Checklist Tick

1. Roles and responsibilities of team members defined.

2. Programme aims, objectives and level identified.

3. Marketing and recruitment strategy identified.

4. Programme leaflets/promotional material.

5. Staff recruitment (P/T & F/T) needs identified.

6. Programme admissions criteria defined in line with HE Admissions Policy.

(Programme leaflet/promotional material)

7. Pre-course guidance/admissions procedure stated.(HE Interview Checklist and Record)

8. APL availability indicated.

9. Course structure identified.(Programme specification, programme documentation)

10.Course content identified.(Programme specification, programme documentation, scheme of work)

11.Range of teaching and learning methods identified.(Sample schemes of work, sample assignments, sample teaching materials)

12.Key/transferable skills development strategy identified.(Programme specification, programme documentation)

13.Planned work experience (if appropriate).(Work experience assignments/tasks, work experience monitoring records, work experience provider information)

14.Assessment strategies and methods identified.(Programme specification, programme documentation, sample assessments, student/programme handbook, sample assessment records/documents, internal verification/moderation procedure)

15.Induction programme.(Induction timetable/programme, student/programme handbook)

16.Academic and tutorial support.



(Student/programme handbook, programme documentation)

17. Learning support available.(Student/programme handbook, programme documentation)

18. Technician support available (if required).

19. Programme specification.

20. Procedures for course monitoring and evaluation are clear.(Programme specification, programme documentation)

21. Schedule of programme team meetings.

22. Course complies with Adult and Employed Learner Standards.



Appendix 2: Validation Panel Documentation

A. College Validation Panel Notes

Date of panel:

Programme:

Submitting tutor(s):

Curriculum Area:

Panel members:

Key points of discussion:

Panel decision: Conditional approval/Unconditional approval

Conditions agreed:

Date(s) for conditions to be met:

Points of good practice:

Notes taken by:

(Please Print Name)



B. College internal validation panel – some sample questions

1. Can you outline the evidence of demand for the programme and how it was obtained?

2. Have the appropriate external reference sources been utilised (e.g. QAA subject benchmarks, Foundation Degree qualification benchmarks, PSRB requirements).

3. Are the aims and outcomes are clearly stated and appropriate, reflecting relevant QAA subject benchmark statements, the FHEQ, relevant PSRB requirements.

4. Are any special facilities/resources needed for the programme? Are they available?

5. Can you outline the arrangements for monitoring and improving the quality of the programme?

6. Could you give us a broad outline of the admissions criteria and student selection procedure you intend to adopt? How will potential students be informed?

7. Could you outline the anticipated progression routes on successful completion of this programme?

8. What do you anticipate as a minimum retention rate for the programme during the year? How will drop outs be followed up?

9. How will the team ensure that a variety of learning and teaching methods are proposed that are pedagogically sound, appropriate to the stated learning outcomes, and encourage students to engage in and take responsibility for their own learning.

10. Can you explain in more detail the range of assessment methods, which will be used?

11. What employer involvement is there in the development of this programme?

12. How will the team engage with technology enhanced learning?

13. How is the programme to be marketed? What action have you taken so far (e.g. preparation of publicity, advertising, visits to, or contact with firms etc.)?

14. Can you explain in detail how the team manages work placements?

15. Will you involve employers in the programme review process?

16. Has a programme team been identified?

17. How will academic and tutorial support be provided?



C. College validation panel – Chair checklist

Programme submitted:

Panel date:

Chair name:

Chair signature date:

Please complete this checklist and return to the HE Administrator

Tick Tick

1. Panel meets half-hour before submitting tutor(s) arrive.

2. Panel questions and questioning order agreed.

3. Panel member nominated to take notes.

4. Submitting tutor(s) welcomed and procedure for panel meeting outlined.

5. Following panel decision, submitting tutor(s) informed on the decision verbally.

6. Panel notes made for records.

7. Panel decision confirmed in writing to submitting tutor(s) (copy of panel notes included).

8. If approval is conditional, conditions are clearly laid out with a timescale included with confirmation memo.

9. Chair (or nominated panel member) verifies conditions have been met by agreed date.

10. Letter confirming full, unconditional approval sent.



Stage 3 Internal Validation: Full Approval Document

Part 1: Panel Members

Chair – Assistant Principal or nominee

HE Manager

Academic Representative:

Student Representative

Secretary to Internal Validation Panel

Part 2: Programme Development Team

Head of Department

Programme Leader

DTL

Tutor

Student Representative

Part 3: Key Dates

Date of Internal Validation (Stage 3)

Date for Resubmission of Full Approvals Document

Date for Submission to Manchester Metropolitan University



Part 4: Overarching Programme Details

Programme title

Approved location of delivery

New or Existing

Category of Approval

Intended First Intake

Departments

Awarding Institution

External Examiner

Academic Consultant

Student Feedback

Summary of introduction by programme development team

Part 5 - Checklist

The following questions whilst not definitive guide the panel in considering appropriateness of the full approvals document:

YES NO COMMENT

Is the correct full approvals template been used?

Has planning permission been approved?

Are there any changes that are required as a result of planning



permission? If yes, have they been achieved?

Evidence provided of engagement with the External Examiner in the design and development of the programme?

Have any issues raised in the internal validation Report of the programme specification been fully addressed?

Have any subsequent changes been made to the programme specification?

Are the changes appropriate?

Are there any outstanding/ newly arising issues that need addressing in the programme specification?

Is the curriculum design and indicative content appropriate across modules?

Are student support arrangements appropriate?

Have issues of equality been catered for i.e. The extent to which the programme demonstrates awareness of the diverse needs of disabled students, those with learning difficulties and other ‘protected characteristics’ as defined in the Equality Act 2010

Are the module learning outcomes appropriate?

How has e-learning been integrated into the programme design and delivery? Is it appropriate?

Are the teaching and learning strategies appropriate and sufficiently



differentiated across the design and delivery methods of the programme/modules?

Is direct and indirect class contact in alignment with Institutional strategy? (based on 10 hours per 1 credit)

Are assessment strategies appropriate and sufficiently designed across the programme/ modules?

Are the reading lists appropriate and complete?

Is the curriculum map appropriate (relationship of programme learning outcomes to module learning outcomes)?

Has a library cost analysis report been received?

Have resource requirements been taken into consideration and planned for the first intake?

Are module tutors clearly identified and appropriate?

Have all CVs been received?

Are appropriate footers used (e.g. version control)

Are all relevant sections complete and is the programme specification presented to a publishable standard?



Confirmation and commentary on reference made to the UK Quality Code for Higher Education in the programme design and delivery (reference may be made to the programme specification guidelines, FHEQ, subject benchmarks [and FDQB], particular sections of the procedure for Approval of New Programmes)

Other observations not included anywhere else in this report

If the panel answer in the shaded areas for any of the above, further development of the programme documentation is needed before approval by the College to submit full approvals documentation to the University.

Part 6 - Decision(s) of Approval

Approved

Not Approved

Approved Subject to Conditions

Conditions

Part 7 – Signatures of Approval

Chair

Panel Member

Date:


introduction - the manchester college | tmc.ac.uk · web viewtmc-proc-he-approg revision history...

Documents