Quality Assurance
Handbook
Published by the Quality and Academic
Support Office
Students and Education Directorate
Contents
Section A
Introduction
1. Scope of the procedures 1
2. List of abbreviations 1
3. Quality assurance, regulatory and credit frameworks – national 1
and College
Section B
Procedures for programme and module approval
and modification
1. Programme and module design 5
2. Business plan and marketing 7
3. Distance learning and e-learning programmes 8
4. Collaborative activity, placement learning and joint awards 8
5. Professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs) 9
6. Documentation for approval and modification 9
7. The approval process 10
8. Timescale for approval 12
9. Setting up modules on SITS 13
10. Publication of programme specifications 13
11. Diagram of the approval process 14
Section C
Procedures for the approval and monitoring of collaborative
provision
1. Introduction 16 2. Definitions 16 3. Strategic considerations 16 4. Governance 17 5. Legal framework 17 6. Assessment of Risk 187. Areas for agreement with prospective partner institutions 18
8. Process for the approval, monitoring and review of collaborative provision 19
9. Process Maps 20
10. Further information 37
Section D
Procedures for programme and module monitoring
and review
1. Introduction to monitoring and review 40
2. Aims, objectives and process for annual monitoring 40
3. Aims and objectives of review 41
4. The review process 42
5. Collaborative activity and placement learning 44
6. Combined review and validation/accreditation by professional, 44
statutory or regulatory bodies (PSRBs)
7. Documentation for review 45
Contents
ii
9. Monitoring of recommendations arising from programme review 48
10. Diagram of the review process 50
Section E
Procedures for postgraduate research degrees
approval and monitoring
1. New research degree programmes 53
2. The approval process following consideration by Programme 53
Development and Approval Committee
3. PhD by blended learning 54
4. Monitoring of postgraduate research degrees 55
Section F
Core code of practice for postgraduate research degrees
1. Introduction 59
2. Purpose of the Core Code 59
3. Admission to a postgraduate research programme of study 60
4. Supervision 61
5. Research environment 62
6. Enrolment, registration and attendance 62
7. Induction, training and development 64
8. Working during a research degree 65
9. Monitoring and assessment of students’ progress 66
10. Submission of thesis 69
11. Changes to registration – interruptions, extensions and transfers 70 12. Sick leave arrangements for students on fully funded studentships 73
13. Arrangements for extensions to submission deadlines for Research 73
Council funded students
14. Feedback 74
15. Complaints and appeals 74
16. Suspension of regulations for research degree students 75
Appendix 1 – Roles and responsibilities 77
Section G
Core code of practice for PGT research governance and the
dissertation framework
1. Introduction 89
2. Purpose of the Core Code 89
3. The format of a master’s research dissertation 90
4. Supervision 90
5. Ethical approval and statutory requirements 91
6. Extensions 91
7. Feedback 93
8. Complaints and appeals 94
Appendix 1: College postgraduate taught dissertation 95
framework
Appendix 3 Roles and responsibilities 98
Section H
Assessment and External Examiners
1. Introduction to assessment 109
2. Setting of assessment 110
3. Marking. Plagiarism and feedback 111
4. External Examiners 112
5. Diagram of the procedure for the consideration of External 114
Examiners’ reports
Section I
Notes of guidance
Guidance on risk and ethics assessment in the design of modules 118
Guidance on global connectedness 124
Guidance on the production of programme specifications and the
completion of programme and module approval and modification forms 128
Guidance on clinical medicine, dentistry and cost centres 101 and 102 150
Guidance for Faculties (Institutes/School) on the use of external specialists
and external peers for programme approval and review 152
Guidance on flexible and distributed learning 156
Guidance on the operation of collaborative teaching activity 158
Guidance on student placements 164
Definitions of collaborative activity 169
Guidance on joint awards 178
Guidance on dual awards 184
Guidance on the design of taught interdisciplinary, joint honours and
major/minor combination programmes 190
Guidance on off-campus study in research degrees 192
Guidance on key principles relating to the management, monitoring and
assessment of joint PhD programmes 194 Core terms of reference for a Joint Academic Committee for joint PhD
programmes 198 Guidance on Doctoral Training Centres/Partnerships: approval, monitoring
and review 199 Guidance on equality of opportunity and access in programme and
module review 202 Guidance on professional, statutory and regulatory body (PSRB) reporting 214
Marking framework 216
College marking criteria: undergraduate 222
College marking criteria: taught postgraduate 226
Translation of credits/marks attained through study away from the College 228
Academic honesty and integrity 230
Guidelines for examiners: plagiarism and related forms of cheating 234
College policy on feedback to students 244
College policy on feedback to students: staff 246
Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR) 250
Section A
Introduction
1
1.
Scope of the procedures
1.1 The procedures in this Handbook cover the approval, modification, monitoring and review of all undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes and modules, including collaborative provision, specialist doctorates and short credit bearing courses; the approval and monitoring of new research degree programmes; the Core code of practice for postgraduate research degrees; the Core Code of Practice for PGT research governance and the dissertation framework and assessment policies and processes. There is a separate set of procedures covering the processes for the College’s validation and accreditation of programmes offered by other institutions, which can be obtained from the Policy Zone at
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/college/policyzone/
1.2 Proposals for non-credit bearing short courses should follow the approval procedures as laid down by the Dean of Faculty (Institute/School), and be submitted via the online Short Course application form (SCAF) which can be found at:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/scafeform/auth/login/. For more guidance on what is classified as a short course please see the Short course code of practice.
2.
List of abbreviations
2.1 The following definitions of terms are used throughout the Handbook:
Module an individual element of a programme of study which is taught and examined under the approved regulations for that programme Programme comprises the approved curriculum followed by a student for a
specified award upon which the student is registered
CASC College Assessment and Standards Committee
CEC College Education Committee
QAA Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
PSRB Professional, statutory or regulatory body
PAS Planning and Analytics Services team
QAS Quality and Academic Support section of the Students and Education
Directorate1
PDAC Programme Development and Approval Committee
PRSS Postgraduate Research Student’s Sub-committee
TPSC Taught Postgraduate Sub-committee
FEC Faculty (Institute/School) Education Committee or equivalent body
SITS acronym for the student record system
3
.
Quality assurance, regulatory and credit frameworks – national and
College
3.1 College procedures are required to take account of the various components of the QAA’s UK Quality Code for Higher Education; (see http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code). The Code has three sections:
Part A: Setting and maintaining threshold academic standards Part B: Assuring and enhancing academic quality
Part C: Information about higher education provision Part A has three chapters which are:
Chapter A1 - UK and European Reference Points for Academic Standards Chapter A2: Degree-awarding bodies' reference points for academic standards Chapter A3: Securing academic standards and an outcomes-based approach to academic awards
2
Part B has 11 chapters and those with particular reference to procedures in this Handbook are:
B1: Programme design. development and approval B3: Learning and teaching
B4: Enabling student development and achievement
B6: Assessment of students and recognition of prior learning B7: External Examining
B8: Programme monitoring and review
B10: Managing higher education provision with others B11: Research degrees
3.2 A key component of the College’s quality assurance framework is the way in which programmes and modules are designed, approved, modified, monitored and
reviewed. This process ensures that the College’s programmes meet the academic standards set by the College and the external environment, which includes the QAA and the various PSRBs. These standards are then maintained and monitored via the processes of delivery, assessment and review.
3.3 The College’s structure and operation is characterised by the devolution to Faculties (Institutes/School) of a wide range of responsibilities within a defined framework.2 The Academic Board, as the principal corporate body with responsibility for assuring quality in the academic work of the College, sets the framework and defines the standards and rules to which Faculties (Institutes/School) must work. It is aided in this task by a sub-structure of committees which develop, agree and monitor the majority of the policies and procedures governing the operation of the framework. The relevant part of the Academic Board’s sub-structure concerned with programme and module approval and modification is the Programme Development and Approval Committee (PDAC); while the sub-committee concerned with the monitoring and review of programmes and modules is the College Assessment and Standards Committee (CASC) which oversees these procedures and their implementation by Faculties (Institutes/School), along with oversight of assessment. College Education Committee (CEC) is responsible for the oversight of the education strategy of the College. For terms of reference of Academic Board and its substructure see
Academic governance and management regulations, section C1
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/college/policyzone/
3.4 In line with the principles of devolution Faculty (Institute/School) Education Committees (FECs), or equivalent bodies, as specified in the Faculty
(Institute/School) core governance functions are therefore responsible for approving and modifying programmes and modules in accordance with the procedures set out in this Handbook. Faculty (Institute/School) core governance functions are available at http://www.kcl.ac.uk/college/policyzone/. FECs are also responsible for collecting annual monitoring reports from programmes/departments within their Faculty
(Institute/School) and for reporting on these as advised by CASC. FECs are also responsible for ensuring that reviews of all programmes within the Faculty
(Institute/School) are undertaken and for reporting such reviews to the CASC. The CASC receives a summary report on all review reports and gives final approval to the review which includes the re-approval of the programmes. For further information on academic governance see http://www.kcl.ac.uk/about/governance/.
3.5 Since the introduction of the credit framework for all new enrolments from the beginning of the 2007/08 academic year, there is one set of generic regulations that
2 Throughout this document the term “Faculty (Institute/School)” also includes the grouping of the
English Language Centre, whose governance structures in relation to quality assurance is via the Faculty of Arts and Humanities.
Introduction
3
apply for all undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes.3 Programme specific regulatory information is contained within programme specifications which therefore have regulatory status. Programme specifications are published only once a year, prior to the start of each session and cannot be amended during a session. Requests for the suspension of regulatory information in a programme specification should follow the same procedure as requests for suspension of the Academic regulations. Further information on the credit framework, associated regulations and level descriptors can be found on the programmes of study web pages at
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/prog/approvalandmod/index.aspx
3.6 There may, however, be instances, for example with some professional programmes,
where programme specific regulations may be required. In such instances advice on the necessity for and the production of such regulations should be sought from QAS. These regulations and any subsequent major amendments will require the approval of the Academic Board before the start of the session in which the programme is due to commence, and should be appended to, and form part of, the programme
specification.
3 A small number of programmes are not in the credit framework. The full list of awards can be found
Section B
Procedures for programme
and module approval and
modification
Procedures for programme and module approval and modification
5
1.
Programme and module design
1.1 In designing a new programme of study, account needs to be taken of a number of external reference points. All programmes have to be set at one of the levels within the Framework for higher education qualifications (FHEQ) published by the QAA (
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/publications/information-and-guidance/publication/?PubID=2718#.VACCoFM3N8E) and demonstrate that they fit the qualification descriptors for each level. The levels and the main qualifications at each level are:
Level 4 Undergraduate Certificates of Higher Education
Level 5 Undergraduate Diplomas of Higher Education, Foundation degrees
Level 6 Bachelors degrees with Honours, Graduate Certificates and Graduate
Diplomas
Level 7 MB BS, BDS, Integrated Masters degrees, Postgraduate Certificates, Postgraduate Diplomas and Masters degrees
Level 8 Doctorates
1.2 The QAA, in conjunction with the sector, has developed subject benchmark
statements based around broad subject groupings which are designed to represent the conceptual framework of a discipline and to provide information about the understanding and skills acquired through the study of that discipline. Subject benchmark statements need to be considered in the design of a new programme, although it should be noted that for some programmes more than one benchmark statement may be relevant and for others there may not be any statements of direct relevance. There are 57 benchmark statements for honours degree programmes plus 15 benchmark statements for masters degrees and 18Department of
Health/NHS benchmark statements for DoH funded provision. There is a qualification benchmark for Foundation Degrees, which is not specific to any
particular discipline but which sets out a generic framework for Foundation Degrees that serves as a reference point for use in programme design, delivery and review. There are some subject benchmark statements for M level degrees such as Business and Management, Dentistry, Medicine and the MPharm: the Engineering, Computing, Physics and Chemistry benchmark statements include references to integrated masters degrees, and for the Mathematics statement this is covered in an annex. The QAA has also produced a guidance note on Master’s degree characteristics. Further information and the benchmark statements themselves can be found on the QAA web site at http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/subject-benchmark-statements.
1.3 In addition to the external framework within which programmes have to be
constructed, the following internal requirements should also be taken into account as part of the process:
(a) the College’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2016 plus the 2011 strategic review update http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/strategy/index.aspx
(b) the Education Strategy
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/college/policyzone/
(c) the College’s equality and diversity policies available at
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/college/policyzone/
(d) the College’s Academic Regulations including College criteria for degrees available at http://www.kcl.ac.uk/college/policyzone/
(e) the underpinning of joint honours programmes by a clear intellectual rationale, either educational or academic defined in the following terms:
an educational rationale applies to instances whereby the components of a joint honours degree, without necessarily overlapping at subject level, nonetheless provide the student with a greater breadth of complementary
6
learning outcomes and thereby a more rounded education than afforded by a single honours degree;
an academic rationale applies to combinations where there is a significant overlap between the two subject areas in terms of knowledge and expertise and where studies in one component thereby shed light on studies in the other to enhance the student’s understanding of both;
(f) it is also good practice to seek the views of students about the design and development of new programmes, although it is recognised that this is not always feasible.
1.4 A few years ago the Quality Assurance Review Group reviewed the College’s quality assurance processes and concluded that the programme and module approval process was working well but made the point that completion of the paperwork should be the culmination of the academic process in devising a new programme or module, not the starting point. The recommendation was that a good practice to adopt in programme/module approval is to view the programme/module and its delivery from the perspective of the student and the way in which information is imparted to students, which includes for example, consideration of seminar topics and bibliographies.
1.5 Taking all of the above into account therefore it is necessary for the design of a new programme to identify the following:
(a) level of the programme within the Framework for higher education qualifications;
(b) overall credit value; (c) aims and objectives;
(d) content, structure, distinctive features and learning outcomes with reference to any relevant subject benchmark statements;
(e) opportunities to embed research skills into the curriculum; (f) opportunities to embed a global dimension into the curriculum;
(g) associated modules and whether or not any are introductory, compulsory, core, optional, professional practice, prerequisites, co-requisites or excluded combinations and the combination of levels of credit allowed within the overall credit for the programme;
(h) teaching pattern and modes of delivery to include the embedding of technology enhanced learning;
(i) opportunities for interdisciplinary learning;
(j) assessment methods. Cognisance should be taken of the expectations and associated indicators in the chapter of the QAA Quality Code on assessment of students;
(k) identification of nested awards (ie a lower level and/or volume award which students may register for) and identification of exit awards (e.g. an award available to a candidate unable to meet the credit volume and/or credit level requirements for the award on which they are registered. In 2013/14 exit awards became default. For a programme who does not wish to offer an exit award prior permission from CASC must be sought first);
(l) consideration of how the teaching pattern, content, mode of delivery and assessment methods allow for equality of opportunity for academic
achievement (see Guidance on the production of programme specifications and the completion of programme and module approval and modification forms on page 128).
1.6 All but (a), (g) and (k) above are also necessary in the design of new modules. In addition the following need to be taken account of in respect of modules:
(a) alignment of learning outcomes with agreed level descriptors
Procedures for programme and module approval and modification
7
(b) whether the module is also available as an option for Study Abroad students or whether it is available for such students in a modified form;
(c) whether a module contains some kind of physical procedure or administration of questionnaires, conducting interviews or making video or audio recordings. All such activity which involves human participants or raises other ethical issues with potential social or environmental implications must be submitted for ethical review (see Guidance on risk and ethics assessment in the design of modules on page 107 and the research ethics web pages
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/research/support/ethics/index.aspx; (d) for Masters’ programmes, alignment of the dissertation/research project
element with College guidelines (see Core code of practice for PGT research governance and dissertation framework on page 89).
1.7 This process culminates in the production of a programme specification. The QAA has previously stated that a programme specification is “a concise description of the intended learning outcomes of an HE programme, and the means by which the outcomes are achieved and demonstrated. These intended learning outcomes relate directly to the curriculum, study and assessment methods and criteria used to assess performance.”1 It is expected that programme specifications are produced for all programmes and they constitute a prominent feature of the architecture of the QAA’s method for quality assurance; therefore programme specifications form the basis of programme approval documentation (see section 6 below). Guidance on the production of programme specifications and the completion of programme and module approval and modification forms can be found on page 128 and the QAA Guidelines can be found at http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code.
1.8 It is necessary for proposals for new programmes to undergo some form of specialist external input/review; this must be evidenced in the programme approval
documentation (see section 6 below). It is possible to use current External Examiners for this purpose, however, it is not appropriate for the same External Examiner to then be engaged in the capacity of External Examiner for the new programme until a period of three academic years has elapsed. It might also be appropriate for some disciplines to make use of professional experts or employers for this purpose. For further information on the use of external specialists see Guidance for Faculties (Institutes/School) on the use of external specialists and external peers for programme approval and review on page 152.
2.
Business plan and marketing
2.1 Whilst the academic rationale and quality of a programme should remain the most important factors in the consideration of a new programme, Faculties
(Institutes/School) strategic and operational planning will be greatly assisted by a business plan and marketing plan accompanying all new programme proposals. The business plan will indicate how the resources to support the programme will be provided and the marketing plan will outline how sufficient numbers of high quality candidates can be attracted to the programme and at what cost.
2.2 Those programmes that require new staffing resources should follow the guidance that has been agreed by PDAC during 2014/15:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/prog/approvalandmod/taughtproga pproval.aspx Those programmes that require new academic staff the programme proposer should discuss with Faculty Education Leads and Territorial Vice-Principal’s the resource required and then requests should be submitted as part of the annual Planning Round. Deadlines for such requests are aligned to the Planning Round and
8
Faculties’ strategic reviews with individual deadlines set for each of the Faculties. All requests should be completed by December each year.
2.3 The Marketing Department is responsible for presenting and advising on marketing strategies for each Faculty (Institutes/School) so it is important that new programmes are incorporated into the Faculty (Institutes/School)’s overall marketing strategy. Guidance should be sought from Faculty (Institutes/School) marketing officers when proposing a programme to ensure appropriate information is provided to PDAC to enable the Committee to make a full decision. The template form for consideration by PDAC can be found at:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/governance/committees/PDAC.aspx.
2.4 The template for the business plan can be found at:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/prog/approvalandmod/taughtproga pproval.aspxProgramme proposers are expected to send both forms to the
Executive Dean of Faculty (Institutes/School) and the Director of Marketing so that marketing support can be agreed with the Executive Dean of Faculty
(Institutes/School).
2.5 Consideration should also be given to the planning and marketing of modules for the Study Abroad market. Further advice should be sought from the Marketing
Department.
3.
Distance learning and e-learning programmes
3.1 Designers of distance learning programmes should consult: the QAA Quality Code,
chapters B3:Learning and teaching and B10: Managing higher education provision with others; Guidance on the production of programme specifications and the completion of programme and module approval and modification forms on page 128 and Guidance on flexible and distributed learning on page 156.
3.2 Distance learning programmes may also be delivered via e-learning, although the two are not necessarily synonymous. Such provision is often referred to under the heading “flexible and distributed learning” which can be defined as educational provision delivered and/or supported and/or assessed through means which generally do not require the student to attend particular classes or events at particular times or in particular locations.
3.3 Further guidance and support for development of e-learning programmes can be sought from the Central Unit of Distance Learning: https://internal.kcl.ac.uk/e-learning/cudl/services/index.aspx
4.
Collaborative activity, placement learning. dual and joint awards
4.1 There are separate procedures that govern the College’s validation and accreditation of programmes offered by other institutions (see
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/college/policyzone). However there are instances when elements of College programmes are delivered away from the main College
campuses by bodies external to the College and instances when students undertake activity outside the College for defined periods of time. In these circumstances the process of programme design should give due consideration to the quality assurance aspects of such arrangements to ensure that the academic standards of the
programmes are maintained and that the student experience is not compromised. Reference should be made to Guidance on the operation of collaborative teaching activity on page 158, Guidance on student placements on page 164 and Definitions of collaborative activity on page 169.
Procedures for programme and module approval and modification
9
4.2 Approval from PDAC is required before a programme that involves the award of a dual or joint degree can be finally approved by the Faculty (Institute/School). As the first stage in the process, completion of the Collaborative Proposal Programme Form must be submitted to PDAC for approval (see Section C Procedures for the approval and monitoring of collaborative provision for further detail). There are also certain legal and financial matters concerning the status of the proposed partner that need to be clarified before outline approval can be given for joint degrees (see Guidance on joint awards on page 178 and Guidance on dual awards on page 184).
5.
Professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs)
5.1 A wide range of programmes delivered by the College either require, or choose to seek, validation or accreditation from relevant PSRBs and the requirements of such bodies will be particularly influential in the design of the curriculum of such
programmes. Depending on the requirements of the body in question, there may be some sharing of documentation and process between the Faculties
(Institutes/School) approval of a new programme and a validation or accreditation event by the PSRB.2 Notwithstanding the College’s devolved procedures, some bodies also require the presence of relevant College staff at a validation or accreditation event.
5.2 Further guidance in relation to PSRB’s can be found on the policyzone:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/college/policyzone/
6.
Documentation for approval and modification
6.1 The documentation listed below is the minimum that the College expects to be provided for the approval and modification of programmes and modules. Faculties (Institutes/School) are free to request additional information to meet their own particular needs.
6.2 Documentation for new programme proposals should consist of the following: (a) a Programme Proposal form (available at
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/governance/committees/PDAC.aspx) (b) a programme approval form (see Guidance on the production of programme
specifications and the completion of programme and module approval and modification forms on page 128);
(c) evidence of external input into the design of the programme. This should take the form of a brief report from a subject specialist expert, external to the College. The report form template is available at:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/prog/approvalandmod/taugh tprogapproval.aspx
(d) a business plan (see
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/prog/approvalmod.aspx); (e) module approval forms for new modules. Where existing modules are used
in a new programme, the learning outcomes of those modules must be made available with the programme documentation. Where a programme makes use of optional modules from outside the department eg language modules, then those specific learning outcomes do not need to be made available at approval but the learning outcomes of the programme must include some generic provision for such modules.
2 The General Council of the Bar and the Law Society have a specific requirement for a representative
10
For joint awards, dual awards and partnership programmes where elements of the programme are delivered away from the main College campuses by bodies external to the College the following is required:
(f) a Collaborative Provision Proposal form (available at:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/governance/committees/PDAC.aspx)
(g) a report of the learning resources available off-site together with mechanisms for the ongoing monitoring of such resources;
(h) a draft memorandum of agreement between the College and the external body. The draft memorandum of agreement should be submitted to QAS for forwarding to PDAC before the programme is approved. Subsequent to the approval the signed memorandum should be submitted to QAS. Web links for templates for Memoranda of Agreement can be found in Section J. 6.3 Documentation for new module proposals should consist of the following:
(a) an online module approval form (see Guidance on the production of programme specifications and the completion of programme and module approval and modification forms on page 128).
6.4 Documentation for modified programmes and modules should consist of the following:
(a) an online modification form, (see Guidance on the production of programme specifications and the completion of programme and module approval and modification forms on page 128). This form should also be used for the deletion of programmes and modules no longer being offered;
(b) a revised programme specification, if the nature of the modification entails changes to the specification;
(c) if the proposed changes are of a major nature such as: a major re-focusing of the curriculum content; a major structural change to a programme;
a change in the delivery to flexible and distributed modes of learning; a change of learning outcomes;
a change to assessment patterns,
then a new programme or module approval form should be completed for approval by the Faculty (Institute/School) Education Committee, or equivalent. For those proposed changes that are a major re-focusing of the curriculum content, additional pathways or awards or a change to a programme title then final approval must also be sought from PDAC.
6.5 Modifications to programmes and modules cannot be implemented in the same academic year in which they are approved.
7.
The approval process
7.1 A summary of the approval process in diagrammatic form is given on page 14. 7.2 The College’s planning round meetings, along with the Programme Development
Sub-group of PDAC, should identify any new programmes that a Faculty
(Institute/School) may wish to introduce. Faculties are also asked at the start of the academic year to advise QAS of any proposed new programmes to be considered during the year.
7.3 Proposals for new programmes must be submitted for approval to PDAC via the Programme Proposal Form that is available at:
Procedures for programme and module approval and modification
11
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/governance/committees/PDAC.aspx. Once approval from PDAC has been granted then the following steps can be taken.
7.4 Proposals for new programmes and modules and for modifications must be
submitted for approval to the appropriate FEC, to include the information specified in section 6 above. FECs are free to request any information additional to this to fit their own particular requirements. In the case of joint degrees within the College or where the teaching of a programme or module is undertaken by more than one Faculty (Institute/School), it is necessary for the proposal to be approved by the FEC of both/all Faculties (Institutes/School) (please also refer to the Guidance on the design of taught interdisciplinary, joint honours and major/minor programmes on page 190). Proposals for modifications to programmes and modules need to identify clearly the modification required, whether it is a major or minor modification and the rationale for the change. If a programme is being discontinued, measures need to be taken to notify and protect the interests of students registered for, or accepted for admission to the programme.
7.5 It is the responsibility of the FEC to ensure that the following have been taken into account before a programme or module is approved:
(a) all resource implications;
(b) the marketing implications in the case of programmes (see paragraph 2.2 above);
(c) that programme and module designers have liaised appropriately with Library Services and other relevant academic support services;
(d) confirmation, if relevant, that the appropriate ethical approval has been sought and granted for modules (see Guidance on risk and ethics assessment in the design of modules on page 118 for further guidance); (e) that equality of access and opportunity have been fully considered in the
design of the programme or module.
The advice of the Executive Dean of Faculty (Institutes/School) should be sought in cases where FECs are not satisfied that the issues above have been addressed. 7.6 In accordance with the requirements of the chapter of the QAA Quality Code on
programme design and approval, the body that approves a programme should be independent of the unit that will offer the programme. It is recommended therefore that FECs should establish “programme approval panels” which should include as a minimum:
(a) a Chair, normally the chair of the FEC. In single department Faculties
(Institutes/School) and in cases where the programme being approved is from the same department as the Chair, the Chair of the panel should be from another Faculty (Institute/School);
(b) a representative from another Faculty (Institute/School) (the Chair or a member of the FEC);3
(c) the external peer(s) (see Guidance for Faculties (Institutes/School) on the use of external specialists and external peers for programme approval and review
on page 152 for further guidance);
(d) a student representative. Normally this will be the student representative on the FEC but where their attendance is not possible at a specific event then a representative from KCLSU should be present;
(e) the Faculty (Institute/School) Director of Administration or nominee.
Representatives from the department/area proposing the new programme should be invited to the meeting to discuss the proposal.
12
7.7 The use of CEC/FEC representatives in this way aids the monitoring of the
comparability of standards of programmes of study across the College and assists in the process of quality enhancement through the dissemination of good practice. The external peers should be different from those who provided input to the design of the programme and will be excluded from subsequently acting as External Examiner for the programme until a period of three academic years has elapsed. The external peer will not necessarily be an expert in the field but will have a broad understanding of the discipline. Their main function is to provide an external viewpoint on the approval process; the specific specialist advice having been provided earlier at the design stage of the process. External peers are appointed by the College for a period of two years in the first instance with the possibility of renewal for a further two years (the process being comparable in many ways to the appointment of External Examiners). Each Faculty (Institute/School) requires one or two externals to act in this capacity. The external peer will be expected to attend all programme approval panels; in exceptional circumstances where this is not possible they should provide a written report for the panel. They should also attend at least half of the FEC
meetings each year.
7.8 In approving programmes and modules Faculties (Institutes/School) should ensure that their procedures give due consideration to the academic standards of awards and the quality of the learning opportunities available and, where external bodies are involved in the delivery of the teaching, that there are appropriate mechanisms in place to guarantee such standards and quality. FECs should ensure that where programmes and modules are approved but with conditions attached, that the fulfilment of those conditions is signed off on the programme approval
documentation, reported back to the FEC and documented in FEC minutes. Programmes of study are normally approved for a period of six years unless
specified otherwise by the FEC. Re-approval is gained through the process of review that is detailed in Section D of this Handbook.
7.9 Following approval by the FEC, the programme documentation (see paragraphs 6.2 – 6.4 above) should be forwarded to QAS. Unless the documentation is submitted in full the programme will not be regarded by the College as being approved. If
separate programme regulations4 are required, these are subject to further approval by the Academic Board and until this has occurred students may not be registered on the programme.
7.10 The QAS section forwards submitted programme documentation to PDAC members
for final approval. Programme details are added to SITS only after such information has been approved by PDAC and all approval signatures have been gathered. A summary of all approvals is then submitted to Academic Board.
7.11 Minutes of all meetings of FECs should be sent to the QAS office.
8.
Timescale for approval
8.1 The recommended timescale for approval of new and modified programmes and modules is as follows:
New postgraduate programme 22 months prior to commencement (for the
printed prospectus)
18 months prior to commencement (for the online prospectus)
4 Normally these would be integrated into the programme specification – please consult QAS where
Procedures for programme and module approval and modification
13
New undergraduate programme 29 months prior to commencement (for the
printed prospectus)
25 months prior to commencement (for the online prospectus)
New module 9 months prior to commencement
Major modification to a programme same timescale as for new programme Minor modification to a programme prior to registration of students
Major modification to a module prior to registration of students Minor modification to a module prior to registration of students
8.2 These are recommended timescales to allow for the inclusion of information for UCAS and the College’s prospectuses, as well as publishing the KIS (for undergraduate programmes). Faculties (Institutes/School) can introduce a new programme or module with a shorter lead-time to take account, for example, of the appointment of a new member of staff; however, in such cases, the Faculty
(Institute/School) should recognise that additional steps may need to be taken to market the programme and that adequate sized teaching rooms cannot be
guaranteed as approval of the new module has fallen outside of normal timetabling procedures.
8.3 It is essential that students are aware and agree to any modifications to their chosen programme. Modifications need to have been approved in time to allow them to be reflected in the documentation given to students at the beginning of each year. Modifications that result in differing information to that which has been publicised must be communicated to those students registering admission/interest to the programme advising them of the change.
8.4 For undergraduate programmes, modifications to programmes must take into
account the impact of the KIS and the timescales for KIS reporting. Further guidance on the KIS and relevant timescales can be sought from the Planning and Analytics Services team (PAS).
8.5 Programmes cannot be advertised as being available in UCAS and College documents or on-line until they have been approved.
9.
Setting up modules on SITS
9.1 During 2012/13 it was agreed that from 2013/14 module approvals will be via an online system (OPAMA).
9.2 Once the Faculty (Institute/School) has put the details of the new module or modification onto OPAMA, SITS will be automatically updated with the relevant information. Faculty approval is still required via discussions held electronically.
10.
Publication of programme specifications
10.1 As discussed in paragraph 3.5 of Section A Introduction, the regulatory status of programme specifications and therefore their importance as providers of accurate information to staff and students requires their publication on only one occasion a year and via one central source; QAS is authorised by the Academic Board as this central source. Before publication each year Faculties (Institutes/School) will be required to confirm the accuracy of their programme specifications for the following year.
14
11.
Diagram of the approval process
PDAC approve joint and dual awards
with another institution (where
required) Advance discussions of new programme
approvals held at planning round meetings/Programme Development
Sub-group
Design
programme with reference to:
QAA Framework for higher education qualifications QAA subject benchmark (if applicable)
College requirements/policies
A3 Regulations for taught programmes
Requirements of professional, statutory or regulatory bodies (if applicable)
Specialist external input
Legal and good practice requirements of equality and diversity
Identify
for programmes and modules Level in the credit framework
Aims and objectives
Content, structure, learning outcomes
Associated modules and status thereof (programmes only)
Teaching patterns and modes of delivery Assessment methods
Consult
Marketing Department for advice on producing a marketing plan to inform the business plan
QAS for advice on a
Memorandum of Agreement with external bodies (if applicable)
QAS if separate programme regulations are required Admissions Office for
advice on entry profile Finance for advise on
business case Test Technological and pedagogical aspects of distance/e-learning programmes Complete as appropriate: Programme approval form,
business plan
Memorandum of Agreement (if applicable)
Module approval form Modification form and new or
amended programme
specification and regulations if applicable
Submit
all paperwork to FEC Programme Approval Panel for
approval: well in advance for new
programmes/modules/major modifications
in good time for minor modifications
Following approval by FEC and signing of approval forms, send papers, to include Memorandum of Agreement (if applicable),
to QAS
If appropriate, submit programme
regulations to QAS for approval by the Academic Board
QAS check paperwork, forward to PDAC for final approval; summary reports are submitted to Academic
Board
Details of new programmes added to SITS by online system allowing applications and registration of students. Programme modifications added
to SITS via PAS
Seek Ethical approval if needed for modules Seek Initial approval from Executive Dean of Faculty (Institute/School) and Territorial
Vice-Principal Submit Programme Proposal form to PDAC for approval
Section C
Procedures for the approval
and monitoring of
Procedures for the approval and monitoring of collaborative provision
1.
Introduction
1.1 The procedures for the approval and monitoring of collaborative provision are designed to support the College’s Partnership policy and are covered by a six stage process set out in section 9 below and apply to all activity wherethe achievement of learning outcomes for a module or programme of study is dependent on the
arrangement made with the other delivery or support organisation. 1.2 The purpose of the Partnership policy is to facilitate the development and
management of the College’s collaborative provision in a manner that advances the College’s academic reputation and manages quality assurance, financial and other risks, ensuring that the College can implement its strategies through a set of key principles detailed in paragraphs 1.1 to 8.4 below, while remaining compliant with the UK Quality Code for Higher Education. All such activity shall be carried out in
accordance with King’s approved policies.
1.3 The procedures draw on and are consistent with the various components of the QAA’s UK Quality Code for Higher Education, and in particular,chapter B10: Managing higher education provision with others, available at:
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/quality-code/Pages/Quality-Code-Part-B.aspx.
2.
Definitions
2.1 For the purpose of these procedures ‘collaborative provision’ will be taken to mean any activity ‘leading to or contributing to the award of academic credit or a
qualification that are delivered, assessed or supported through an arrangement with one or more organisations other than the degree awarding body,
2.2 Definitions and key characteristics of the different types of activity engaged in by the College, including ‘other’ types of activity that do not fall under the remit of this policy as they are not necessary to achieve the learning aims and outcomes of a module or programme offered by the College, are given in Definitions of collaborative activity on page 169.
2.3 The term ‘programme/programme of study’ is taken to apply equally to
undergraduate, taught postgraduate and research postgraduate degrees.
3.
Strategic considerations
3.1 King’s College London is dedicated to the advancement of knowledge, learning and understanding in the service of society.
3.2 The College’s Strategic Plan 2006-2016 commits King’s to enhancing its global position and standing (see http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/strategy/index.aspx). As part of this aim, different types of collaborative provision with other HEIs and other institutions can serve the College in a variety of ways. A key strategic aim is to continue to expand our range of international provision as well as to embed an international perspective in the very fabric of the College, in the same manner as research and teaching excellence are fully ingrained. Many partnerships that are appropriate at a departmental or divisional level are not best suited to other departments or divisions but these relationships should not be discouraged if they enhance research, knowledge transfer, learning and student experience capacities. 3.3 The College’s International Strategy to 2020 is based on five strategic priorities (1)
Attract the best international minds to King’s; (2) Provide an internationalised curriculum and student experience; (3) Invest in strategic partnerships with
world-Procedures for the approval and monitoring of collaborative provision
17
class institutions; (4) Raise King’s profile as a thought-leader in areas of global significance; and (5) Create an ethical and exciting environment for King’s international activities. It aims to give students an international experience and to support mobility among staff and students (see
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/international-strategy/index.aspx).
3.4 Whether at College, Faculty (Institutes/School), Department or Division level, all collaborative provision is subject to the same quality assurance processes. The academic standards of awards developed and delivered through partnership arrangements, as well as students’ educational experiences, will be equivalent to those delivered solely by the College and will also be compatible with any relevant UK benchmarking information.
4.
Governance
.4.1 The governance arrangements for partnerships operate under delegated authority from Academic Board.
4.2 Final approval of any collaborative provision that leads to or contributes towards a King’s award is delegated to the Programme Development and Approval Committee (PDAC) at College level with recommendations made by the International Committee for any collaborative provision involving an international partner.
4.3 The oversight of any learning opportunities embedded in a partnership arrangement resides with the Faculty (Institutes/School) through the relevant Education Committee or Postgraduate Research Students Committee with the day to day management of arrangements being undertaken at the local departmental level.
4.2 PDAC brings together representatives from faculties) and key professional services to review and approve those proposals put forward, as well as reviewing
collaborative activity at the point where arrangements are due for renewal. An annual overview of the College’s register of activity will be undertaken, with periodic updates on new, renewed and terminated collaborative provision being made to the Committee.
4.3 Following initial approval from PDAC, Faculties (Institutes/School)) are responsible for undertaking detailed scrutiny of the collaborative proposal and making
recommendations on their final approval to PDAC (as detailed in sections 9.5 to 9.7 below).
4.3 Responsibility for management of collaborative provision will rest with the relevant Executive Dean of Faculty (Institutes/School) for Faculty (Institutes/School) initiated partnerships and with a nominated Vice-Principal for College-initiated partnerships. Faculties (Institutes/School) are responsible for overseeing the management of collaborative arrangements, including monitoring and review processes, up until the renewal of any agreement. Proposals to renew or terminate agreements must be approved by PDAC (as detailed in sections 9.11 to 9.12 below).
5.
Legal framework
5.1 All collaborative provision, whereby outside bodies deliver parts of a King’s programme, should be underpinned by a non-binding statement of intent
(Memorandum of Understanding) and a legally-binding agreement (Memorandum of Agreement and accompanying Schedule of Activity), both of which are time-limited, negotiated and approved between the College and the Partner(s) setting out the respective roles, responsibilities and obligations of the principal parties concerned and detailing the arrangements for the delivery of the activity.
5.2 The College has approved templates for the MoU, MoA and Schedules of Activity available at
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/Collaborative-Provision/collabprov.aspx. Reference should be made to the College’s Definitions of collaborative activity on page 169 for the type of activity engaged in as bespoke templates for Schedules of Activity are available to reflect the different types of activity. Thus ensuring that the quality assurance procedures and processes are proportionate to the activity being undertaken with the inclusion and level of detail required determined by the nature of the activity and its associated risks.
6.
Assessment of Risk
6.2 All collaborative provision activity must undergo an assessment of risk prior to commencement, with a formal statement of the risk signed-off by the appropriate level of authority. Risk is categorised overall as high, medium or low in respect of both the partner and the type of collaborative activity collectively. Risks to consider include:
Academic risks e.g. dilution of the academic standards of awards and the quality of the student experience;
Legal risks e.g. ability of the partner to legally contract with the College; Financial risks e.g. financial stability of the partner;
Resource risks e.g. wasted effort and overstretching of School/department efforts; diversion of staff time away from core activities; preliminary travel and other costs which cannot be recouped immediately;
Other risks e.g. geographical location; cultural considerations
6.3 In addition, an assessment will be made of any ethical and reputational risks that could impact on the College i.e. dissipation of the College’s mission, adverse publicity and damage to the College’s reputation. Consideration will be given to the ethical policies and procedures embedded within College Governance with the degree of scrutiny and consideration given being proportionate to the ethical issues raised and the level of risk foreseen;
7.
Areas for agreement with prospective partner institutions
7.1 In addition to the principles underpinning all collaborative provision arrangements and the assessment of risk noted above, the following areas should be agreed during the establishment and before the commencement of the activity for the operation of collaborative activity and set out in the Memorandum of Agreement and
accompanying Schedule of Activity. Administrative contacts;
Duration of the Agreement and relevant timescales for programme of activity; Marketing and Publicity;
Recruitment and admissions; Enrolment and registration; Student records;
Student support;
Teaching arrangements; Assessment arrangements; External Examiner arrangements;
Conferment of Award (where appropriate); Certificates and Graduation;
Student Conduct and Appeals arrangements; Quality Assurance and Management processes; Monitoring arrangements;
Procedures for the approval and monitoring of collaborative provision
19
8.
Process for the approval, monitoring and review of collaborative
provision
8.1 The processes for approval, monitoring and review of collaborative provision are set out in section 9 below.
8.2 The proposer should consult the relevant strategy, policy and regulatory documents, the register of collaborative activity for guidance before submitting a proposal for collaborative provision. The QAS Office and appropriate professional services departments should be consulted directly for advice and support when developing proposals for the following activities:
All activity – the Quality and Academic Support Office
Articulation/Progression - the Admissions Section of Students and Education Support and the Widening Participation team.
Cultural partners– King’s Cultural Institute International partners– the King’s Worldwide MOOCs – the Centre Unit of Distance Learning Research Degree proposals – the Graduate School
8.3 There is a modified approval process for Doctoral Training Centres/ Partnerships (DTC/DTP) and Placements (including internships). Please refer to the relevant separate guidance documents for the approval process to follow. For international exchange agreements, partner activity is approved by the International Committee. Please consult with King’s Worldwide and Study Abroad as partners over the approval process to follow.
8.4 Consideration of all ‘other’ activity not covered by these procedures rests with the relevant Faculty (Institutes/School), with approval for activity with international partners resting with the College’s International Committee. Sign off for agreements rests with the relevant Senior Officer (Principal’s Executive Team).
9.
Process Maps
Stage One (Establishing relationship with a collaborative partner prior to agreeing activity)
Yes
Submit final signed MoU to QAS office (UK partners) or King’s Worldwide
(International partners)
Is the proposal with an existing partner? Yes
No Is there a current
Memorandum of Understanding in place?
Yes
Is the proposal with an International partner? Yes
No
Proceed to Stage Two Has a questionnaire on
ethical and reputational risk due diligence around the partner been completed?
Contact: the King’s Worldwide
for advice as you will need to complete a questionnaire on ethics due diligence for an international partner that will be subject to endorsement from the Vice-Principal (International) via the International Committee
Contact the Governance & Legal Services team for advice as you will need to complete a questionnaire on ethics due diligence for a UK Partner that will need to be submitted to the Vice Principal (Education), by email, as part of an informal discussion around the proposal
Complete a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) template form to be
signed by Vice Principal (Education) for UK Partners or by Vice Principal (international) for International Partners
Procedures for the approval and monitoring of collaborative provision
21
Stage Two (Initial Agreement to explore proposed activity with a collaborative partner)
Yes
Signed MoAs should be
lodged with the QAS Office for information reporting to PDAC
Does the proposed activity fall under the definition of collaborative provision wherethe
achievement of learning outcomes for a module or programme of study is dependent on the arrangement made with the other delivery or support organisation?
No
Complete: a legally binding agreement (if required) which should be approved by the appropriate College Authority
Complete Collaborative Provision Proposal form, Programme Proposal Form and Risk Assessment Tool and Partner Profile form
Submit final documents to QAS Office
Outcome PDAC will consider the proposal and either give (a) approval to proceed to Stage Three; (b) referral back to the proposer or (c) referral to another appropriate
committee or office
Recommendation and Approval by: the Executive Dean
of Faculty (Institute/School) and the relevant territorial Vice-Principal
Consideration by PDAC
Yes
For all other activity falling outside the definition of Collaborative Provision, please consult with the QAS Office to check on existing paperwork.
No
Is there activity with the partner already in existence elsewhere in the College?
Complete Programme
Proposal Form and submit existing or new Collaborative Provision Proposal form, Risk Assessment Tool and Partner Profile form
Stage Three (Detailed scrutiny of proposals for collaborative Taught degree provision)
Discuss with partner a mapping of the programme activity and identify the roles, responsibilities and obligations of each partner in the organisational arrangements for the programme
Submit final documentation together with commendation/recommendation from the Collaborative
Provision Advisory Group (CPAG) to QAS Office for consideration and final approval by PDAC
Submit documents plus any supporting
documentation required as an outcome of the due diligence and risk assessment process to the relevant Faculty
(Institute/School) Education Committee (or equivalent) for consideration and approval
Recommendation for approval by
appropriate authority depending on overall risk category
Complete Programme approval and/or
module approval form(s) and first draft of MoA and accompanying relevant SoA setting out the terms of reference and details for the shared activity between the partners
Submit draft MoA and accompanying SoA
to the Collaborative Provision Advisory Group for review. Variations to the College assessment procedures will require approval from the College’s Assessment and Standards Committee
Is there an existing Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) and Schedule(s) of Activity (SoA) with the Partner?
No Yes
Complete Programme approval and/or
module approval form(s). A relevant SoA should also be drafted setting out the terms of reference and details for the shared activity between the partners where the proposed activity is new or cannot be incorporated into an existing SoA
Submit new/existing documents and any
supporting documentation required as an outcome of the due diligence and risk assessment process to the relevant Faculty (Institute/School) Education Committee (or equivalent) for consideration and approval
Recommendation for approval by
appropriate authority depending on overall risk category
Submit draft SoA or request to amend existing SoA to the Collaborative Provision Advisory Group for review. Variations to the College assessment procedures will require approval from the College’s Assessment and Standards Committee
Procedures for the approval and monitoring of collaborative provision
23
Stage Three (Detailed scrutiny of proposals for collaborative Research degree provision) Discuss with partner a mapping of the programme activity and identify the roles, responsibilities and obligations of each partner in the organisational arrangements for the programme
Submit documentation together with commendation/recommendation from the CPAG to QAS Office for
consideration and final approval by PDAC
Submit documents plus any supporting
documentation required as an outcome of the due diligence and risk assessment process to the relevant Faculty
(Institute/School) Postgraduate Research Student Committee (or equivalent) for consideration and approval
Recommendation for approval Executive
Dean of Faculty (Institute/School) and Head of Graduate Studies (or equivalent) following discussion of proposal at PRSS
Complete Programme Approval: Research
Degrees form or a written proposal for collaborative activity in an existing programme and first draft of MoA and accompanying relevant SoA setting out the terms of reference and details for the shared activity between the partners
Submit draft MoA (if applicable) and accompanying SoA to the CPAG for review. Variations to the College examination procedures will require approval from the College’s Research Degrees Examination Board
Is there an existing Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) and Schedule(s) of Activity (SoA) with the Partner?
No Yes
Complete Programme Approval: Research
Degrees form or a written proposal for collaborative activity in an existing
programme. A relevant SoA should also be drafted setting out the terms of reference and details for the shared activity between the partners where the proposed activity is new or cannot be incorporated into an existing SoA
Submit new/existing documents and any
supporting documentation required as an outcome of the due diligence and risk assessment process to the relevant Faculty (Institute/School) Postgraduate Research Student Committee (or equivalent) for consideration and approval
Recommendation for approval Executive
Dean of Faculty (Institute/School) and Head of Graduate Studies (or equivalent) following discussion of proposal at PRSS
Submit draft SoA or request to amend existing SoA to the CPAG for review. Variations to the College examination procedures will require approval from the College’s Research Degrees Examination Board
Stage Four (Final approval of proposals for collaborative provision)
Collaborative Provision Register of Activity updated to include new activity in termly reports to PDAC
Final consideration and approval by PDAC
Following approval from PDAC
Sign approval forms, MoA and accompanying SoA (appropriate authority depending on partner and risk category)
Submit: final signed documentation to QAS
Procedures for the approval and monitoring of collaborative provision
25
Stage Five (Annual monitoring of collaborative provision)
Establish a Programme
Management Committee or Joint Academic Committee (JAC) for Joint Award PhD programmes to include the administration of the programme, relationship management and any other issues identified for the effective management and oversight of the
administration necessary to monitor the shared activity in liaison with the partner
Chair of CASC and other senior colleagues meet to review as part of the overall learning, teaching and assessment matters relating to undergraduate, taught postgraduate and postgraduate research programmes and outcomes will be reported to CASC.
Consideration by CPAG of
any issues that have arisen from the partnership
No Yes
Does the activity relate to jointly delivered/awarded programmes or validated provision?
Establish a mechanism for the effective management and oversight of the administration necessary to monitor the shared activity in liaison with the partner
Submit report onactivity as part of the annual monitoring procedures including the number of participating students, changes to the programme, any issues that have arisen from the partnership, identification of areas of good practice, resolution or further action required
Submit report on activity together with the minutes from the meeting as part of the annual monitoring procedures including the number of participating students, changes to the programme, any issues that have arisen from the partnership, identification of areas of good practice, resolution or further action required
Jointly delivered/awarded
programmes Validated provision
Establish an Annual Review Meeting for Validated provision to include the
administration of the programme, relationship management and any other issues identified for the effective management and oversight of the administration
necessary to monitor the shared activity in liaison with the partner
Action and changes arising from the meeting will be actioned by the relevant Faculty (Institute/School) under the College’s
procedures for
programme and module approval and/or
programme and module monitoring and review
Minutes of the Annual Review Meeting will be reported to CASC for information
