Quality Assurance Handbook

(1)

Quality Assurance

Handbook

Published by the Quality and Academic

Support Office

Students and Education Support Directorate

(2)

(3)

Contents

i

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) 8

6. Documentation for approval and modification 9

7. The approval process 10

8. Timescale for approval 12

9. Setting up modules on SITS 12

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. Partnerships policy 15 2. Strategic considerations 15 3. Scope 15 4. Principles 16 5. Definitions 17 6. Governance 18 7. Management 18

8. Diagram of the approval process 19

9. Initial agreement to explore partnership 20

10. Approval of provision 21

11. Management 21

12. Further information 22

Section D

Procedures for programme and module monitoring

and review

1. Introduction to monitoring and review 23

2. Aims, objectives and process for annual monitoring 23

3. Aims and objectives of review 23

4. The review process 24

5. Collaborative activity and placement learning 26

6. Combined review and validation/accreditation by professional, 26 statutory or regulatory bodies (PSRBs)

(4)

Contents

7. Documentation for review 27

8. Report of the review 28

9. Monitoring of recommendations arising from programme review 30

10. Diagram of the review process 31

Section E

Procedures for postgraduate research degrees

approval and monitoring

1. New research degree programmes 33

2. The approval process following consideration by Programme 33 Development and Approval Committee

3. PhD by blended learning 34

4. Monitoring of postgraduate research degrees 35

Section F

Core code of practice for postgraduate research degrees

1. Introduction 39

2. Purpose of the Core Code 39

3. Admission to a postgraduate research programme of study 40

4. Supervision 41

5. Research environment 42

6. Enrolment, registration and attendance 42

7. Induction, training and development 44

8. Working during a research degree 45

9. Monitoring and assessment of students’ progress 46

10. Submission of thesis 49

11. Changes to registration – interruptions, extensions and transfers 49 12. Sick leave arrangements for students on fully funded studentships 52 13. Arrangements for extensions to submission deadlines for Research 53

Council funded students

14. Feedback 54

15. Complaints and appeals 54

16. Suspension of regulations for research degree students 56

Appendix 1 – Roles and responsibilities 58

Section G

Assessment and External Examiners

1. Introduction to assessment 69

2. Setting of assessment 70

3. Marking. Plagiarism and feedback 70

4. External Examiners 72

5. Diagram of the procedure for the consideration of External 74 Examiners’ reports

Section H

Notes of guidance

Guidance on risk and ethics assessment in the design of modules 75

Guidance on global connectedness 81

Guidance for taught postgraduate dissertations 85

Guidance on the production of programme specifications and the 89 completion of programme and module approval and modification forms

(5)

Contents

iii

Guidance on clinical medicine, dentistry and cost centres 101 and 102 111 Guidance for Schools on the use of external specialists and external peers 113 for programme approval and review

Guidance on flexible and distributed learning 117

Guidance on the operation of collaborative teaching activity 119

Guidance on student placements 121

Definitions of collaborative activity 125

Guidance on joint awards 127

Guidance on the design of taught interdisciplinary, joint honours and 131 major/minor combination programmes

Guidance on off-campus study in research degrees 133

Guidance on key principles relating to the management, monitoring and 135 assessment of joint PhD programmes

Core terms of reference for a Joint Academic Committee for joint PhD 137 programmes

Guidance on equality of opportunity and access in programme and 139 module review

Guidance on professional, statutory and regulatory body reporting 153

Marking framework 155

Generic marking criteria: undergraduate 159

Generic marking criteria: taught postgraduate 163

Translation of credits/marks attained through study away from the College 165

Academic honesty and integrity 167

Guidelines for Examiners: plagiarism and related forms of cheating 171

Feedback guidelines for students 181

Key principles to effective assessment feedback for staff 183

(6)

(7)

Section A

(8)

(9)

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; 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/index.php?id=328

1.2 Proposals for non-credit bearing short courses should follow the approval procedures as laid down by the Head of 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

CAB College Assessment Board

CEC College Education Committee

QAA Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education PSRB Professional, statutory or regulatory body SDAS Student Data and Analytical Services team

QAS Quality and Academic Support section of the Students and Education Support Directorate1

PDAC Programme Development and Approval Committee

PRSS Postgraduate Research Student’s Sub-committee SEC 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/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/Pages/default.aspx). The QualityCode supersedes the various components that previously made up the academic infrastructure. 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 six chapters and those with particular reference to procedures in this Handbook are:

1

(10)

Introduction

2 A3: The programme level

A4: Approval and review A5: Externality

A6: Assessment of achievement of learning outcomes

Part B has 11 chapters and those with particular reference to procedures in this Handbook are:

B1: Programme design and approval B3: Learning and teaching

B4: Enabling student development and achievement

B6: Assessment of students and accreditation 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 Schools 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 Schools 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 Education Committee (CEC) which oversees these procedures and their implementation by Schools; the relevant sub-committee concerned with assessment is the College Assessment Board (CAB). For terms of reference of Academic Board and its substructure see Academic governance and management regulations, section C1

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/governance/regulations/gen.aspx.

3.4 In line with the principles of devolution School Education Committees (SECs), or equivalent bodies, as specified in the School core governance functions are therefore responsible for approving and modifying programmes and modules in accordance with the procedures set out in this Handbook. School core governance functions are available at http://www.kcl.ac.uk/college/policyzone/index.php?id=449. SECs are also responsible for collecting annual monitoring reports from

programmes/departments within their School and for reporting on these as advised by CEC. SECs are also responsible for ensuring that reviews of all programmes within the School are undertaken and for reporting such reviews to the CEC. The CEC, via its Scrutiny Panel, considers 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/.

2_{Throughout this document the term “School” also includes the grouping of free-standing global} institutes and the English Language Centre which operate as a “virtual” School for the purposes of academic governance and quality assurance.

(11)

Introduction

3

3.5 With 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 apply for all undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes.3 Programme specific regulatory information is contained within programme specifications which therefore have regulatory status; the information required for regulatory purposes is highlighted in the programme specification template by a double box. 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/am.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 exempt programmes can be found in the Academic Regulations, A3 Regulations for taught programmes.

(12)

Introduction

(13)

Section B

Procedures for programme

and module approval and

modification

(14)

(15)

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/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/Qualifications/Pages/default.as px) 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 56 benchmark statements for honours degree programmes plus 13 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/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/subject-guidance/Pages/Master%27s-degree-benchmark-statements.aspx . 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 College Learning Teaching and Assessment Strategy;

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/college/policyzone/index.php?id=288 (c) the College’s equality and diversity policies available at

(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 learning outcomes and thereby a more rounded education than afforded by a single honours degree;

(16)

6

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 During 2007/08 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. Further information on assessment is provided in the

assessment policies and practices web pages at

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/assessment/index.aspx;

(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 CAB 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 for the production of programme specifications on page 83).

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

(http://www.seec.org.uk/sites/seec.org.uk/files/SEEC%20Level%20Descriptor s%202010_0.pdf);

(17)

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 69) 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 Guidance for taught postgraduate dissertations on page 79).

1.7 This process culminates in the production of a programme specification. The QAA states 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 83 and the QAA Guidelines can be found at

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/Pages/Programme-specifications.aspx .

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 Schools on the use of external specialists and external peers for programme approval and review on page 107.

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, Schools’ 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 The Marketing Department is responsible for presenting and advising on marketing strategies for each School so it is important that new programmes are incorporated into the School’s overall marketing strategy. Guidance should be sought from 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 PDAC can be found at:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/governance/committees/PDAC.aspx.

1

(18)

8

2.3 The template for the business plan can be found at:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/prog/am.aspx. Programme proposers are expected to send both forms to the Head of School and Director of Marketing so that marketing support can be agreed with the Head of School.

2.4 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 83 and Guidance on flexible and distributed learning on page 111.

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. Additional quality assurance checks are required for the approval of programmes of these types. Consideration should be given to the educational and pedagogical rationale for the introduction of

programmes of this nature. For programmes delivered via electronic technologies, a series of pilots should be undertaken prior to approval of the programme to ensure that technical (both hardware and software) and pedagogical processes have been tested and proved satisfactory. Contingency plans should be drawn up in the event of the failure of the designed modes of delivery. Additional external specialist advice on the pedagogical aspects of the delivery of flexible and distributed learning

programmes should be sought if this cannot also be provided by the subject external specialist. HEFCE have produced useful guidance on intellectual property rights in e-learning programmes (HEFCE July 2006/20,

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2006/06_20/).

4. Collaborative activity, placement learning 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/index.php?id=328 ). 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 113, Guidance on student placements on page 115 and Definitions of collaborative activity on page 119.

4.2 Approval from the PDAC is required before a programme that involves the award of a joint degree can be approved by the School. As the first stage in the process,

completion of the Collaborative Proposal Programme Form must be submitted to the 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

(19)

9

outline approval can be given for joint degrees (see Guidance on joint awards on page 121).

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 School’s 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.

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. Schools 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 specification and related programme approval form (see

Guidance on the production of programme specifications and the completion of programme and module approval and modification forms on page 83); (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 included in the programme approval forms;

(d a business plan (see

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/prog/am.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.

For joint 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 checking before the programme is approved. Subsequent to the approval the signed memorandum should be submitted, with the associated programme approval information to QAS. Web links for templates for Memoranda of Agreement can be found in Section I.

2

The General Council of the Bar and the Law Society have a specific requirement for a representative of the professional bodies to attend the programme approval event for qualifying law degrees.

(20)

10

6.3 Documentation for new module proposals should consist of the following: (a) an online module approval form3, (see Guidance on the production of

programme specifications and the completion of programme and module approval and modification forms on page 83).

6.4 Documentation for modified programmes and modules should consist of the following:

(a) a modification form, (see Guidance on the production of programme specifications and the completion of programme and module approval and modification forms on page 83). This form should also be used for the deletion of programmes and modules4 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 module5 approval form should be completed for approval by the School Education Committee, or equivalent. For those proposed changes that are a major re-focusing of the curriculum content 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 annual planning process should identify any new programmes that a

School may wish to introduce, and notification of such intended programme approval activity should be submitted by Schools through the annual reporting mechanism. Notifying the CEC and PDAC of intended programme approval in this way should ensure that any potential areas for cross-School collaboration are identified at an early stage. If during a session a School wishes to approve a programme of study that has not formed part of this notification, then a case for the introduction of such a programme will need to be made to the PDAC.

7.3 Proposals for new programmes must be submitted for approval to PDAC via the Programme Proposal Form that is available at:

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 SEC, to include the information specified in section 6 above. SECs 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 School, it is necessary for the proposal to be approved by the SEC of both/all Schools (please also refer to the Guidance on the design of interdisciplinary, joint honours and major/minor programmes on page 125). Proposals for modifications to

3

The School of Arts and Humanities will continue to use the paper-based form until Spring 2014. 4

For modules Schools should use the online system 5

(21)

11

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 SEC 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 2.1 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 69 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 Head of School should be sought in cases where SECs 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 SECs should establish “programme approval panels” which should include as a minimum:

(a) a Chair, normally the chair of the SEC. In single department Schools 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 School;

(b) a representative from another School (the Chair or a member of the SEC);6 (c) the external peer(s) (see Guidance for Schools on the use of external

specialists and external peers for programme approval and review on page 107 for further guidance);

(d) a student representative. Normally this will be the student representative on the SEC but where their attendance is not possible at a specific event then a representative from KCLSU should be present;

(e) the 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.

7.7 The use of CEC/SEC 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 School requires one or two externals to act in this capacity. The

6

(22)

12

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 SEC meetings each year.

7.8 In approving programmes and modules Schools 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. SECs 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 SEC and documented in SEC minutes. Programmes of study are normally approved for a period of six years unless specified otherwise by the SEC.

Re-approval is gained through the process of review which is detailed in Section D of this Handbook.

7.9 Following approval by the SEC, the programme and module documentation (see paragraphs 6.2 – 6.4 above) should be forwarded to QAS; an electronic version of the programme specification is also required. Unless the documentation is submitted in full the programme will not be regarded by the College as being approved. If separate programme regulations7 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, electronically, submitted programme documentation to PDAC members for final approval. Programme details are added to SITS only after such information has been approved by PDAC. A summary of all approvals is then submitted to each meeting of the PDAC, as well as to Academic Board.

7.11 Minutes of all meetings of SECs 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, these refer to when the PDAC should have given approval: New postgraduate programme 22 months prior to commencement (for the

printed prospectus)

18 months prior to commencement (for the online prospectus)

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 and to ensure that there is sufficient time to set up new programmes and modules on SITS. Schools can introduce a new programme or module with a shorter lead-time to take account, for example, of the

7_{Normally these would be integrated into the programme specification – please consult QAS where} there is a potential case for separate regulations.

(23)

13

appointment of a new member of staff; however, in such cases, the 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. It is essential that students are aware of 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.

8.3 Programmes cannot be advertised as being available in UCAS and College

documents or on-line until they have been approved, however because of the long “lead-in” times for the publication of this information, programmes can be advertised as being available “subject to formal approval”.

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 School has put the details of the new module or modification onto OPAMA, SITS will be automatically updated with the relevant information. QAS will be

informed of the online information and will make a final check on the information recorded.

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 Schools will be required to confirm the accuracy of their programme specifications for the following year.

(24)

14

11. Diagram of the approval process

PDAC approve joint awards with another institution (where

required) Advance notice of new programme

approvals submitted to CEC and PDAC through annual reporting

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

Test  Technological and pedagogical aspects of distance/e-learning programmes Complete as appropriate:

 Programme specification and associated programme

approval forms, 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 SEC Programme Approval Panel for

approval:

 well in advance for new programmes/modules/major modifications

 in good time for minor modifications

Following approval by SEC 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 and modified programmes and modules added to SITS by SDA allowing applications and registration of students

Seek Ethical approval if needed for modules Seek Initial approval from Head of School

Submit Programme Proposal form to PDAC for approval;

Programmes can be advertised as “subject to approval” once initial approval

(25)

Section C

Procedures for the approval

and monitoring of

(26)

(27)

Procedures for the approval and monitoring of collaborative provision

15

1. Partnership policy

1.1 The purpose of the Partnerships policy detailed in paragraphs 1.1 to 7.1 below is to support the development and management of partnerships in a manner that

advances the College’s academic reputation and manages quality assurance, financial and other risks.

2. Strategic considerations

2.1 The College’s Strategic Plan 2006-2016 commits King’s to enhance its global position and standing. As part of this aim, different types of partnership with other HEIs and other institutions can serve the College in a variety of ways. 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.

2.2 Whether at College, School, Department or Division level, all partnerships should be evaluated using the same quality criteria, as well as following the same quality assurance processes. The College’s Partnerships policy distinguishes between partnerships not in terms of expectations about the merits or assurance conditions for a successful linkage, but where the primary distinction is drawn is over the breadth of the partnership arrangement and the expected source for funding partnership

activities. What distinguishes the small number of partnerships that are recognised as College-wide, is the multi-School breadth of the College’s linkages with such institutions, with College-level partnerships also signifying the College’s close association with universities of comparable international standing in research and teaching (see http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/worldwide/index.aspx).

2.3 This policy draws on and is consistent with the QAA Quality Code, chapters B3: Learning and teaching and B10: Managing higher education provision with others available at

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/quality-code/Pages/Quality-Code-Part-B.aspx

3. Scope

3.1 This policy covers all partnerships that lead to an award of the College, or an award made jointly with another institution, or to the award of credit, or involve the exchange of staff or students (however see 3.2 below in respect of the latter). The policy also covers partnerships that lead to admission to one of the College’s programmes, whether or not this is with advanced standing. The term “programme/programme of study” is taken to apply equally to undergraduate, taught postgraduate and research postgraduate degrees.

3.2 The policy does not cover:

(a) stand alone research collaborations which should be arranged in collaboration with the Directorate of Research Management;

(b) clinical and other professional placements that are a requirement of a professional, statutory or regulatory body;

(28)

4. Principles

4.1 The following key principles will underpin all partnership activity.

4.2 Academic reputation. All partnerships entered into by the College will enhance the reputation of the College as well as the School or Schools sponsoring the

partnership. Where there is a conflict between a School and the College in terms of the perceived reputational advantage of a prospective partnership, the College’s interests will take precedence.

4.3 Academic standards and awards. 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.

4.4 Assessment of risk. All partnership arrangements will 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 as high, medium or low in respect of both the partner and the type of collaborative activity. Risks to consider include:

 dissipation of the College’s mission;

 dilution of the academic standards of awards and the quality of the student experience;

 adverse publicity and damage to reputation;

 financial risk;

 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. 4.5 Consistency with strategy. All partnerships must complement the College’s

Strategic Plan and International Strategy.

4.6 Financial sustainability. All partnership activity entered into by the College will be financially sustainable, having been fully costed in accordance with the relevant procedures to give an indication of the direct/indirect costs to the School and department.

4.7 Legal framework. All partnerships will be regulated by College approved legally binding agreements setting out the responsibilities and obligations of the College and the partner organisation(s).

4.8 Programme management. For a partnership leading to an award or the award of credit, the College’s management of the programme or module shall operate in the same way as internal provision with formal approval and review through the College’s programme and module approval and review processes (see Sections B, D, E and F). Where the activity leads to an award of the College this will be supplemented by central support for the agreement of a partner, the approval of the academic

provision and management of records including the register of collaborative provision. Management arrangements will be specified in the Memorandum of Agreement.

 Admissions: admissions processes will take account of both partners’ criteria,

(29)

17

 Assessment: assessment processes and procedures of partner organisations will be consistent with the College’s Academic regulations. Arrangements for the transfer of marks between partners and arrangements for awarding certificates and transcripts for provision leading to awards delivered through a partnership arrangement will be specified in the Memorandum of Agreement with the partner organisation.

 Learning opportunities: the quality of the learning opportunities offered through a partnership arrangement must be of a sufficiently high quality and enable a student to achieve the academic standards required for the award.

4.9 Staff. Where appropriate, staff development will be provided by both/all partners to ensure that staff have the necessary underpinning knowledge to support the

partnership. Where staff of the College are required to visit an overseas institution or work overseas, attention will be given to their terms and conditions of employment. 4.10 Students. Where a partnership activity involves students, the status of the student

and their formal relationship with the College will be clearly defined. Students will receive information about their status and its implications in respect of their rights (eg access to learning support resources and to appeals and complaints procedures). Students enrolled on a programme delivered in collaboration with a partner should receive comparable support to those students studying on College-delivered programmes. This relates to both academic and pastoral support.

5. Definitions

5.1 The following definitions are used to describe the collaborative activity covered by this policy (more information on the characteristics of the different types of activity are given in Definitions of collaborative activity on page 125).

5.2 Access/feeder programme: a programme offered by another institution/body from which successful students are recognised as having met the admissions criteria for entry to a specified programme of study. Access/feeder programmes do not lead to an award or award of credit of the College.

5.3 Articulation/progression agreement: a partnership arrangement whereby provision delivered by a partner is formally recognised for the purposes of advanced standing towards one of the College’s award. The advanced standing may be awarded through an accreditation of prior learning or experiential learning (AP(E)L) process. 5.4 Dual award: a partnership arrangement under which the College and one or more

awarding institutions provide programmes leading to separate awards being granted by both/all partners. This also covers co-tutelle arrangements for postgraduate research students.

5.5 Franchised provision: a partnership arrangement under which a partner is

authorised/licensed to provide the whole or part of a programme of study designed by the College and leading to an award or award of credit of the College.

5.6 Joint award: a partnership arrangement under which the College and partner(s) provide a programme or research degree leading to a single award made jointly by the College and at least one other partner institution. All partners must have the legal capacity to award joint degrees.

5.7 Partnership programme: provision that is designed and delivered by the College and at least one partner but with only one awarding institution.

(30)

5.8 Recognition of study or award of credit through off-campus study or

placement: where education provision designed and delivered by a partner of the College, which has demonstrated adherence to the appropriate quality requirements and academic standards, is appropriate for recognition of study leading to an award of the College or to the award of specific College credit.

5.9 Staff and student exchange. a mutual arrangement with another institution whereby the numbers of incoming and outgoing members of staff or students should balance. In respect of student exchange, failure to balance outgoing student numbers with incoming student numbers can result in a net loss in respect of student fee income. 5.10 Validated provision: is the process whereby the College judges that a programme

of study developed and delivered by another institution or organisation is of an appropriate quality and standard to lead to an award of the College. The College will determine the extent to which it exercises direct control over the quality assurance aspects of the programme’s management.

6. Governance

6.1 The governance arrangements for partnerships operate at School level under delegated authority from the Academic Board, with oversight of any teaching/study provision embedded in the partnership arrangement residing with the School Education Committee or School Postgraduate Research Students Committee (or equivalent bodies). College level governance is achieved through the process of agreeing a potential partner with partnership activity conforming to the College’s financial, regulatory and quality framework and monitoring activity overseen by the Programme Development and Approval Committee. A termly report on new and terminating partnerships will be made to the Programme Development and Approval Committee and Academic Board.

7. Management

7.1 Management responsibility for School initiated partnerships will rest with the relevant Head of School. Management responsibility for College-initiated partnerships will rest with a nominated Vice-Principal. In the event that it becomes necessary to terminate a partnership this should not be undertaken by a School without first consulting with the relevant territorial Vice-Principal.

(31)

19

8. Diagram of the approval process

8.1 The approval of partnership arrangements and provision to be delivered through the arrangement all follow a basic three stage process illustrated in the following process map. Further information on each of the stages is given on the following pages.

Stage 2 – Agreement to explore partnership For new activity with an existing partner go to stage 3 Complete: Partner Profile checklist (for medium and high risk activity) and a Memorandum of Understanding

Approval by: the Principal, territorial Vice-Principal or Head of School, depending on the level of risk

Joint awards, validated provision, franchised provision: submit Partner profile and checklist to the Programme Development and Approval Committee for further clarification on provision and approval

Send: Partner profile and checklist and signed MoU to QAS office

Stage 3 - Approval of provision

Complete: the template for a Memorandum of Agreement in consultation with the relevant professional services areas and programme/module documentation

Undergraduate/taught postgraduate approval: approval by School Education Committee (or equivalent), to include draft MoA and relevant process for validation/franchise approval

Postgraduate research approval: by Head of School and Head of Graduate Studies to include draft MoA (discussion to have been held at PRSS)

Send: draft MoA and programme approval documents to QAS office

Approval by: Programme Development and Approval Committee for joint awards, validated provision and franchised provision

Sign: final MoA signed by same signature as for Partner profile and checklist

Termly reports to PDAC on new

partnerships

Stage 4 - Management

Establish: a Joint Academic Committee for joint PhD programmes

Annual monitoring: annual monitoring reports for all joint degrees, validated and franchised provision to College Education Committee

Review of activity: before re-signing of the MoU and MoA

Stage 1 – Initial agreement to explore partnership

Complete: Collaborative Provision Proposal form and Programme Proposal form

Approval by: the Head of Department

Send: Collaborative Provision Proposal form and Programme Proposal form to QAS office for consideration by the Programme Development and Approval Committee

(32)

9. Initial agreement to explore partnership

9.1 Initiation may come from the College or from the proposed partner. A set of key principles underpin all collaborative activity and all such activity should be carried out in accordance with the Partnerships policy in paragraphs 1.1 to 7.1 above. A

Memorandum of Understanding is a non-binding general statement of intent for the proposed partnership and the broad scope of the proposed collaborative activity. Any intended access/feeder/articulation arrangements should first be discussed with the Admissions Section of Students and Education Support and the Widening Participation team.

9.2 Where collaboration in a new area with an existing partner is proposed then proceed to section 10 below.

9.3 Consult: as appropriate the relevant professional services departments and the Head of School, relevant strategy, policy and regulatory documents, the register of collaborative activity.

Complete: Collaborative Provision Proposal form and submit to QAS for

consideration by PDAC. Once approved by PDAC then complete a Partner profile and checklist (for those activities classed as medium and high risk activity) followed by a Memorandum of Understanding, noting that not all partnerships will necessarily include a Memorandum of Understanding.

Approval by: the Principal, territorial Vice-Principal or Head of School, depending on the level of risk.

Joint awards, validated provision, franchised provision: submit Partner profile and checklist to the Programme Development and Approval Committee for further clarification and approval of activity.

Send: Partner profile and checklist and the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the College and the potential partner to Quality and Academic Support (QAS). 9.4 Relevant documents

 College Strategic Plan 2006/2016 plus 2011 strategic review update

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/strategy/index.aspx  International Strategy http://www.kcl.ac.uk/college/policyzone/assets/files/external_relations/internatsu m09.pdf  Academic regulations http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/governance/regulations/index.aspx

 Partnerships Policy (see paragraphs 1.1 to 1.7 above)

 Core code of practice for postgraduate research degrees (see Section F and

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/college/policyzone/index.php?id=245)

 QAA Quality Code, chapters B3: Learning and teaching and B10: Managing higher education provision with others

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/quality-code/Pages/Quality-Code-Part-B.aspx

 Definitions of collaborative activity (see page 125)

 Register of collaborative activity

 Collaborative Provision Proposal form

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/governance/committees/PDAC.aspx

 Partner profile and checklist (medium and high risk activity) (http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/prog/cp.aspx )

 Template for a Memorandum of Understanding

(http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/prog/cp.aspx)

 Guidance on joint awards (see page 127)

 Guidance on the operation of collaborative teaching activity (see page 119)

(33)

21

10. Approval of provision

10.1 Consult: the relevant professional services areas for advice on completion of the Memorandum of Agreement.

Complete: the appropriate programme/module approval paperwork and the relevant template for a Memorandum of Agreement; this is a written and legally binding agreement setting out the responsibilities and obligations of all signatories. A draft of the Memorandum of Agreement should be considered alongside the

programme/module approval documentation by the School Education Committee, or equivalent or relevant postgraduate research programme approval process.

Undergraduate/taught postgraduate programme/module approval: approval by School Education Committees. Completion of relevant process for

validation/franchise approval.

Postgraduate research degrees approval: approval by the Head of School and Head of Graduate Studies following relevant School process (following discussions with Postgraduate Research Students Sub-Committee).

Send: the draft Memorandum of Agreement and programme approval documents to the QAS Office for submission to Programme Development and Approval Committee for joint awards, validated provision and franchised provision.

Approval by: Programme Development and Approval Commitee and final Memorandum of Agreement signed by same signature as on Partner profile and checklist.

10.2 Relevant documents

 Partnerships policy (see paragraphs 1.1 to 7.1 above)

 Procedures for validation and accreditation

 Procedures for programme and module approval and modification and related forms http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/prog/am.aspx

 Approval form for a new research degree

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/prog/am.aspx

 Templates for Memorandum of Agreement

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/prog/cp.aspx

 Guidance on key principles relating to the management, monitoring and assessment of joint PhD programmes (see page 135)

 QAA Quality Code: B10: Managing higher education provision with others: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/quality-code-B10.aspx

11. Management

11.1 Ongoing management of the partnership and review of activity before re-signing of the Memorandum of Understanding and related Agreements. QAS produce a termly report to the Academic Board and the Programme Development and Approval Committee on new partnerships.

11.2 The management of joint PhD programmes is overseen by a Joint Academic

Committee (JAC). A JAC will need to be established for each partner; core terms of reference are given on page 131.

11.3 Complete: Joint awards, validated provision and franchised provision produce an annual report which is submitted to the College Education Committee. Prior to an MoU and related Agreements expiring, a report on activity undertaken as part of the partnership is produced to inform the decision to re-sign.

Approval by: the College Education Committee for the annual reports. The relevant signatory approves the re-signing of the MoU and related Agreements following consideration of the activity report by the College Education Committee.

(34)

11.4 Relevant documents

 Partnerships policy (see paragraphs 1.1 to 7.1 above)

 Core terms of reference for a Joint Academic Committee for joint PhD programmes (see page 137)

 Guidance on the operation of collaborative teaching activity (see page119)

 Guidance on off-campus study in research degrees (see page 133)

 Guidance on key principles relating to the management, monitoring and assessment of joint PhD programmes (see page 135)

 Template for review of activity prior to re-signing a Memorandum of Understanding and related Agreements (see page

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/prog/cp.aspx)

12. Further information

12.1 Useful information and guidance on collaborative activity is published by the QAA, see for example:

 Review of overseas provision http://www.qaa.ac.uk/InstitutionReports/types-of-review/overseas/Pages/default.aspx

 Published outcomes papers (collaborative provision)

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/ImprovingHigherEducation/Pages/PublishedOutcomespape rs(collaborativeprovision).aspx

12.2 The UK Higher Education International Unit (IU) (http://www.international.ac.uk/ ) publishes information on developments in Europe and world-wide, see for example:

 Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee Recommendation on the recognition of joint degrees 2005 http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/EN/Other/Lisbon_Rec-doc/040609_Recommendation_joint_degrees.pdf

 Information on Erasmus Mundus degrees

http://www.international.ac.uk/policy/eu-policy-and-initiatives/eu-policy-education/mobility/erasmus-mundus.aspx

 International partnerships: a legal guide for UK universities, 2012

(35)

Section D

Procedures for programme

and module monitoring and

review

(36)