- Hayley Burns
- Head of Quality Unit
Purpose - To provide an overview of the following processes:
- Course Approval:
- Course development approval
- Course Validation
- Course Review & Revalidation
- To introduce ICIS and its support of these processes
Course Development Approval - Purposes
- Alignment with University strategic plan
- Sound business case
- Identify resource implications
- Potential impact on other courses
- Compliance with legislative requirements
- Determine appropriate course validation route
Course Development Approval - Process
- Course Development Team completes the ‘Curriculum Proposal Form’ (CPF) on ICIS
- CPF submitted to Head of School
- CPF submitted to Faculty Committee
- If approved submitted for University peer review
- Submitted to Deans and Executive for final approval to proceed to course validation
Curriculum Proposal Form - Sections
- Course information
- Market Research
- The Course Costing Template [or Business Case]
- Course Delivery
- Course Structure
- Course Exit Points
- Subject Codes
- Faculty Approval
The CPF on ICIS Course Validation: Event Types - Standalone validation event
- University level
- Faculty level
- Paper-based level
- Re/approval of a collaborative partner
- Collaborative partner event
- PSRB accreditation
- --
- *Deadlines*
Course Validation: Criteria - For a course to be validated the following criteria must be met:
- Curriculum
- Learning, Teaching and Assessment
- Admissions
- Course Management
- Resources
- Implementation
- Socially Inclusive Practice
Course Validation: The Validation Document - SECTION 1
- Executive Summary
Course Validation: The Validation Document (2) - SECTION 2: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COURSE
- CPF
- Rationale for the proposal
- Engagement with External and Internal Reference Points
- Resources
- Quality Assurance
- Transitional Arrangements
- Ethics
Course Validation: The Validation Document (3) - SECTION 3: THE COURSE SPECIFICATION
- Course Information
- Educational Aims and Learning Outcomes
- Course Structure
- Teaching and Assessment
- Entry and Exit Requirements
- Inclusive Curriculum Statement
- Addendum for Delivery at a Collaborative Partner Organisation
Course Validation: The Validation Document (4) - SECTION 4: COURSE STRUCTURE
- Per each level of study:
- Module Code
- Module Title
- Credits
- Module Status
- *ensure that at each level you have the correct number of credits. See Regulations for Taught Courses
Course Validation: The Validation Document (5) - SECTION 5: MODULE SPECIFICATIONS
- Module Information
- Module Criteria
- Learning Outcomes
- Assessment Matrix
- Key Skills
- Concise/Indicative Reading List
Course Validation: The Validation Document (6) - SECTION 6: SUPPORTING MATRICES
- Learning Outcomes Matrix
- Key Skills Matrix
- Assessment Schedule
Key Skills Matrix - The following must be included but others can be added at faculty discretion:
- D1 Managing and developing self
- D2 Working with and relating to others
- D3 Communicating
- D4 Managing tasks and solving problems
- D5 Applying numeracy
- D6 Applying technology
- D7 Applying design and creativity
| Assessment Schedule | | - Modules that involve examinations
| - These include modules that use closed book/open book written examinations as all or part of their assessment.
| | | - Modules that use 100% coursework
| - These module use ONLY coursework such as essay, laboratory exercise, report, presentation, journal, portfolio etc.
| | | - Module that use Class Test
| - These include modules that use a phased test/examination, in-class test, MCQ test, practical exam, OSCE as all or part of their assessment.
| Course Validation: The Validation Document (7) - APPENDICES
- External Examiner/Consultants’ Report(s) and Team’s response
- Letters of support from employers
- Staff CVs
- Ethical Approval Forms
- Applications for RTS
Course Validation: Guidance Documents - QAA UK Quality Code
- QAA docs: FHEQ, subject (and other) benchmarks, course specifications
- USW Course Developer’s Guide
- USW Guidelines for the Development of Foundation Degrees
- USW Regulations for Taught Courses
- USW Assessment Policy and Tariff
- USW Learning, Teaching and Widening Access Strategy
- USW CELT
Course Validation: The Validation Document and ICIS Course Validation: The Process (1) | | | | | - FVP established by Faculty Quality Team
| | | - Internal Faculty scrutiny process takes place
| | | - Completion of validation documentation and submission to the FQM for final checks
-
| | | - Faculty Quality Team circulates documentation to the FVP
-
| | | - External Academic (if appropriate) provides written commentary on the proposal
-
| | | - FVP to consider the documentation and determine outcomes
-
| | | - Development Team response to validation conditions and completion of the revised documentation
-
| | | - Meeting of conditions, documents signed off by FVP Chair, electronic submission of final documentation to the Faculty Quality Team
-
| - The Panel
- The event
- The outcomes
- Conditions, requirements and recommendations
- The report
- Responding to conditions
- Course Validation: The Process (2)
Course Validation: The Process (3) Course Approval: Summary - Course Development Approval and the CPF
- Course Validation:
- the criteria
- the Validation Document
- Guidance documents
- the process
- How ICIS supports these systems
Course Review & Revalidation: Introduction - Assurance of maintenance of academic standards
- Assurance of quality
- Enhancement-focused
- Opportunity for holistic and strategic thinking
- Cumulative effect of change
- Changes to internal and external environments
- Changes to legislation
- Single or multiple courses
- Revalidation
Process - Self-critical
- Evidence-based
- Building on strengths
- Identifying and assessing risk
- Highlighting areas for enhancement
- Peer review: staff, students and externals
- Designed to be developmental
- Occurs every 6 years
Panel Focus - Academic Standards
- Quality of Learning Opportunities
- Quality Management and Enhancement
Schedule | | | | | | | | - CRR Panel set up by FQM in consultation with Review Chair, Reporting Officer, Head of School, Course Leader and formally approved by the Chair of QAC
| | | - Self evaluation document and supporting documentation submitted to the Reporting Officer
| | | - Reporting Officer circulates the Self evaluation document and supporting documentation to the CRR Panel
| | | - Reporting Officer receives each CRR Panel member’s analysis of the Self evaluation document for their allocated section(s) and forwards this to the CRR Panel Chair
| | | - Preparatory meeting convened to finalise arrangements for the review event
| | | - Team assembles documentation to be made available during the review
| | | | | | - Draft report circulated to the CRR Panel for finalisation
| | | - Final draft of the report circulated to the CRR Panel and the Faculty/College to check for factual accuracy
-
| | | - Final report circulated to Faculty Head of School
| - Next scheduled meeting after publication of the final report
| - Action Plan compiled to include actions to be taken at Faculty level. Report and Action Plan submitted to FQAC
| - Next scheduled meeting after consideration by FQAC
| - Report and Action Plan (to include any University actions) submitted to QAC via the Quality Unit
| Preparation - Admin support provided by faculty to give advice and coordinate
- Briefing meeting between FQM, Head of School and Course Leader(s) 6 months before the event:
- Confirm the scope of the review
- Provide an overview of the process
- Identify a date and establish deadlines for submission of documentation
- Guidance on developing the self-evaluation document
- Discuss panel members and identify a reporting officer
Panel - Chair
- 2 or more external members
- 2 or more internal members from a different faculty
- Faculty Quality Manager
- Student Union sabbatical officer or nominee
- Reporting Officer
Self-evaluation document: Part 1: Critical Review - Academic Standards
- Quality of Learning Opportunities
- The maintenance of Standards and Enhancement of Quality
- Working with Others
- Appendices
- Mapping from old to new courses and modules
- External Examiner/Consultant’s Report and Team’s response
- Recruitment and conversion table
- Statistics detailing student progression, outcomes and career destinations
- Reports of accreditation events and details of any changes to professional body requirements
Self-evaluation document: Part 2: Revalidation Document - SECTION 1: Planning and Development of the Course
- Engagement with External and Internal Reference Points
- Evidence of ethical consideration
- Transitional Arrangements
- SECTION 2: Course Specification
- SECTION 3: Course Structure
- SECTION 4: Module Specifications
- SECTION 5: Supporting Matrices
- APPENDICES
Additional Documentation to be submitted with the SED - List of evidence
- Course Handbooks
- Student Data
- External Examiner reports
- Course annual monitoring report
- Faculty annual monitoring report
Additional Documentation to be available during the review - Course and module handbooks and any other relevant course documentation
- Staff lists and a short profile
- Course Board minutes
- Module/course questionnaire summaries
- Data, i.e. NSS satisfaction levels
- Notes of course team meetings
- Recent validation reports
- Marketing materials
The preparatory meeting - Chair, Head of School, Course Leader(s), FQM, Reporting Officer – 4 weeks before the event
- Agree on key issues
- Check which claims in the SED the panel are going to verify
- Identify key members of staff who will attend meetings
- Agree on sample of students’ work to be made available
- Shape the overall agenda
- Discuss arrangements for meeting students from collaborative partners
The Event - 1 day long
- Meetings with course and other staff, current and former students and other relevant stakeholders
- Private meetings of the panel
- Good practice and recommendations made
- Report produced
Links to Procedures - Course Approval
- Course Development Approval
- Course Validation
- Course Review & Revalidation
Share with your friends: |
