Quality & Standards Unit
REVIEW OF EXISTING UNIVERSITY PROGRAMMES
GUIDANCE FOR PROGRAMME TEAMS
REVIEW TEAM
C O N T E N T S
Page
[hyperlinked
-please click
on page no]
1.
INTRODUCTION
1
2.
THE FORMAT OF THE SCHOOL PROGRAMME REVIEW EVENT
1
3.
WHAT CONCLUSIONS WILL THE PANEL REACH?
2
4.
5.
3.1
Conclusion – Programme Review Process
2
3.2
Conclusion – Quality and Standards
3
3.3
Conclusions – Innovation and Good Practice
3
3.4
Conclusions – Conditions and Recommendations
3
USING THE GUIDE
3
4.1
The Academic Infrastructure
4
4.2
Support from the Department for Learning Development
[DfLD] and Quality & Standards Unit
4
4.3
Programme Review Documentation
5
4.4
Programme Evaluation Process and Document
6
4.5
Completing the Programme Specification
8
4.6
Completing the Programme Handbook
12
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE EVENT?
12
APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Programme Review Issues for Discussion/Checklist
13

Appendix 2: Framework for Higher Education Qualifications and
Bologna Cycle – Notes for Programme Teams
19

Appendix 3: Collaborative Partnership Typologies
20

Appendix 4: Approval of Awards Containing Work-based Learning
23

Appendix 5: Approval of Joint/Cluster/Combined Awards
25

Appendix 6: Additional Questions for Programmes Delivered by
Distance Learning
27
REVIEW TEAM
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
AI
APL
CAMS
DfLD
Fd
FDQB
FHEQ
HEBP
HEI
LTAS
PASC
PED
PPR
PRP
QAA
TQS
VLE
Academic Infrastructure
Accreditation of Prior Learning
Credit Accumulation & Modular Scheme
Department for Learning Development
Foundation Degree
Foundation Degree Qualifications Benchmark [FDQB]
Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales, Northern
Ireland
Higher Education Business Partnership
Higher Education Institution
Learning, Teaching & Assessment Strategy
Programme Approval Sub-Committee
Programme Evaluation Document
Periodic Programme Review
Periodic Review Process
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
Threshold Quality Standards
Virtual Learning Environment
1.
INTRODUCTION TO THE REVISED PROGRAMME REVIEW PROCESS
The University reviews its programmes normally on a 6 yearly cycle and the process
is fully documented within the Quality Handbook, Section C1: Approval & Review of
Programmes Handbook. The process consists of a Programme Review Event,
normally facilitated by the School. The Final Stage consists of a review of the
programme documentation and review event report (including the response to
conditions and recommendations by the Programme Approval Sub-Committee
[PASC], which will confirm that the University’s PPR process has been followed
appropriately and formally approve the revised programme. The modules for the
programme will have been reviewed/approved via a School module approval process
that normally takes place prior to the Programme Review Event. It is likely that prior
to the Review Event, your School will undertake a critical read of the documents and
provide you with feedback, to ensure that the standard of the documentation is
appropriate for circulation to the Panel Members.
The process results in a judgement on the academic provision in terms of the
confidence that can be reasonably placed in the Programme Team’s present and
future management of the quality of the programmes for which it is responsible and
the academic standards of the associated award. The review focuses on the
Programme Team’s approach to setting, maintaining and enhancing standards, and
on the evidence of students’ ability to achieve those standards through the learning
opportunities and support provided to them.
The process is designed to build explicitly on the Annual Monitoring Process and to
draw conclusions from existing sources of information about the current provision.
An action plan is developed that forms the basis of the revisions that have then been
made to the programme and identifies forward-looking actions, which will guide
programme enhancements in future years. The starting point for the review is the
development of a Programme Evaluation Document [PED] with supporting evidence
file as specified in Section 4.4, page 6.
The updating of the modules will be approved via a School Module Approval process.
A formal Programme Review Event will then take place.
The Panel for this event will be chaired by a senior member of your School (or by
someone not connected with the School under certain circumstances) and will
include some academic colleagues from other Schools, independent external
academic colleagues from another Higher Education Institution [HEI] and relevant
independent employers or individuals working within the field of practice, if relevant.
In 2010/11, the University is also piloting the involvement of students in Programme
Review Panels. The Panel will have been provided with the documentation that you
have produced about your programme.
2.
THE FORMAT OF THE PROGRAMME REVIEW EVENT
The meeting will focus on the programme evaluation process and the action plan that
has resulted from this. You will normally be required to do a brief presentation to the
Panel at the start of the meeting. This gives you an opportunity to succinctly
summarise the key changes you have made to your programme and the rationale for
these and should not repeat detailed information that has already been provided to
the Panel. It is also an opportunity to draw the Panel’s attention to the innovative
aspects of your programme. The Panel will then meet privately to generate an
agenda for the discussion with the Programme Team. You will then rejoin the
1 of 18
meeting to discuss the issues that the Panel wants to raise and the Chair will ensure
that the discussion is facilitated in a non-confrontational way to encourage a
productive exchange of views between peers. The Panel will have been provided
with a document (Programme Review Issues for Discussion/Checklist [see Appendix
1, page 13], which forms the basis for setting the agenda for the discussion. The
discussion will start with an exploration of the programme evaluation process and
then focus upon key enhancements that have been made to the programme and how
you have addressed the actions identified in the action plan.
Following the discussion, you will be asked to leave the meeting for a short while
when there will then be a private meeting of the Panel to determine the conclusions.
You will then be invited to rejoin the meeting to receive verbal feedback on the
conclusions.
The review will take into account the views of current students on the programme.
This is normally achieved via the incorporation of a private discussion between
students and the Panel during the event. The meeting with students will enable the
Panel to explore student consultation and feedback processes and how students
contribute to the enhancement of the programme. This discussion with students may
be part of the formal event but sometimes, a small number of Panel Members may
have met informally with students prior to the review meeting, in which case a record
of the meeting will be provided to the Review Panel. Exceptionally, where students
are not campus based, views may be sought via the use of a brief questionnaire.
The outcomes of this will be made available to the Panel Members via the Review
Event Secretary. You should also have documented in the PED how you have
engaged the views of a range of relevant stakeholders in the review, including
students.
3.
WHAT CONCLUSIONS WILL THE PANEL REACH?
The Panel will make recommendations to PASC under the following headings:
3.1
Conclusion – Programme Review Process
Based on the PED and discussion at the event, the Panel will be asked to consider
whether or not the Programme Team has undertaken a sufficiently robust and
rigorous evaluation of the programme, and has ensured that it remains current and
valid in the light of developing knowledge in the discipline, practice in its application,
and developments in teaching and learning.
The judgement will be either:
 No further action required to enhance the review process
OR
 Further action required to enhance the review process
The latter judgement would be appropriate if following a review of the PED and
discussion with the Programme Team, there is insufficient detail provided or
evidence of rigour in the programme review process. If there is further action
required to enhance the review process then, depending upon the conclusion on
quality and practice, the programme could still continue in approval but would require
a further review in the short to medium term.
2 of 18
3.2
Conclusion – Quality and Standards
This relates to the confidence that can be placed in the Programme Team’s approach
to setting, maintaining and enhancing academic standards, and on the evidence of
the students’ ability to achieve those standards through the learning opportunities
and support provided to them.
The judgement will be either:
 Confidence
-
 No Confidence –
may continue in approval
confirmation of continued approval cannot be recommended
A judgement of No Confidence should only be made under exceptional
circumstances, in full consultation with the Quality & Standards Unit [Academic
Registry].
3.3
Conclusions – Innovation and Good Practice
The Panel will be asked to identify aspects of the programme which are particularly
innovative or which represent good practice. It would be useful if you could make a
note ahead of the meeting of any aspects of the programme which you think are
particularly innovative and bring them to the attention of the Panel.
3.4
Conclusions – Conditions and Forward Looking Recommendations
The Panel will set Conditions (these must be addressed prior to the commencement
of the revised/reviewed programme or, exceptionally, by a specified date after the
commencement of the revised/reviewed programme), forward-looking
recommendations for further enhancement, issues for the School to
consider/address, and issues for the University to consider/address. [Please note:
if the discussion at the event has provided sufficient clarity regarding an issue, then
you should only be required to revise the Programme Documentation to document
this if such a record is viewed as essential].
4.
USING THE GUIDE
In addition to providing you with information about the process, this Guide highlights
key University and Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education [QAA]
requirements, and provides a series of prompt questions to ensure that you address
relevant issues when reviewing your programme, produce appropriate
documentation, and prepare for the event.
The Guide is relevant to the review of all University awards including those delivered
via collaborative provision.
You should:
 keep documentation to a minimum and, wherever possible, use and refer to
existing documentation as identified later in this Guide
 incorporate the key features of the University’s Learning, Teaching & Assessment
Strategy [LTAS], with a particular focus upon retention and progression, skills
development (including employability), assessment, research informed teaching,
3 of 18
and the use of e-learning
 reflect the QAA’s Academic Infrastructure [AI] [and see further information below]
 use any relevant QAA Subject Benchmark Statements
4.1
The Academic Infrastructure
Teesside University has mapped its practices against the Academic Infrastructure
[AI], ensuring alignment and have built elements into the University’s policies and
procedures. It is therefore explicitly embedded in University practice. Staff members
do not need to be aware of the detail of all of the various elements of AI, although
they should be familiar with the relevant University Policies and Procedures it has
informed.
AI includes the following components:
 the Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality & Standards in Higher
Education – there are 10 Sections
 Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales, Northern
Ireland [FHEQ], and the Scottish Credit & Qualifications Framework
 Subject Benchmarks (where appropriate)
 Programme Specifications
 Foundation Degree Qualifications Benchmark [FDQB]
 Guidelines on the Accreditation of Prior Learning [APL] in England, Wales and
Northern Ireland
The requirements of AI have been incorporated into the following University
Processes:
 University Level Descriptors, which are based on the FHEQ
 University Threshold Quality Standards [TQS]. Your School Quality Handbook
provides details of how these are operationalised in your School
 University Credit Accumulation & Modular Scheme [CAMS] Framework
 University Regulations
The University Quality Handbook gives information about all of these processes.
4.2
Support
 Staff from the Department for Learning Development [DfLD] are available to work
closely with Programme Teams to address key issues in the specific context of
your programme and help you on learning and teaching issues including, for
example, student retention, assessment and employability skills
4 of 18
 Staff from the Quality & Standards Unit [Academic Registry] can help you with
quality issues including negotiating the right kind of event and documentation for
your particular programmes and context
 You should also seek guidance from your School Learning & Teaching Coordinator and E-Learning Co-ordinator
 There is also a planning guide you can access which links to examples of
documents that you might find helpful.
Rough Guides are available on the following topics: Retention and the Curriculum;
Learning Outcomes; Progress Files; Formative Work and Feedback; Assessment;
Assessment Criteria; Module Design; Supporting Students through Mentoring;
Work-based Learning and Employability (to be published January 2011).
Appendix 1 of the Guide shows you the prompt questions that the Panel has been
provided with, which may help you in your development of the documentation.
4.3
Programme Review Documentation
The documentation will consist of the elements identified below and a separate pack
of templates is available to complete: Review Documentation Template.
Documentation should be produced via the online Programme Catalogue:
https://programmecatalogue.tees.ac.uk. The PED and handbook are additional to
the online document, but can be uploaded into the Programme Catalogue. Please
note that there may be further documentation required beyond this minimum when
provision is complex or there are Professional & Statutory Bodies’ requirements.
Additionally, where provision involves collaborative partners, further details can be
found in the Quality Handbook, Section E4: Employer Partnerships Collaborative
Provision Handbook and advice can be given by the Quality & Standards Unit
[Academic Registry]. A hard copy of all documents will be required for all Panel
Members, unless indicated otherwise.
Minimum Documentation for All Reviews:
 Portfolio Development Policy Committee form [prefixed UAPC] – if any new or
changed titles are incorporated into the review
 Programme Evaluation Document [PED] and supporting evidence – Panel
Members will receive a hard copy of the PED with the supporting evidence file
information being provided electronically. A hard copy of the supporting evidence
file will be made available to the Panel on the day of the review event
 Student Handbook (and supporting School Handbook if relevant)
 Programme Specification (for 2010/11 this will be produced via the online
Programme Catalogue accessed at https://programmecatalogue.tees.ac.uk)
including stage outcomes, map of modules to outcomes and assessment chart
 Completed Programme Approval Proposal Template including Statement from
Library & Information Services (via the online Programme Catalogue)
 Modules/Module Catalogue – these are provided electronically to the Panel with
one hard copy available at the review meeting
5 of 18
 Staff CVs – from 2010/11 these should be provided in hard copy at the
Programme Review Event, rather than circulating to each Panel Member,
ensuring that all personal details, such as addresses and telephone numbers are
removed.
4.4
Programme Evaluation Process and Document
A robust, in-depth programme evaluation is fundamental to a successful periodic
review of your programme. The evaluation should draw on existing sources [see
below] and involve consultation and feedback from a range of key stakeholders,
including students (for all programmes) and relevant employers, where possible. In
the School of Health & Social Care, relevant service users should also be consulted,
where applicable.
The evaluation should be presented in a Programme Evaluation Document [PED],
which should:
 identify how the programme has evolved since its original approval (or last review
exercise) and include an overview of changes that have been made
 demonstrate how enhancement has occurred on a continuous basis
 document innovative and good practice
 draw upon and be supported by the Annual Monitoring Reports produced since
the previous approval or review exercise, and serve to consolidate the annual
monitoring process
 draw upon other evaluative sources, e.g. PSB accreditation where available
 identify, via the action plan, what changes and enhancements are necessary to
ensure that the programme remains fit-for-purpose, contemporary, and continues
to meet the needs of all key stakeholders and address key University priorities
The PED will usually be a reasonably brief document that is supported by a file of
evidence, which will include all of the Annual Monitoring Reports, any relevant
External Examiner or Professional & Statutory Body reports, and notes of relevant
meetings, e.g. consultations with key stakeholders.
The PED will follow the PED template. Where no issues have emerged or no
changes have been made under a particular heading, then it is sufficient to note that.
Where issues have emerged, then it should be noted where these were discussed
and what action was taken, with reference to the appropriate section of the Annual
Monitoring Report.
An example:
Assessment
 as documented in the Annual Monitoring Report [see Section X] following
feedback from students, the assessment strategy for module X was amended and
subsequent evaluation (as documented in Annual Monitoring Report [see Section
C], has confirmed that this change has been beneficial
6 of 18
 whilst the quality of student feedback is generally identified as a strength by
External Examiners [see Annual Report for External Examiner X], following a
review of NSS data [see Annual Monitoring Report 2006/07, Section X], strategies
have been put in place to ensure that the quality and timeliness of student
feedback is enhanced. The effectiveness of these changes is currently being
monitored
Where a programme is franchised to Institutional Partners, in addition to being
delivered by Teesside University, the PED should make it clear where
statements relate to the programme as a whole or if they are relevant to a
particular franchise/Partner.
Action Plan
The PED must include an Action Plan that documents the actions that have been
identified throughout the PED. Some of these actions will be addressed as part of
the programme review. However, there may be forward-looking actions that cannot
be immediately addressed for a variety of reasons and these should be documented
and a timescale given, identifying when further consideration will be given to them,
and where they will be reported upon (e.g. School Academic Standards Committee,
Annual Monitoring Report).
The Action Plan should be used to signpost the reader to Programme Documentation
that is provided to give further details. Some example actions are given in the
template to demonstrate how this can be documented.
Supporting Evidence
A Supporting Evidence file should be produced to support the PED and this should
include a copy of all the Annual Monitoring Reports for the programme, relevant
External Examiners’ Reports, and other supporting evidence referred to in the PED.
Please note that an addition to the guidance for 2010/11 is the inclusion of the
programme specification for the programme before it was reviewed so that the Panel
can more readily identify changes, for example, to programme structure, if
appropriate. The evidence is made available to the Panel Members electronically
(e.g. via a memory stick) and a hard copy will be made available for the Panel during
the approval event.
Tips for Developing a Good PED
DO:





Access examples of PEDs to help you get a feel for what the PED should look like
Link each of the evaluative points to the action plan where appropriate. It may help
to include the action within the PED (see the example PED for MCh Orthopaedics for
how to do this) in addition to including it in the action plan
Link to specific sections of Annual Monitoring Reports in supporting evidence to
signpost the reader, rather than just referring to a whole document
Seek support from your School Learning & Teaching Co-ordinator or from the
Department for Learning Development
Contact Academic Registry for support in relation to collation and analysis of relevant
statistics.
7 of 18
DON’T:



4.5
Include information about the revisions you have made to the new programme. The
PED should stop at the action plan and the responses to actions (i.e. detail about the
revised programme) should be included in the Programme Proposal Template,
Student Handbook or Programme Specification as appropriate
Include actions that are not linked to evaluative comments in the body of the PED
Forget to include the relevant statistical information in the evidence file and include
evaluative comments about it in the relevant section of the PED.
Completing the Programme Specification
From 2010/11 the programme specification should be entered into the online
Programme Catalogue https://programmecatalogue.tees.ac.uk. The Programme
Specification will contain the core information required for approval purposes and will
be included in the University Programme Catalogue, and Sections may be made
available to external stakeholders. It will also be used to produce the Diploma
Supplement which is issued to students on completion of their programme.
The purpose of the Programme Specification is to provide a clear description and
overview of the learning outcomes and the teaching and assessment strategies to
support students in achieving those outcomes. It also includes information about the
programme structure and highlights distinctive features of the programme.
It is important that each award is distinctive from any other award and the
programme specification should be completed as follows:
A programme specification should be completed for each named award/pathway.
The online Programme Catalogue allows you to copy a programme specification
which can then be used as a basis for different pathways where there is similarity
between awards within a framework, or pathways within an award.
If you are unsure which arrangement applies, please seek advice from the Quality &
Standards Unit [Academic Registry].
Guidance for Completing Individual Sections of the Programme Specification
Section 1: Awarding Institution
This is always Teesside University.
Section 2: Teaching Institution
This is the institution where the majority of the programme is delivered.
Section 3: Collaborating Organisation (including type)
Please see Appendix 3, page 20 for further information.
Section 4: Delivery Location(s)
If this is not the TU, then please include all approved delivery locations for the
programme.
8 of 18
Section 5: Programme Externally Accredited by
Please include any external bodies (e.g. Professional/Statutory Bodies) that have
accredited the programme.
Section 6: Award Title(s)
Please provide the award title(s) as approved by the Portfolio Development Policy
Committee [PDPC].
Section 7: Lead School
This is the School who has been nominated as the lead for the programme.
Section 8: Contributing School
This refers to Schools who provide more than one core module to a programme.
Section 9: FHEQ Level
See Appendix 2, page 19 for more information.
Section 10: Bologna Cycle
Please see Appendix 2, page 19 for more information.
Section 11: JACS Code and JACS Description
This relates to the subject groupings that are used to code provision. The Academic
Registry (contact Barbara Jones, Corporate Information Analysis Manager, Email
[email protected], Ext. 4298) can help you identify the appropriate code to use.
Section 12: Mode of Attendance
This relates to full-time or part-time modes of attendance. Where programmes are
delivered in more than one mode, then additional information and structure diagrams
should be included to demonstrate the sequencing of modules for the different
modes.
Section 13: Relevant QAA Subject Benchmarking Group(s)
The QAA has developed benchmarking statements for a wide variety of subject
areas. These are an important external reference point that must be taken into
consideration when designing or reviewing your programme. Please check the QAA
Academic Infrastructure to ensure that any relevant subject benchmark statements
are identified and used. Several benchmarks are currently being updated so please
check that you are working with the most up-to-date set. Please ensure if there have
been any updated statements published, that you have reviewed your programme in
light of the changes.
Section 14: Relevant Additional External Reference Points (e.g. National
Occupational Standards, PSB Standards)
Please provide the names of relevant PSBs or National Occupational Standards, e.g.
NMC Standards of Proficiency.
9 of 18
Section 15: Date of Production/Revision
Section 16: Criteria for Admission to the Programme (if different from standard
University criteria)
The University has standard criteria for undergraduate and for postgraduate entry.
Please use this Section to identify any additional entry criteria that are stipulated.
Section 17: Educational Aims
Please state the broad intentions of the programme – the general direction in which
the programme is intended to take students. The aims should be clearly stated and
be achievable.
Section 18: Learning Outcomes
The Programme Specification requires Programme Outcomes to be clearly stated in
accordance with the categories of outcomes identified by QAA – Knowledge &
Understanding, Cognitive & Intellectual Skills, Practical & Professional Skills, Key
Transferable Skills. Programme Outcomes must clearly indicate what the student will
be expected to know and be able to do on completion of the programme. When
developing your outcomes, you should refer to the University Level Descriptors,
which reflect QAA requirements and provide generic descriptors for all levels of
study. The descriptors should be amended to suit the needs of specific disciplinary
and professional contexts.
The programme learning outcomes must reflect:
 relevant Subject Benchmark Statements
 the University’s Level Descriptors
 relevant PSB requirements
You might find the “Rough Guide to Learning Outcomes” produced by the
Department for Learning Development helpful.
Section 19: Key Learning & Teaching Methods
In this Section you should provide an overview of how learning is facilitated and the
key methods used throughout the programme. When devising your Learning &
Teaching Strategy, please refer to the University’s Learning, Teaching & Assessment
Strategy [LTAS].
Section 20: Key Assessment Methods
In this Section you should provide an overview of the assessment methods used
during the programme. When devising your Assessment Strategy, please refer to
the University’s Learning, Teaching & Assessment Strategy [LTAS].
Section 21: Programme Modules
The modules that comprise each stage of the programme should be accurately
stated (these are used to set up the course details in SITS). The status of the
modules should be recorded as follows:
10 of 18
 Programme Core
 Pathway Core
 Designated Option (the student chooses between a small number of named
modules, usually for a particular pathway)
 Open Option (the student chooses from a larger range of modules, e.g. from any
Level 6 Psychology Modules). It is not necessary to list all the module names.
Please give the category of modules from which the selection is made
You should also record if modules are non-compensatable in the appropriate column.
Section 22: Programme Structure
This Section requires a brief narrative, providing details of how the modules are
structured across the Academic Year and the rationale for this. If the programme is
delivered in different modes (e.g. full-time and part-time), this information should be
given about all modes. It should explain the way in which different elements of the
programme are linked and sequenced to provide students with a coherent learning
experience, which will satisfy the programme aims and outcomes and enhance
student retention. A structure diagram should be included for each mode of delivery.
Section 23: Student Support
This Section should summarise the different types of student support that will be
provided. There should be a clear strategy for academic support and guidance,
which is consistent with the student profile and programme aims. This will
encompass student induction, personal tutor support, monitoring of student progress,
etc. (particularly for first year students), personal development planning, academic
skills development, careers guidance, etc.
Section 24: Distinctive Features
This Section should identify any distinctive features of the programme which will be
of interest to students, employers and other external audiences (e.g. first year
initiatives, work-related learning). This is a valuable opportunity to market the
programme by highlighting attractive and interesting features.
Examples might include:
 strong links with employers, industry, Professional Bodies
 development of employability skills
 leading edge programme (in terms of content and/or teaching approaches)
 innovative teaching and assessment methods
 the quality and range of learner support
 strength of the teaching team in terms, for example, of industrial experience and
expertise
11 of 18
4.6
Completing the Programme Handbook
This is an extremely important part of the programme documentation and provides
the student (and Panel) with:
 a good “feel” for what their programme will be like in practice
 the outcomes of the programme and an overview of individual modules
 full information on the different types of support and guidance that will be available
to the students, particularly in the first year
 an overview of the learning and teaching strategies used and how these may
differ across different stages of the programme (including opportunities for PDP
and e-learning)
 the nature and timing of the assessments (including formative work) that students
will have and how they will receive feedback on their work
It is important that the handbook is written in plain English, using a user-friendly style
(good examples can be provided by the Quality & Standards Unit). It is generally not
appropriate to cut and paste information prepared specifically for the approval or
review events, as they are written for a different audience. The University has
Threshold Quality Standards [TQS] which state the minimum requirements for the
content of both School generic and award specific Student Handbooks. Your School
may also have produced a standard template that will help you. It is also good
practice, if possible, to seek the views of your students on the content of your
proposed handbook, or ask existing students to write a section of it, e.g. a section on
how to use this handbook.
The handbook should cover all pathways and modes of delivery, or separate
handbooks can be provided for different pathways and modes. It is important that
students are provided with, or signposted to, information about their specific learning
experience.
If your School uses a generic handbook, then please include a copy of this.
5.
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE EVENT?
Usually, an overview of the conclusions, including the conditions and forward-looking
recommendations, will be sent to the Programme Team and Review Panel Members
within a few days of the event, followed by a more detailed report. You will have
been given a date by which you have to provide a response to the conditions and
submit any revised documentation. The Chair will ensure that you have addressed
the conditions before formally signing the programme off for forwarding to the
Programme Approval Sub-Committee [PASC].
The documentation will be submitted to the next meeting of PASC, usually within 2-4
weeks. PASC will confirm that the Periodic Review Process has been followed
appropriately and formally sign off the programme on behalf of the University. It will
also sign-off any new awards, enabling the “subject to approval” asterisk to be
removed in marketing material.
12 of 18
Appendix 1
Quality & Standards Unit
PROGRAMME REVIEW ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION/CHECKLIST
Please complete this sheet before the event as it will help to set the agenda for the event
and to help focus discussions. The “prompt” questions are offered for guidance only and
you might not want to comment on them all, and may have other aspects that you would like
to explore.
The checklist is not structured around the specific documents you have received as there is
information relating to aspects of the programme across more than one document.
Following a review of each document it would be helpful if you could collate your feedback
under the relevant headings below. The likely source of information for each section is given
in brackets for each section below.
1.
Programme Evaluation
 has the programme been evaluated in accordance with the guidance given in
Appendix 2?
 is the action plan evidence-based and appropriate?
 is there evidence of consultation with all relevant key stakeholders, e.g.
employers, sector bodies, service users, PSBs?
 is there evidence that this has included a consideration of the employability of
those completing the programme?
 have trends been identified following a review of progression and achievement
data and appropriate actions identified?
 have trends relating to the age, ethnicity’s gender profile of the students been
discussed and appropriate action identified?
 have the priorities of the University Learning, Teaching & Assessment Strategy
[LTAS] been taken into consideration (e.g. enhancing work-based/related
learning opportunities and employability skills, enhancing e-learning
opportunities, promoting research informed teaching)?
Comments:
2.
Entry Requirements (See Programme Specification)
If non-standard entry requirements are identified, are they clearly stated and will
they facilitate successful progression through the programme?
Comments:
3.
Programme Aims and Outcomes (See Programme Specification)
 are the aims of the programme clearly stated?
 do the programme learning outcomes reflect:
o relevant Subject Benchmarking Statements
13 of 28
o the University’s Level Descriptors?
o relevant PSRB requirements?
 are all of the programme outcomes addressed within the modules?
 are the learning outcomes clearly stated for each level of the programme?
Comments:
4.
Programme Structure (See Programme Specification)
 have issues of balance, coherence and progression been fully considered and
is the programme available on both full and part-time bases and a diagram
provided for each mode of delivery?
 does the timing and sequencing of modules across the Academic Year
facilitate student progression
Comments:
5.
Curriculum Content/Modules (See Programme Proposal and Module
Catalogue)
 do the modules collectively facilitate achievement of the programme learning
outcomes?
 is the process for reviewing and updating the modules clearly identified?
Comments:
6.
Learning & Teaching Methods (Programme Specification, Student Handbook
and Programme Proposal)
 are they appropriate to the stated learning outcomes?
 is there a suitable variety of learning and teaching methods?
 is there evidence that curricular content and design is informed by recent
developments in techniques of teaching and learning?
 are progressive opportunities provided for students to demonstrate greater
responsibility for and independence in learning? For example, does the
balance between contact and non-contact time change as the programme
progresses?
 is there evidence of consultation with the School Learning & Teaching Coordinator and/or the Department for Learning Development?
Comments:
7.
Work-Based/Related Learning and Employability Skills (See Student
Handbook, Programme Specification, Programme Proposal, Module
Catalogue)
14 of 28
 are opportunities for work-related learning and the development of
employability skills identified?
 how does the programme prepare students for graduate employment?
 does the programme provide students with the opportunity to develop
knowledge and skills appropriate for a particular career?
 how is the development of generic higher skills supported?
 where work-based learning plays a significant role in the programme, specific
details must be provided as to how this will be managed, supported and
assessed (see Appendix 4: Approval of Awards Containing Work-Based
Learning)
 the Department for Learning Development can provide further guidance on
request
Comments:
8.
Retention and Progression/Skills Development (See Programme
Specification, Student Handbook and Programme Proposal)
 is there a clear strategy for supporting students’ learning in the first year /
transition period including, where feasible, an early formative piece of work to
assist skills development ?
 how are students’ study/learning/library, research and e-literacy skills
developed?
 are opportunities available to support transition between stages of the
programme (e.g. 2nd and 3rd year induction)?
 what mechanisms are used for monitoring and supporting student engagement
to promote successful completion?
Comments:
9.
E-Learning
 is there evidence of consultation with the School E-Learning Coordinator and /
or the E-Learning Team in the Department for Learning Development?
 are all modules made available via the VLE (as required by Threshold Quality
Standard for VLE use)?
 how is technology-enhanced learning used to enhance the students’ learning
experiences?
 how will the programme incorporate e-learning tools and approaches, e.g. use
of online discussions, blogs, reading lists, e-resources, audio and video etc.?
 how will students’ e-literacy/ICT skills requirements be identified and
addressed?
15 of 28
Comments:
10.
Research Informed Teaching
This encompasses both discipline-specific and pedagogic research and
scholarship.
 how effectively do staff draw upon their research, scholarship and / or
professional developments to inform their teaching?
 how will students be exposed to a research dimension within their field(s) of
study?
 has research and evaluation of teaching practice been used to enhance the
curriculum / student experience?
Comments:
11.
Assessment Strategies (See Student Handbook, Programme Specification,
Programme Proposal, Module Catalogue)
 are a variety of assessment methods used that are appropriate to the stated
learning outcomes, including opportunities for self and peer assessment, if
appropriate?
 how is assessment managed to ensure that:
o students are not over-assessed?
o the timing of assessments across the whole programme is manageable
and supports completion
o greater independence is promoted in the later stages of an
undergraduate programme and during postgraduate study
o there is effective use of formative assessment, particularly in the first
year?
o students receive timely and constructive feedback on their progress?
o key transferable skills are assessed?
Comments:
12.
Internationalisation of the Curriculum
 does the curriculum include global perspectives/context?
 is international comparison used to develop critical thinking?
 does the learning and teaching strategy include the use of international
perspectives to develop?
 are cross-cultural competencies developed through the programme?
Comments:
13.
Student Support (See Programme Handbook and Student Handbook
 is there an appropriate strategy for academic support and guidance which is
16 of 28
consistent with the student profile and programme aims? (Issues around
student induction, personal tutor support, monitoring of student progress, role
of the programme leader etc. could be explored)
 if the programme relies heavily on flexible/open and distance learning
approaches, are there effective mechanisms for monitoring student progress
and supporting students throughout the programme? (see Appendix 6:
Additional Questions for Programmes Delivered by Distance & Open Learning)
 have accessibility issues been identified and appropriate support put in place?
Comments:
14.
Student Handbook
 does the Student Handbook provide students with a good “feel” for what their
programme will be like in practice?
 does it show clearly the outcomes of the programme and an overview of
individual modules?
 does it provide full information on the different types of support and guidance
that will be available to the students, particularly in the first year?
 does it show clearly the nature and timing of the assessments (including
formative work) that students will have and how they will receive feedback?
 is it presented in an accessible ‘student-friendly’ style?
Comments:
15.
Learning Resources
 is the collective expertise of the academic staff suitable and available for the
delivery of the curriculum?
 are the subject book and periodical stocks appropriate and accessible?
 is there a statement from Library & Information Services [L&IS] to confirm
availability of these resources?
 is the availability of any specialist resources confirmed if relevant?
 are additional staff development opportunities identified if relevant?
Comments:
16.
Additional Issues
Comments:
17 of 28
Please also consider the additional appendices, as appropriate:
Appendix 5: Guidance for Approval of Awards containing Work-Based Learning
Appendix 6: Guidance for Cluster/Joint/Combined Awards (for issues that should be
considered when programmes involve more than one School in their delivery
and/or combine two disciplines)
Appendix 7: Additional Questions for Programmes Delivered by Distance Learning
Please also see, as appropriate:
Guidance on Additional Regulatory Requirements for the Approval of Professional Doctorate
Programmes
18 of 28
Appendix 2
Quality & Standards Unit
FRAMEWORK FOR HIGHER EDUCATION QUALIFICATIONS AND
BOLOGNA CYCLE – NOTES FOR PROGRAMME TEAMS
Increasingly, higher education institutions, students and employers, operate and compete in a
European and international context. The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications
[FHEQ] throughout the UK is designed to meet the expectations of the Bologna Declaration and
align with the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area [FEHEA].
[Source: QAA 2008].
Within the FEHEA, the term “cycle” is used to describe the “three sequential levels identified by
the Bologna Process (first cycle, second cycle and third cycle) within which all European higher
education qualifications are located.
In broad terms, the first cycle corresponds to undergraduate awards (typically Bachelors
Degrees with honours), the second and third cycles to postgraduate awards (typically Masters
Degrees and Doctoral Degrees respectively). [Source: QAA 2008].
A range of qualifications are also available to students who have undertaken a programme of
study within the FEHEA first cycle, but which do not represent the full extent of achievement for
this cycle. These qualifications are referred to as higher education short cycle (within the first
cycle) awards. [Source: QAA 2008].
Table 1:
FHEQ
Level
Higher Education Qualification
Doctoral Degrees (e.g. PhD, DClinPsy, DBA)
Masters Degrees (e.g. MPhil, MA, MSc)
Postgraduate Diploma
Postgraduate Certificate
Bachelors Degrees with Honours (e.g. BA
(Hons), BSc (Hons), BEng (Hons), LLB (Hons))
Pass Degree
Professional Graduate Certificate in Education
Graduate Diploma
Foundation Degree (e.g. FdA, FdSc, FdTech)
Diploma of Higher Education [DipHE]
Higher National Diploma [HND
Certificate of Higher Education [CertHE]
Higher National Certificate [HNC]
19 of 28
8
Corresponding FEHEA Cycle
(Bologna)
Third cycle (end of cycle
qualification)
7
Second cycle (end of cycle)
qualifications
6
First cycle (end of cycle)
qualifications
5
4
Short cycle (within or linked to
the first cycle)
Appendix 3
Quality & Standards Unit
COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIP TYPOLOGIES
1.
Partner Supported Awards
1a.
University provision which requires collaboration between the University and the
Employer/Partner in respect of providing learning opportunities in the workplace
necessary for the achievement of the award. The Partner will normally inform
programme design and may provide a supervisor or workplace assessor but will have
only a limited input into the delivery of the programme. For example, the provision of
placements or work-based learning opportunities.
1b.
University provision which requires support for a Partner to host and support the
delivery of a part or whole of its programme (e.g. “flying faculty” model where an
international Partner assists in the recruitment of students and provides physical
resources for delivery but the delivery and assessment is done by University staff).
1c.
Tutor-supported distance learning. University provision which uses study centres to
provide additional tutorial support for students and access to physical resources (e.g.
access to computers). Such support is seen as additional to that provided directly by
the University and the assessment of students is undertaken by the University, with
no involvement from the study centre.
2.
Collaborative Partner Co-delivered Awards
2a.
UK Employer Partners
University provision which requires collaboration in respect of providing learning
opportunities and where the programme is co-designed, delivered and assessed in
partnership with an employer. Both the University and the employer will be
responsible for the delivery of specified aspects of the programme and the University
will retain direct responsibility for the programme’s content, delivery, assessment and
quality assurance processes. For example, programmes developed and delivered
collaboratively with the police and ambulance services.
2b.
International Partnerships (including UK Colleges delivering to International
Students)
University provision which requires collaboration in respect of providing learning
opportunities and where the programme is co-designed, delivered and assessed in
partnership with an international partner (including UK colleges delivering to
international students). Both the University and the Partner will be responsible for
the delivery of specified aspects of the programme and the University will retain
direct responsibility for the programme’s content, delivery, assessment and quality
assurance processes.
2c.
UK Educational Partnerships with Public Sector Colleges
University provision which requires collaboration in respect of providing learning
opportunities and where the programme is co-designed, delivered and assessed in
20 of 28
partnership with a UK educational public sector Partner. Both the University and the
Partner will be responsible for the delivery of specified aspects of the programme and
the University will retain direct responsibility for the programme’s content, delivery,
assessment and quality assurance processes.
3.
Collaborative Partner Delivered Awards
3a.
University provision where the University works with an employer to enable an
employer’s existing programme to receive a University award. The University retains
direct responsibility for overseeing the programme’s content, delivery, assessment
and quality assurance processes. The process is sometimes referred to as
“accreditation”.
3b.
Delivery of an existing or jointly developed University programme by an educational
Partner, e.g. HEBP College, private college or educational provider (UK or overseas).
The University authorises the delivery of the whole or part of one of its approved
programmes by a Partner organisation, whilst retaining direct responsibility for the
programme’s content, delivery, assessment and quality assurance processes. (This
is sometimes referred to as a franchise).
4.
Collaborative Partner Provided Awards
A University award (based on assessed credits) is given for a Partner’s existing
programme (without converting it into standard University structures) and the
University exercises only limited control over the programme’s content, delivery,
assessment and quality assurance processes, but remains ultimately responsible for
the quality and standard of the award. There are currently no examples of this within
the University and this would only occur following a long-standing relationship with an
Employer/Partner College.
5.
Collaboration Between Awarding Bodies
5a.
Dual award – collaboration arrangements under which two or more awarding
institutions together provide programmes leading to separate awards being granted
by both, or all of them.
5b.
Joint award – collaborative arrangements under which two or more awarding
institutions together provide programmes leading to a single award made jointly by
both, or all, participants.
Partnership Arrangements not directly leading to a Teesside University Award
6.
HEBP Partner Delivery of a Professional Award
This refers to University recognition for indirect funding of an established nationally
recognised programme delivered by a Partner (HEBP College) where the
professional or similar body exercises responsibility for quality and standards.
7.
Articulation Arrangements
7a(i). Following a process of credit rating and comparison of learning outcomes, the
University agrees to accept the learning outcomes gained by students studying at the
International Partner institution as contributing credits to its own awards.
21 of 28
7a(ii). Following a process of credit rating and comparison of learning outcomes, the
University agrees to accept the learning outcomes gained by students studying at the
Educational Partner institution contributing credits to its own awards.
7a(iii). Following a process of credit rating and comparison of learning outcomes, the
University agrees to accept the learning outcomes gained by employees on an
employer programme as contributing credits to its own awards.
7b(i). As above but with the University providing a degree of moderation in the assessment
process of the articulated programme (with an International Partner).
7b(ii). As above but with the University providing a degree of moderation in the assessment
process of the articulated programme (with an Educational Partner).
7b(iii). As above but with the University providing a degree of moderation in the assessment
process of the articulated programme (with an Employer Partner).
7.
Award of General Credit
The University works with an employer or independent training company to allocate
general credit to an existing training programme/activity. This can be used by the
recipient for Accreditation of Prior Learning [APL]/advanced standing for higher
education programmes where the provider deems this appropriate.
Further guidance can be provided by the Quality & Standards Unit.
22 of 28
Appendix 4
APPROVAL OF AWARDS CONTAINING WORK-BASED LEARNING
GUIDANCE FOR PROGRAMME TEAMS
Work-based learning [WBL] can constitute all or part of an award at any level. It most often
appears in awards with employer partnership involvement though the complexity of the
partnership and the level of involvement of the employer partner can vary. It is not
particularly useful therefore to approach approval of awards containing WBL with a single
framework of requirements, as those questions will not be relevant for all eventualities.
It is more useful for the Programme Team to consider a set of over-arching principles in
relation to the student learning experience and provide specific information based on those
principles.
Principles
8.
Recognisable as Higher Education
You must provide evidence which demonstrates that awards and modules containing
WBL:
 meet the academic standards for credits as articulated in the Quality Assurance
Agency [QAA] Framework for Higher Education Qualifications [FHEQ]
 are assessed with a view to meeting those standards in a fair and rigorous
manner
This is usually evidence from the programme learning outcomes and the key design
issues (Learning, Teaching & Assessment Strategy [LTAS] sections) in the
programme documentation.
9.
The Student Learning Experience
WBL involves at least some if not the vast majority of the learning to occur in the
workplace. It is likely that students will have their own unique “learning environment”
depending on the opportunities in their workplace, their capacity to attend any
campus-based session, and their access to IT and HE facilities. You must provide
evidence which demonstrates that awards and modules containing WBL present
students with multiple opportunities to:
 access and use learning materials
 seek tutorial advice and support (including academic and workplace support
where relevant)
 contact and engage in academic and professional discussion with other learners
23 of 28
Awards will develop different strategies to enable these activities (use of the Virtual
Learning Environment [VLE], residential weekends, electronic discussion boards,
times when tutors are available by phone, etc.). These strategies should be outlined
in the programme specification [Section 23, Support for Students and their Learning]
and detailed within the sections on LTAS, Enhancing Work-based/Related
Opportunities and Resources.
10.
Incorporating Workplace Expertise
For awards that contain substantial elements of WBL and assessment (including
placements), it is usually the case that the student is learning from (and sometimes
being assessed by) other staff in the workplace. Whatever the level of involvement
of staff in employer organisations, it is the University that is ultimately responsible for
the quality of standards and the rigour of the assessment. You must provide
evidence which demonstrates that awards and modules containing WBL:
 provide appropriate support to workplace mentors/supervisors/tutors (through
such mechanisms as mentor workshops, mentor handbooks, e-groups etc.) to
ensure that students are able to achieve the stated learning outcomes
An outline of arrangements should be given in the programme specification [Section 23,
Support for Students and their Learning] and detailed within the section on Enhancing Workbased/Related Opportunities. Evidence of the support for workplace mentors/supervisors
can best be demonstrated by submitting a handbook alongside the programme
documentation. The checklist for Minimum Standards of such handbooks can be found in
the Threshold Quality Standards [TQS] for Placement and Work-based Learning, in the
Quality Handbook.
24 of 28
Appendix 5
GUIDANCE FOR PANEL MEMBERS AND PROGRAMME TEAMS
CLUSTER/JOINT/COMBINED AWARDS
This guidance is relevant for provision that involves more than one School and provides a
set of principles for the Panel to consider in relation to the student learning experience.
These principles will guide the development of specific questions, relevant to the context of
the individual programme, which the Panel will wish to explore with the Programme Team.
The Panel needs to explore and confirm that appropriate arrangements are in place to
ensure the quality of the student learning experience and to guide future enhancements. A
completed Programme Specification should be provided for each individual award, including
joint/combined awards.
PRINCIPLES
11.
There should be clarity regarding the responsibilities of the home and
contributing Schools for programme administration and quality assurance and
enhancement processes underpinned by effective communication strategies.
The documentation should make it clear who the “home” School is and what
contributions the other named Schools are responsible for. This should be clearly
articulated in the UAPC form and Programme Specification. In discussion, the
Programme Team should be able to articulate the responsibilities of each School and
demonstrate what mechanisms are in place (e.g. regular Programme Team
meetings) to facilitate effective communication and to ensure that they are working
together to enhance the student experience.
It should be clear how the following processes will be managed and who will coordinate them:














marketing
recruitment/admissions (including APEL)
production of handbooks/student information
enrolment
timetabling
option choice
Mitigating Circumstances Boards
Module Assessment Boards
Progression & Award Assessment Boards
feedback to students
student/staff liaison and election of Course Representatives
Programme Boards
appointment of External Examiners
Annual Monitoring Process and Report
25 of 28
It is suggested that information giving details of how these processes will be
managed should be included in Box 6 of the Programme Approval Proposal
Template for New Programmes (Quality Management & Enhancement). For
Periodic Programme Reviews that have incorporated an element of cross-School
provision as part of the review, or wish to make changes to approved arrangements
for cross-School provision, this information should be provided in the “Additional
Information Arising from the Action Plan” page of the Programme Review
Additional Information Template.
12.
There should be effective mechanisms for supporting students and facilitating
achievement and progression
There is a potential in cross-School provision for students to be confused by
conflicting information provided by different Schools or for relevant information to be
omitted by one or more School. The aim is to provide, where possible, a coherent
set of student support arrangements, particularly during key risk periods as identified
by the University Retention Project (e.g. first week, first assessment, first placements,
etc.) (Department for Learning Development) can provide the Programme Team with
further support to identify risk periods.
There should be information about the names and roles of the key people providing
academic and pastoral support, and the approach to personal development
planning/key skills development.
There should also be clarity about:
 the nature of the dissertation/project for joint/combined awards, e.g. single or
inter-disciplinary
 how the induction process will be facilitated to prevent overload of information
about different Schools or duplication of activities
 the strategy for the support and development of cohort identity
It is expected that a single specific Student Handbook will be provided for cluster and
joint/combined awards that conveys a coherent learning experience for students and
identifies relevant support mechanisms.
Information about relevant support mechanisms should be included in the
Programme Specification and the Student Handbook.
26 of 28
Appendix 6
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR PROGRAMMES DELIVERED BY DISTANCE
LEARNING
General










Are there any language issues and what are the English language requirements at
entry point?
Are there any issues around intellectual property?
If relevant, how will a worldwide delivery operate?
How will the programme be marketed?
How will any timing issues for delivery and assessment be resolved?
How will procedures such as Mitigating Circumstances/Plagiarism and Assessment
Review etc operate
What provisions are to be made to accommodate SENDA?
How will student representation be achieved?
How will feedback from students be facilitated?
How will PDP operate?
Online delivery







How has the University’s e learning strategy and TQS been incorporated into this
proposal?
How will access to text books and resources be facilitated?
Will students have access to L&IS?
Is there a report from the SITL on the availability and accessibility of resources?
How will the development of learning materials be managed and is there an example
of such material in the documentation?
Has the security of the delivery system for materials been considered?
Does the student information about the timing of the delivery of modules and
timetable for assessments?
Student support











What is the induction process for new independent learners?
Are there guaranteed response times for students?
Is there a code of conduct for staff and students?
Student Handbook - how has it been tailored to provide specific support for this form
of delivery?
Has sufficient information about mechanisms for support been given in the student
handbook?
Does the handbook provide detailed information regarding study expectations to
enable the student to navigate through the modules and programme?
What help/coaching training/monitoring is in place?
What materials are available to support the development of the independent learner?
What electronic peer support will be available?
How will the student experience be managed to avoid isolation?
How will skills development be supported?
27 of 28
Assessment




What safe guards are in place to protect against impersonation with electronic
submissions?
What mechanisms are in place to inform and educate students about potential
plagiarism?
How will student assessment feedback operate?
How are opportunities for formative assessment embedded?
Modules



Are the modules new for this programme or already being delivered at the
University?
If already being delivered how will the Team ensure equivalent student experience?
If not in approval have they been approved by the School?
Staff Development and Scholarly Research

What is the Schools staffing strategy to support this development?
28 of 28