QUALITY ENHANCEMENT AND ASSURANCE HANDBOOK

Document Control Prepared By Department of Academic Quality and Development (AQD) Approved By Academic Policy Committee: 14th September 2016

Senate: 7th October 2016 Source Location

http://www.gcu.ac.uk/gaq.qualityassuranceandenhancement/qualityassuranceandenhancementhandbook

Date of Next Review:

July 2017

Related Documents

GCU Qualifications Framework; GCU Strategy 2020; Strategy for Learning 2015-2020; GCU Academic Pillars for Learning,Teching and Quality; Student Experience Framework 2015-2017; Digital Strategy; Common Good Curriculum; GCU Values and Behaviours; College Connect Strategy 2015-2020; QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education; SFC Outcome Agreement; GCU Global: Internationalisation Strategy 2012-2015; SFC guidance to higher education institutions on quality from August 2012 (Circular SFC/14/2012)

Document History Version Date Author Update information 6.0 14. 09.16 AQD First version approved by APPC (Oct

2005); second version (Feb 2008); third version (Nov 2010) fourth version (Oct 2014); fifth version (July 2015)

6.1 30.09.16 AQD Incorporating amendments agreed by APPC on 14 September 2016

6.2 13.10.16 AQD Incorporating amendments agreed by Senate on 7th October 2016

6.3 15.11.16 AQD Incorporating amendments to section 6.2 following further consultation

Glasgow Caledonian University Quality Enhancement and Assurance Handbook Contents

1. FOREWORD 1

2. QUALITY ENHANCEMENT AND ASSURANCE STRATEGY 4

2.1 Introduction 4 2.2 Quality Enhancement 4 2.3 Components 9

Appendix 2(a) Common Good Curriculum Mapping Tool 11

3. ENHANCEMENT-LED INTERNAL SUBJECT REVIEW 14

3.1 Introduction 14 3.2 Characteristics 14 3.3 Scope 14 3.4 Process 15 3.5 The Self-Evaluation Document 15 3.6 The Review Event 16 3.7 Before the Review Event 17 3.8 Event Structure 17 3.9 The Review Report 18 3.10 Follow-up Action 18

Appendix 3(a) Self Evaluation 19 Appendix 3(b) Appointment of Panel Members 24

4. PROGRAMME APPROVAL 26

4.1 Procedure for the Development of New-Named Programmes 26 4.1.1 Initial Approval 26 4.1.2 Timeline for Programme Approval (and Review) 28 4.1.3 Programme Development Team 28 4.1.4 Exceptions to Assessment Regulations and Qualifications Framework 29 4.1.5 Modules 29 4.1.6 Initial Scrutiny of Programme Approval Submission Documentation 29 4.1.7 Honours and Masters Level Teaching 30 4.1.8 Programme Approval Panels 30 4.1.9 Professional, Statutory, and Regulatory Bodies 30 4.1.10 Responsibilities and Reporting of Programme Approval Panels 31

4.2 Appeals by Programme Development Teams 31 4.3 Programme Handbooks 32

Appendix 4(a)(i) Template for Concept Paper 33 Appendix 4(a)(ii) Academic Case 34 Appendix 4(b) Timeline: Programme Approval Process 39 Appendix 4(c) Programme Approval Documentation and Updating of Approved

Programme Documentation 41

Appendix 4(d) Programme Handbooks 46 Appendix 4(e) Curriculum Vitae Template 48 Appendix 4(f) Programme Approval Process 49 Appendix 4(g) Cover: Programme Approval Submission Document 50 Appendix 4(h) Guidelines: Internationalisation of the Curriculum 51

5. PROGRAMME MONITORING 55

5.1 Programme Monitoring Process: Matters for Consideration 55 5.2 Department and School Annual Report on Monitoring, Quality Enhancement

and Assurance of Programmes 57 5.3 University Consideration of the Programme Monitoring Process 57

Appendix 5(a) Diagram: Annual Programme Monitoring Process 58 Appendix 5(b) Programme Monitoring Manual 59

6. PROGRAMME REVIEW 76

6.1 Process 76 6.2 Viability of Programmes within review cycle 76 6.3 Portfolio change outwith review cycle (programme withdrawal) 77 6.4 Communicating Programme Changes 78 6.5 Programme Review Submission Documentation 79 6.6 Programme Review Panels 79 6.7 Programme Review Panel Reports 79 6.8 Professional, Statutory, and Regulatory Bodies 79 6.9 Change of Programme Title or Award 79 6.10 Minor Changes to a Programme 79 6.11 Extension to Period of Approval (Deferment of Review) 80

Appendix 6(a) Programme Review Documentation 81

7. MODULE QUALITY ENHANCEMENT AND ASSURANCE 86

7.1 Responsibilities for Module Quality Enhancement and Assurance 86 7.2 Responsibilities of Module Leaders 86 7.3 Responsibilities of Schools 87 7.4 Development and Approval of New Modules and Changes to Modules 87

7.4.1 Via Programme Approval/Review Process 87 7.4.2 Independent of Programme Approval/Review Process 88

7.5 Monitoring and Enhancement of Existing Modules 89 7.6 Withdrawal of Existing Modules 90 7.7 Module Handbooks 90

Appendix 7(a) Changes to Modules: Major and Minor 91 Appendix 7(b) Proforma: Module Approval and Module Changes 93 Appendix 7(c) Preparation and Circulation of Module Handbooks 94 Appendix 7(d) Proforma: Module Monitoring Report 95

8. STUDENT EVALUATION AND FEEDBACK MECHANISMS 98

8.1 Student Staff Consultative Groups 98 8.1.1 Purpose 98 8.1.2 Operation 98

8.1.3 Composition 99 8.1.4 Agenda 99

8.2 Module Feedback 100 8.3 Student Satisfaction Questionnaires 100

9. EXTERNAL EXAMINERS 101

9.1 Appointment of External Examiners 101 9.2 Resignation of External Examiners 102 9.3 Termination of an External Examiner’s contract 102 9.4 Consideration of External Examiners’ Annual Reports 102

Appendix 9(a) Diagram: Process for Appointment of External Examiners 104 Appendix 9(b) Diagram: Process for Consideration of External Examiner Reports 105

10. MANAGING PROVISION DELIVERED IN PARTNERSHIP 106

10.1 Context 106 10.2 Governing Principles and Criteria 106 10.3 Partnership Types 107 10.4 Supporting Structures and Governance 109 10.5 Outline of Development and Approval Stages 110 10.6 Contractual Arrangements and Agreements 110 10.7 Partnership Register 111 10.8 Changes to Partnership Arrangements 112 10.9 Monitoring and Review 112 10.10 Withdrawal and Termination of a Partnership 113 10.11 Appointment of Associate Lecturers 114

Appendix 10(a) Appointment of Associate Lecturers 115 Appendix 10(b) Flowchart of the Process for the Appointment of Associate Lecturers

117 Appendix 10(c) Guidelines on Placement Learning 118

11. THEMATIC REVIEW 123

11.1 Purpose 123 11.2 Review Schedule 123 11.3 Reporting and Follow-up Activity 123 11.4 Dissemination of Good Practice 123

ANNEX: ACADEMIC QUALITY, ENHANCEMENT AND ASSURANCE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 124

1. Department of Academic Quality and Development 124 2. Schools 124

2.1 School-level Responsibilities: Programmes 124 2.2 School-level Responsibilities: Modules 125

3. Department Learning Teaching and Quality Leads 126 4. Programme Leaders 127 5. Module Leaders 128 6. Programme Boards 128

Figures Figure 1: GCU Academic Pillars 9

1

1. FOREWORD

The GCU Quality Enhancement and Assurance Handbook (QEAH V6.2) has been revised and updated to take account of the following major policy drivers (polices approved since QEAH (2014) are shown in bold):

• GCU Strategy 2020 (2015); • GCU Strategy for Learning (SfL) 2015-2020; • GCU Academic Pillars for Learning, Teaching and Quality (2016); • The QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education; • Student Experience Framework (SEF) 2013-2017; • Common Good Curriculum Attributes (2016); • College Connect Strategy 2013-2020; • QAA Enhancement Themes; 1 • SFC Outcome Agreement (2015/16); • Internalisation Strategy; • GCU Values and Behaviours (2015); • Digital Strategy (approved June 2016 Senate); • UK higher education providers – advice on consumer protection

law (2015) • Revised SFC Council Guidance to higher education institutions on quality

issued in 2012; • The internal review and audit of international partnerships (May 2013)

Additionally, the QEAH is underpinned by the SFC (2012) three key principles of:

• high quality learning; • student engagement and, • A quality culture.

Student engagement continues as a key principle and as a fundamental dimension of the GCU QEAH and now reflects the SFC shift from encouraging Institutions with regard to student engagement to setting out expectations of the type and nature of that engagement.

1https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/428549/HE_providers_-_advice_on_consumer_protection_law.pdf

2

Overview of main updates and revisions in QEAH V6.3 (2016)

• The Quality Enhancement and Assurance Strategy (Section 2) has been

revised to reflect policies approved and practices introduced since previous QEAH.

• The GCU Academic Pillars for Learning, Teaching and Quality (approved

by Senate in June 2016) underpin the University’s core principles and priorities for Learning, Teaching and Quality Assurance. The key messages from the paper are integrated into QEAH V6.2 (2016) such as the reaffirmation of the role of the Programme Leader and the responsibility of the Programme Board.

• Annual Monitoring has been revised and a standalone manual and templates provided for Programme, Department and School use (Section 5 Appendix 5(b)). A summary of Annual Monitoring Roles and Responsibilities is detailed in Section 5 (Appendix 5(c)) of the Programme Monitoring Manual.

• Module Monitoring and Review for the forthcoming academic session

completed no later than 1st June of each year and fits with the overall host2 Programme Review. Section 7 has been revised and a template and guidance notes for the module monitoring process is provided in Appendix 7(b).

• Reaffirmation of an 18-month Programme Approval timeline (Senate 2009)

from School Board consideration to Programme Delivery. It should be noted that this can only be compressed where a timely response to commercial and fully funded commissioned programmes is required. The need for adequate time for marketing and publicity coupled with CMA requirements reinforces the need for an 18-month timeline.

• Internal Panel Member- Interschool representation is acceptable provided the

panel member is from another Department. This means that the Panel can access and be guided by a member of academic staff who has specialist school based knowledge. This can be useful when dealing with questions around professionally regulated Programmes and School based issues that require further explanation or clarification.

• The Common Good Curriculum is part of the student learning experience at

GCU and will prepare students to develop four ‘Common Good attributes’.

o Active and global citizenship, o Entrepreneurial mind-set o Responsible leadership o Confidence

From session 2016/17 these will replace the current GCU Graduate Attributes in ELISR/Programme Approval/Review. The common good curriculum mapping tool can be found in Appendix 2(a).

2 The host Programme Board is the owner of all the modules that make up the programme regardless of the number of programmes that may access an individual module.

3

• Partnership and Collaborative Arrangements (Section 10) – this section has been updated alongside the redrafting of all the other sections and to incorporate the outcomes of the March 2016 internal audit on partnership review commissioned by the University’s Audit Committee. The main revisions are as follows:

o The section will be presented as overarching statements of our QA principles and processes for partnership development; some of the current prescriptive operational detail is removed with relevant signposting to the underpinning forms and tools that will be refreshed to support activity. The section is essentially our academic quality framework for development and managing activity.

o That the section be renamed ‘Managing provision delivery in partnership’’. There is a view that the dual terms being used through ‘partnership’ and ‘collaborative arrangement’ are sometimes confusing and essentially this section is all about how we develop/approve/monitor and review our partnership activity.

o Refinement of opening sections to remove strategy and policy

commentary.

o A restatement and expansion of the governing principles and criteria to include reference to non-academic policy elements (anti-bribery, anti-corruption and cyber security) and compliance with UK Government policies (UKVI, CRA, CMA).

o Inclusion of specific KPIs for partnerships agreed by Executive Board

as an outcome of March 2016 internal audit.

o Monitoring and review section updated to include arrangements for bi-annual review of partnership register standing data as an outcome of March 2016 internal audit.

o Credit rating added as a type with cross reference to the guidelines to

support.

o Development and approval section stripped back to expand the three main stages to high level stages.

o A Task and Finish Work Group will be set up following Senate approval

to undertake review of templates and forms, reporting to APPC and IC.

4

2. QUALITY ENHANCEMENT AND ASSURANCE STRATEGY

2.1 Introduction

*The GCU Quality Enhancement and Assurance Strategy3 has been updated for Version 6.2 of the QEAH. The Quality Enhancement and Assurance Strategy aligns with the QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education4 (HE), which is the definitive reference point for all UK higher education providers. Internally the Strategy for Learning5 underpins the delivery of Strategy 2020 and the GCU Student Experience. The UK Quality Code for HE6 makes clear what higher education providers are required to do and articulates and makes transparent the standards students, staff and the general public can expect of the University. The Strategy for Learning (SfL) and the Student Experience Framework (SEF) ensure that the GCU enhancement strategy meet the needs of all students whether they are full-time, part-time, undergraduate, or post-graduate, and encompasses learning and teaching, research, and knowledge transfer. GCU adheres to the overarching values of the UK Quality Code for HE7 and is committed to demonstrate that: In line with GCU Values and Behaviours:

• every student is treated fairly and with dignity, courtesy and respect • every student has the opportunity to contribute to the shaping of their learning

experience • every student is properly and actively informed at appropriate times of matters

relevant to their programmes of study • all policies and processes relating to study and programmes are clear and

transparent • strategic oversight of academic standards and academic quality is at the highest

levels of governance of the University • all policies and processes are regularly and effectively monitored, reviewed, and

improved • sufficient and appropriate external involvement is in place for the maintenance

of academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities • all staff are supported, enabling them to support student learning.

2.2 Quality Enhancement Quality Enhancement is defined as ‘taking deliberate steps to bring about continuous improvement in the effectiveness of the learning experience of students’8. GCU enhancement strategies seek to promote an inclusive approach to learning by embedding 3 The first GCU Quality Enhancement Strategy was approved by Senate in June 2003; updated and

approved in June 2007; further updated and approved in June 2010; further updated in May 2014 and approved by Senate in June 2014.

4 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality 5 http://www.gcu.ac.uk/gaq/strategyforlearning2015-2020/ 6 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality 7 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality 8 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/ELIR-handbook-3.pdf

5

the principles of equality and diversity throughout the institution, valuing individuals regardless of background or groups to which they belong. GCU commits to providing opportunities for staff and students to engage in meaningful professional conversations to foster effective partnership working in an environment that is sensitive to the diverse population on campus. Partnership in this sense reflects the UK Quality Code concept of joint working, based on a mature relationship and mutual respect and not a formal legal relationship9. It is accepted that enabling student development and achievement involves academic, professional, and support staff across the University. The University’s Strategy 2020 and SfL seek to develop students, as a body and individually, to be the best that they can be. These strategies take account of, and respond to, the collective and individual life stages of learning by enabling students to take responsibility for their own learning through a commitment to an engaged relationship with the University, achieved through institutional dialogue and partnership working. Taking into account key messages from the QAA UK Quality Code, Strategy 2020 and SfL the following enhancement statements link to and promote reflection and evaluation at University, School, Department and at Programme level. These are designed to promote self-evaluation at the point of programme Approval and Re-approval and provide an internal and external articulation of quality enhancement and assurance processes, evidencing process in practice. At GCU we:

• articulate and implement our strategic approach to learning and teaching, and promote a shared understanding of this approach to staff, students and external stakeholders, including the general public

• apply the strategic aims of key policies such as the Quality Code, the SfL and SEF to

the everyday practice of learning and teaching • maintain the physical, virtual and social learning environments, ensuring that these

are safe, accessible and reliable for every student, promoting dignity in learning and respect in their use

• shape our learning and teaching and assessment activities and associated resources

to provide every student with an equal and effective opportunity to achieve the intended learning outcomes? Allied to this, what deliberate steps do we take to assist students to engage with the opportunities that the University provides to shape their learning experience

• enable students to self-monitor and further their academic progress through

opportunities to reflect on feedback and take advantage of our comprehensive approach to academic advising

• ensure our learning and teaching practices are informed by reflection, deliberate and

engineered evaluation of the professional practice of teaching, and discipline-led programmes of educational scholarship

9 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/quality-code-B5.pdf

6

• collect and analyse appropriate information to ensure the continued effectiveness of our strategic and discipline-specific approach to the enhancement of learning opportunities and teaching practice

• involve students in quality enhancement and assurance processes, resulting in the improvement of their educational experience

• motivate students to engage in learning and to learn independently • take deliberate steps to engage all students, individually and collectively, as partners

in the assurance and enhancement of their educational experience? • create an integrated environment in which students, academic, professional, and

support staff can engage in professional discussions to bring about demonstrable and sustainable enhancement of the educational experience

• put arrangements in place to ensure that we promote the collective student voice at all

levels of the University • demonstrate the value we place on teaching that aims to be inspirational • support staff to gain professional recognition and enhance their own and the

University’s reputation through CPD • engineer the co-production and enhancement of creative and transformational

learning In addressing these statements the institution will make use of a wide variety of reference points including:

• Programme approval and review • GCU Strategy 2020 • GCU Academic Pillars for Learning, Teaching and Quality • GCU Values and Behaviours • SfL • SEF • Digital Strategy • GCU Common Good Attributes (from session16/17 replace GCU Graduate

Attributes) • GCU Values and Behaviours • Outputs of annual monitoring • Performance statistics • Subject-specific ELISR • Partnership working with GCUSA and network of student representatives • NSS and ISB feedback • Programme and module evaluation • Student Staff Consultative Groups and student engagement and feedback strategies • External Examiners’ Reports • Public engagement and involvement opportunities (including where appropriate

service user and career) • Outreach work • Employer feedback • Institutional conversations and professional dialogue • University and School-based Teaching and Learning Events

7

• The SCQF10, subject benchmark information, and the QAA Quality Code11 • Guidelines and reports from professional, statutory, and regulatory bodies • Experience gained through participation in the Enhancement Themes12 • Reports and publications from the QAA and Higher Education Academy13 and other

similar bodies • Publications and guidelines from learned societies and subject associations, both UK

and overseas • reports from employers: employment-sector specific and general, national and

international • Relevant government, SFC and [EC] publications • Guidelines, frameworks and legislation for promoting equal opportunities • Institutional policies and strategies • International reports and guidelines on good practice available from, e.g. the Higher

Education Academy. Every member of staff contributes to the creation of an excellent student experience for all students and all members of academic and professional staff ensure that the highest academic standards are adhered to.

The GCU Quality Enhancement and Assurance Strategy seeks to:

• safeguard the academic standards of the University • assure the quality of the learning opportunities that GCU offers to students • promote continuous and systematic improvement in GCU education provision

Regardless of the mode of delivery, GCU is a Programme based institution. All modules, regardless of whether they are accessed by a single or a number of academic units belong to a host programme. To ensure consistency, transparency and fairness, all module assessment results are considered at the host Assessment Board and the ratified results reported to the associated academic unit Assessment Boards. In a similar way any proposed module changes should be deliberated and discussed with the other academic units at the host PB14 and any module changes mediated via the host PB.

To ensure the University complies with and adherers to consumer law (CRA/CMA) there is a need to ensure that programme and module amendments are conducted in a timely manner, with due consideration to the impact on current and potential students. The Programme Specification on the website must be the actual and most up to date specification, and the content of the programme, the modules offered and the approach to learning and teaching must adhere to and comply, in practice, with all detail included in the Programme Specification. Altering a programme and not providing an amended and accurate Programme Specification means that the University is not compliant with University requirements or consumer law (CRA/CMA15).

The Programme Leader is and remains the cornerstone of Programme and Module Approval/Reapproval and Review and holds overall responsibility for leadership and

10 http://www.scqf.org.uk/ 11 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code 12 http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/ 13 http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ 14 The host Programme Board is the owner of all the modules that make up the programme regardless of the number of academic units that may access an individual module. 15https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/428549/HE_providers_-_advice_on_consumer_protection_law.pdf

8

academic integrity of the programme and all associated modules. The PB is the hub of programme activity and monitoring, and under the leadership of the Programme Leader is responsible for the APA (Section 5; Appendix 5(b). A summary of Annual Monitoring Roles and Responsibilities is available in Appendix 5(c) of the Programme Monitoring Manual.

The University recognises the valuable contribution that key programme and department staff make to the learning, teaching and quality process, including LTQ Leads, Programme leads, Module Leads and professional support staff. GCU is committed to the enhancement of the student experience at the University. This commitment is articulated externally in the UK QAA Quality Code for Higher Education16 and internally in Strategy 2020 and the SfL. Together the QAA UK Quality Code and the internal policies define and set out the direction of travel for GCU staff and students. The interface between them is crucial in ensuring that we provide an engaging and personalised student experience at GCU. The GCU ‘Commitment’ is far reaching and touches on every aspect of the student experience. The delivery of the Commitment; offering a truly outstanding student experience, can only be achieved through partnership. Partnership in GCU reflects the QAA UK Quality Code principles of openness, trust and honesty, agreed shared goals and values, and promotion of regular communication between the partners.

As part of the implementation of GCU Strategy 2020 and the Strategy for Learning, the University has developed a model which will support, recognise and embed the Common Good within the curriculum and the wider student experience as part of its core mission. The learning experience at GCU will prepare students to develop four ‘Common Good attributes’:

• Active and global citizenship, • Entrepreneurial mind-set • Responsible leadership • Confidence

GCU students will develop the Common Good attributes through their formal taught curriculum. The Common Good Curriculum will also provide opportunities for students to enhance and develop these attributes further through engaging in co- and extra-curricular activities aligned to the Common Good – for example, social innovation, community engagement and volunteering. These new attributes replace the previous GCU Graduate Attributes and will be reflected within Programme Approval/Reapproval.

Additionally the GCU Values and Behaviours of:

• Integrity • Creativity • Responsibility • Confidence

act as guiding principles for all aspects of Programme and University QEA activity and associated behaviours. All programmes at GCU maintain a clear focus on academic rigour and coherence bound by a set of key minimum threshold standards for curriculum design and academic quality assurance shown in the diagram below, illustrating the ‘GCU Academic Pillars’. 16 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/quality-code-part-b

9

Figure 1: GCU Academic Pillars

2.3 Components 2.3.1 The components of the University Quality Enhancement and Assurance Strategy are:

• GCU Strategy 2020 • GCU Academic Pillars for Learning, Teaching and Quality • Strategy for Learning • Student Experience Framework • UK Quality Code for Higher Education • Annual monitoring and approval activities, e.g. annual monitoring of programmes and

modules, and programme approval/review • External Examiners’ reports • Thematic Review • Digital Strategy • Performance Development Annual Review (PDAR)

10

• Enhancement-Led Internal Subject Review (ELISR) • SFC Outcome Agreement17 • QAA Enhancement Themes18 • Enhancement-Led Institutional Review (ELIR 3)

2.3.2 The following features are highlighted as part of the Enhancement Strategy:

• GCU conducts subject review on a five-year cycle by academic department or other appropriate grouping

• Scope of subject reviews encompasses all taught provision, research-student supervision and CPD activity, consultancy and knowledge transfer, and the connection between research and industry and curriculum development

• Achieving student engagement with enhancement and quality processes.

• Subject review process is aligned, wherever possible, with the programme approval/review process and with professional/ statutory/regulatory body reviews.

NB.

• The School facing Business Partners (Academic Quality) and a member of the Development Team from the Department of Academic Quality and Development will work with Programme Development Teams to provide bespoke input into the quality assurance and academic development of new programmes including advice and information on curriculum design and digital delivery.

• School based Senior Academic Staff act as Panel Chairs for Programme Approvals

and Reviews and other members of academic staff act as Panel Members.

17 http://www.gcu.ac.uk/policyandplanning/outcomeagreement/ 18 http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/

11

Appendix 2(a) Appendix 2(a) Common Good Curriculum Mapping Tool

Common Good Curriculum mapping tool What is the common good curriculum? As part of the implementation of Strategy 2020 and the Strategy for Learning, the University has developed a model which will support, recognise and embed the common good within the curriculum and the wider student experience as part of its core mission. It represents a distinctive approach to learning and teaching, which develops graduates capable of tackling real-world issues and translating problem-solving ideas into action. The goal is to ensure that our students develop the attributes needed to make a positive difference in the communities they serve, in addition to acquiring the knowledge, skills and values associated with their particular professional or disciplinary areas. What are we trying to achieve? The learning experience at GCU aims to prepare students to develop and implement new strategies and ideas that address societal challenges and needs, whether on a local, national or global scale. The Common Good Curriculum supports the development of four ‘Common Good attributes’: active and global citizenship, an entrepreneurial mind-set, responsible leadership and confidence (see mapping tool for more detailed definitions). These Common Good attributes are underpinned by the GCU core values of Integrity, Creativity, Responsibility, and Confidence It is important to recognise that a great deal of learning which is currently taking place in all Schools does not necessarily bear the label of these attributes but the approaches taken and the behaviours developed meet their criteria. This tool can be used to make them visible to students, staff and external audiences such as employers. How can you use the mapping tool? This tool aims to assist teams in developing or reviewing their programmes to highlight the ways in which the development of Common Good attributes are embedded within the programme, identify potential gaps in their current approach, build on existing good practice, identify areas for enhancement and associated action. This mapping should be undertaken by programme teams as part of programme development, approval and review processes and the outcomes of the process should be summarised, and made explicit to students, staff and external audiences through programme handbooks and other appropriate forms of communication. Given that the overarching aims and objectives of the common good curriculum need to be contextualised and interpreted differently in different subject disciplines, this tool provides an overall framework for debate. In addition to its use within the programme approval and review process , the mapping tool can be used as a starting point for a thought provoking exercise to raise awareness among colleagues and inspire them to review and refresh their teaching. It can be adapted to suit specific programme requirements and student cohorts. What is the aim of the curriculum mapping process? The curriculum mapping process aims to identify and critically evaluate how the students through learning on the programme are enabled to:

• develop the Common Good attributes • build on learning from previous experiences and enhance it progressively throughout their studies

Embedding the Common Good attributes involves three main areas: 1. Curriculum content and design : What we teach 2. Learning and teaching activities: How we teach 3. Assessment practices: How we measure

12

Common Good Attributes

Curriculum content and design (what we teach)

Learning and teaching activities (how we teach)

Authentic assessment practices (how we

measure)

Action points

Active and Global Citizenship: Acting honestly, fairly and ethically in: • Recognising and actively seeking to

address global social trends and challenges

• Viewing the world from the perspective of different cultures

• Participating in the community at a local, national and global level

• Taking account of and valuing diversity

• Exploring social problems and taking action to build a more just and sustainable society

• Addressing inequality and disadvantage

Please provide specific examples at each level of the programme

Please provide specific examples at each level of the programme

Please provide specific examples at each level of the programme

Entrepreneurial mind-set • Being curious and prepared to take

calculated risks • Identifying opportunities for

change • Creating solutions , and putting

these into practice, in response to identified real-world problems

• Thinking creatively, critically and divergently, drawing on a range of ideas and unexpected connections

• Dealing with complexity and uncertainty

• Actively seeking a diversity of

13

experiences and concepts from different cultural contexts

Responsible leadership: Exercising: • Empathy • Resilience • Professionalism • Inspiring and influencing the

thinking, attitudes and behaviour of others

• Working collaboratively towards a common vision and common goal

• Building communities through the development of trust

• Developing solutions that are ethical, visionary, realistic and sustainable

• Actively demonstrating a personal commitment to equality and diversity

Confidence : • Acting assertively and reasonably • Challenging yourself and

continually learning from experience

• Respecting your own and others’ rights and needs

• Making a positive difference • Being able to understand, respect

and engage with a diverse range of audiences and stakeholders

14

3. ENHANCEMENT-LED INTERNAL SUBJECT REVIEW

3.1 Introduction

The following sections describe a framework for the Enhancement-led Internal Subject Review (ELISR) process. The process will follow a five-year cycle and will normally take place at subject level19. As far as is possible, the programme approval/review process will be subsumed within ELISR. The Department of Academic Quality and Development will be responsible for the organisation and facilitation of the review process. A working definition of the broad meaning of enhancement in this context is given in Appendix 3(a). This chapter takes account of the SFC guidance to higher education on quality updated in 2012.

3.2 Characteristics20 Reviews will:

• encourage dialogue on areas which can be enhanced and in which quality might be improved, identify excellence in practice, and promote evaluation and critical reflection on practice

• take full account of student feedback and report on partnership working • articulate the student voice • take account of and report performance statistics supplied by Strategy and

Planning • provide a mechanism for professional dialogue around the practice of teaching

and learning • provide an objective review of provision, based on an understanding of national

and international good practice • take full account of benchmarks and the QAA Quality Code21 and, where

appropriate, the requirements of professional, statutory, and regulatory bodies • take full account of the Strategy 2020, SfL and the SEF • take full account of the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) • consider the effectiveness of annual monitoring arrangements and follow-up

actions • consider the impact of central and school-based student support activities in

promoting engagement and enhancing the student experience.

3.3 Scope

• the student experience and quality of student engagement • impact of provision at all levels • analysis and reporting on performance data such as admission, retention,

progression and achievement, completion statistics, RPL, articulation, NSS, ISB • QAA Enhancement Themes

19 The exceptions being the Graduate School and Academic Development, which will be reviewed as

single entities. 20 As required by Scottish Funding Council, revised in August 2012. 21 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code

15

• CPD activity resulting in enhanced professional reputation such as Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF) qualification of staff including HEA recognition at Associate Fellow, Fellow, Senior Fellow, and Principal Fellow levels

• research-student supervision • the extent to which research/scholarly/professional activity informs the

curriculum • collaborative provision with internal and external stakeholders including PSRBs

(professional, statutory, and regulatory bodies) • impact of central and school-based student support • impact of professional services • international students on and off campus • any other provision leading to the award of credit.

3.4 Process

• production of a timeline for the review; School and Academic Quality Team • preparation of a self-evaluation document by the area being reviewed • collation of documentation • review event • production of a review report • Submission of report to Academic Quality Team including response to

requirements and recommendations for approval via LTSC and one-year-on review of action plan to gauge progress

3.5 The Self-Evaluation Document

The self-evaluation document is a statement, which demonstrates that the subject discipline has undertaken robust self-evaluation in a constructively self-critical manner. The self-evaluation process should promote dialogue on areas in which quality might be improved, identify good practice for dissemination across the institution and should encourage and support critical reflection on practice. The following should be considered:

• the appropriateness of the academic standards set for its provision • the effectiveness of annual monitoring including feedback and performance data

reflecting on the outcomes of monitoring • data gathering, analysing and using student feedback, progression data,

performance indicators, and other data such as NSS results • the effectiveness of the curriculum in delivering the aims and the intended

outcomes of the provision • the effectiveness of assessment in measuring attainment of the intended

outcomes • the extent to which the intended standards and outcomes are achieved by

students • the level and quality of student engagement and partnership working at

programme, department, and school level • the quality of the learning opportunities provided for students • the success of the School’s quality enhancement and assurance strategy • the success of the School in implementing the SfL and the SEF • the extent to which research/scholarly/professional activity informs the

curriculum • the effectiveness of research-student supervision

16

• the international student experience both on and off campus • the effectiveness of central22 and school-based support in enhancing the

student experience • the effectiveness of professional development and CPD strategies.

Self-evaluation should discuss both the strengths of the provision and areas where enhancement and improvement is necessary, as perceived by the staff and students of the School. The document is an opportunity for the School, through the process of evaluation, to demonstrate how the strengths of the provision identified in previous subject reviews or accreditation events have been built upon, and how any areas for enhancement and improvement identified have been addressed. Where areas for enhancement remain, plans for addressing these via the School’s enhancement plan should be summarised. Reference points for the evaluation will include benchmark statements, the QAA Quality Code23, the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework24, and the requirements of professional, statutory bodies and regulatory bodies. Further guidelines on the content of the self-evaluation documentation are given in Appendix 3(b). The student representatives on the School Boards, Programme Boards and Student Staff Consultative Groups, reflecting the SFC (2012) guidelines, should be fully engaged in the review process and given adequate opportunity to comment on the final draft of the document before it is submitted to the Department of Academic Quality and Development. To ensure that the student voice is represented, their views should be woven into the narrative where appropriate. The QEA Strategy supports the updated SFC guidance to widen the scope and understanding of student engagement in quality, signalling a shift from encouragement to expectation.

3.6 The Review Event

The time taken for the review event will be determined by the extent of the provision being reviewed but will normally last at least two days and no longer than five. An appropriate senior academic from GCU will chair the review.

Review Panels:

• must include cross-Department/School representation • must normally include appropriate academic and professional external peers

and other stakeholders (as appropriate) • must include student representation • must include a member from Student Support Services • may include other groups as appropriate to the subject area.

Care must be taken to ensure that a sufficient number of externals with the appropriate breadth of experience are appointed to the Panel to adequately cover the subject provision in the timeframe available.

The criteria for the selection of reviewers are given in Appendix 3(b).

22 This includes the Registry, Student Support Services, the Library, Information Support Services,

Marketing and Communications, Academic Quality and Development, Admissions and Enquiry Service, Finance Office, and the Graduate School.

23 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code 24 http://scqf.org.uk/the-framework /

17

3.7 Before the Review Event

The ELISR should be confirmed with the Academic Quality Team at the academic session prior to the event. Six weeks before the event a draft document is submitted to the Academic Quality Team and four weeks before the document and a draft timetable is issued to the Panel. Two weeks before the event the final timetable is circulated to the Panel. The Chair of the Panel, in conjunction with the Department of Academic Quality and Development will confirm the final timetable for the process at least three weeks prior to the review. The Department Lead for Learning, Teaching and Quality will be the point of contact within the School throughout the preparation for the Review. The ADLTQ will agree at the outset with the Academic Quality Team the timeline for the ELISR process. Panel members must submit any comments they may have, including requests to see any additional documentation during the event, to the Department of Academic Quality and Development at least two weeks prior to the review. The documentation (from the last three academic sessions) provided for the event will include:

• External Examiners’ reports • Student Staff Consultative Group minutes • annual programme analyses • annual report on monitoring quality enhancement and assurance of

programmes • quality enhancement section of School Plans • performance data supplied by Strategy and Planning • programme specifications • Programme Handbooks.

3.8 Event Structure

The length of the event will be determined by the extent of the provision being reviewed and the extent of any approval and review activity subsumed within the process. The structure of each event is determined after consultation between the Department of Academic Quality and Development, the Chair and the School. The review event will seek to assess the claims made in the self-evaluation document. The principle means of assessment testing shall be in meetings with staff, students, and recent graduates and in the review of any additional documentation requested. Where programme approval/review is subsumed within the ELISR process, the documentation specified in Appendix 4(c) and/or Appendix 6(a) will require to be submitted to the Department of Academic Quality and Enhancement at the same time as the self-evaluation document. The role of the Programme Approval/Review Panel will be to evaluate the programme provision and communicate their conclusions to the main ELISR Panel to inform their overall evaluation of the subject provision being presented for review. If the two processes are scheduled to run concurrently the School and associated Panels will follow the timeline detailed above.

18

In the event that the ELISR process contains no programme approval or review activity, the process will concentrate solely on the evaluation of the subject provision.

3.9 The Review Report

The draft report on the ELISR will be circulated to panel members for comment before being passed to the School (normally within twenty working days) for comment on factual accuracy. The School will be given five working days to comment, at which point the status of the report is confirmed (in providing comment on factual accuracy, it is recommended that consultation should take place with all relevant stakeholders involved in the subject provision). The review report will provide a short summary of the proceedings confirming the appropriateness of the School self-evaluation. The report will also identify areas of good practice and areas which require enhancement. In the event that the area being reviewed disputes any of the contents of the report, the dispute will be referred in the first instance to the Director of the Department of Academic Quality and Development If a resolution is not possible, the matter will be referred to the DVC Academic and APPC.

3.10 Follow-up Action

Four weeks after confirmation of the event report the School will be required to produce a response in the form of an enhancement plan which will be initially considered and approved by the Chair of the Panel and may be circulated to the ELISR Panel if deemed appropriate. Any enhancement plans required by support departments will be included as an Appendix. Any actions requiring University level consideration will be considered by the Academic Policy Committee (APPC). The report and associated enhancement plan will then be considered and approved by the Learning and Teaching Subcommittee (LTSC) on behalf of the APPC and Senate. In the event of any serious issues arising from the report, APPC will draw these issues to the attention of Senate. The conclusions of the report and the action plan must be made available to the students within the subject provision reviewed via GCU Learn. One year on from the review, the Chair of the Panel, a representative from the Department of Academic Quality and Development, the Head of Department, and the Dean of School will review progress on the approved action plan. (LTSC will be informed at that stage if there are any problems with action plan implementation). Further follow-up will take place after twelve months and thereafter (two years and onwards) the progress of the action plan will be monitored through the annual report on monitoring of the Quality Enhancement and Assurance of programmes and school planning process.

19

Appendix 3(a) Appendix 3(a) Self Evaluation

SELF-EVALUATION 1. Introduction

Self-evaluation should discuss both the strengths of the provision and areas where enhancement is necessary, as perceived by the School. The self-evaluation document is an opportunity for the School to demonstrate how the strengths of the provision identified in previous subject reviews or accreditation events have been built upon and how any areas for improvement identified have been addressed. Where areas for improvement remain, plans for addressing these via the annual report on monitoring, Quality Enhancement and Assurance of programmes should be summarised. Self-evaluation documents should commence with a general introduction on the range of the provision being reviewed. However, a flexible approach should be taken when preparing and presenting self-evaluation documents to accommodate the range and potential complexity of subject provision. For example, some areas may well contain very large numbers of programmes, some programmes may comprise complex modular schemes and some subjects may be aggregated for review purposes. Where large numbers of programmes are included under a subject heading, or where a subject category contains more than one discrete discipline, it may be sensible to evaluate discrete programmes or groups of related programmes separately. Where this is done, the broad structure indicated below should still be used, but the self-evaluation should be presented as a coherent package. Where subject provision is offered within a wider interdisciplinary or interprofessional framework, general information about the framework and the main pathways within any modular structure should be included in an annex to the self-evaluation. A School may choose to nominate a group of subjects to be reviewed together if they are linked through options or pathways available within a modular structure. In this case, an introductory overview of the approach to the provision as a whole may be appropriate. The content of the self-evaluation document is described in detail below.

2. Overall Aims of the Subject Provision25

There must be a clear statement of the overall aims of the subject provision which will reflect the distinctive mission and overarching philosophy of the School and align with Strategy 2020. This will be used by reviewers to assess whether provision achieves its broad purposes. The statement of aims will be reproduced at the start of the subject review report.

25 Annexes should contain factual information about the subject provision, including a Programme

Specification for each programme in the subject(s) under review, and any information about relevant modular structures or partnership arrangements.

20

3. Evaluation of the Subject Provision26 3.1 Learning Outcomes

The first part of the evaluation should address the appropriateness of the intended learning outcomes in relation to the overall aims of the provision, relevant subject benchmark statements, and other external reference points. The evaluation should discuss the effectiveness of measures to ensure that staff and students have a clear understanding of the aims and intended outcomes of programmes. Assessment of students should be valid and reliable, and the award of qualifications and credit are based on the achievement of the intended learning outcomes27.

3.2 Curricula and Assessment

The evaluation, referenced to the national level28 should review the effectiveness of the content and design of the curricula in enabling the intended outcomes of programmes to be achieved. Specific issues include:

• academic and intellectual progression within the curriculum • appropriateness of content in relation to the level of the award • inclusion of recent developments in the subject • reflection of best practice in pedagogy • the creativity of assessment.

The evaluation should review the effectiveness of student assessment in measuring achievement of the intended outcomes of programmes, in particular:

• enabling students to demonstrate achievement • discriminating between different categories of performance • promoting student learning (especially through formative assessment).

3.3 Quality of Learning Opportunities

The evaluation should review the effectiveness of teaching and learning, in relation to programme aims and curriculum content, and referenced to the appropriate Quality Code Chapter, the SfL, and the SEF. Examples are provided below:

• range and appropriateness of learning and teaching methods employed,

referenced to the Quality Code (B3)29, GCU Strategy 2020, SfL, SEF • level and nature of assessment, referenced to the Quality Code (B6)30 • level and quality of student engagement, referenced to the Quality Code (B5)31,

SfL, SEF • partnership working, referenced to the Quality Code (B5) 29 • quality and provision of both physical and digital approaches, referenced to the

Quality Code (B3)27 26 The evaluation should indicate where the supporting evidence may be found.

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/quality-code-B1.pdf 27 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality 28 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality 29 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/quality-code-B3.pdf 30 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/quality-code-B6.pdf 31 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/quality-code-B5.pdf

21

• strategies for staff development to enhance teaching performance • student support, referenced to the Quality Code (B4)32, SfL, SEF • identification of good practice • areas for enhancement, referenced to the Quality Code (B5), SfL, SEF • student workload, referenced to the Quality Code (B6).

The evaluation should review student progression. When considering the effectiveness of strategies of academic support, and the extent to which they take account of the ability profile of the student intake in relation to the aims of the programmes, the following issues should be discussed:

• recruitment and induction of students • identification of, and action on, any special learning needs • feedback to students on their progress • overall academic guidance and supervision • support for learning

The evaluation should review the adequacy of learning resources and the effectiveness of their utilisation. In particular, the evaluation should demonstrate a strategic approach to linking resources to intended programme outcomes. Reviewers will be interested not only in physical resources, but also in digital provision and the effective use of human resources through such things as induction, mentoring, and CPD for staff.

3.4 Maintenance and Enhancement of Standards and Quality

There should be an evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures taken to maintain and enhance the quality and standards of provision. Reviewers will be particularly interested in the effectiveness of evaluation and the use of quantitative data and qualitative feedback in a strategy of enhancement and continuous improvement. The data will be the set used for programme monitoring and should include analysis of performance statistics such as admission, retention, completion, employability, NSS, and ISB, as well as any other relevant measure.

3.5 Quality Enhancement Planning

This section will examine the success of quality enhancement planning within the School, with particular reference to the enhancement plans created as part of the annual monitoring process and School enhancement planning.

3.6 GCU Strategy 2020, Digital Strategy, Strategy for Learning, Common Good

Attributes and GCU Values and Behaviours

This section will examine the success of the School in implementing the University Strategy 2020, SFL priorities, Digital Strategy, Common Good Attributes and embedding the GCU Values and Behaviours.

3.7 Research, Scholarly and Professional Activities

This section will evaluate the extent to which research, scholarly and professional activities underpin the curriculum.

32 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/quality-code-B4.pdf

22

3.8 Research Student Supervision

This section will evaluate the success of research student supervision within the School, with reference to University policy, completion rates, and time taken to complete.

3.9 Student Engagement and the Student Experience in the School

This section will evaluate the level and quality of student engagement in relation to the overall student experience in the School. Feedback from students is an integral part of the process of engagement with students and the evaluation should review the effectiveness of feedback mechanisms, in particular:

• Student engagement strategies • Informal and organised dialogue between lecturers and students • partnership working • Student and staff interaction at lectures, tutorials, seminars, or practical classes • Module Feedback • Student Staff Consultative Groups (SSCG) • Student representation on Programme and School Boards • Student representation on University-level committees • Feedback on modules via the University’s VLE • Student involvement in the review.

This section should also examine the overall student experience in the School, including:

• Induction and transition, including articulation and RPL • The fulfilment for the common good attributes (appendix 2(a)) • Approaches to employability and career development • Student engagement • Engagement in School-wide activities • Extent to which students identify with and engage with the School processes • NSS and ISB feedback.

3.10 International Student Experience (on and off campus and including transnational

education)

This section will evaluate the student experience specifically for international and transnational students, and will include:

• Support for students, including any extended induction support for international

students, and other social activities organised by the School • Support for transnational students and equivalence of the student experience • Pre-sessional activities and participation in formal study programmes, e.g.

English language preparation • Internationalisation of curriculum33 and use of the SfL/SEF to meet the needs of

international and transnational students • Feedback from ISB to underpin enhancement and strategies for engagement • Flexibility in transnational delivery modes

33 See Appendix 4(h).

23

• adoption of inclusive pedagogies which fully embrace strengths of international and transnational student cohorts

• Specific staff development activities, e.g. focussing on culture awareness and sensitivity

• Liaison with the International Office and Student Experience Directorate N.B. Chapter 10 provides further information on this area of working. 3.11 Effectiveness of central and School-based support in enhancing the student

experience

This section should describe the provision of support within the School from all sources, analyse the effectiveness of the provision and suggest where improvements should be made. Professional and student support services should be represented on the Panel but consideration should also be given to the impact of these services on the department or discipline.

24

Appendix 3(b) Appendix 3(b) Appointment of Panel Members

GUIDELINES FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF PANEL MEMBERS FOR ENHANCEMENT-LED INTERNAL SUBJECT REVIEW, PROGRAMME APPROVAL OR PROGRAMME REVIEW EVENTS 1. Introduction

In determining an appropriately-balanced membership, account will be taken of the nature and aims of the review, the subject content, the level, the relevant experience of internal members and any particular factors which might apply to an individual programme proposal.

2. The Chair The Chair of an event will normally be a Dean, or an academic member of a School Management Group. Where appropriate, for example in joint events with another organisation, or with a professional, statutory or regulatory body, or where a specific area of expertise may be of value, the Chair may in exceptional circumstances be assumed by an external member or by another member of staff.

3. External Panel Members External members will be subject experts. One external member will normally have recent experience of the needs of industry, commerce, public service, or the professions in relation to the subject area.

In order to ensure impartiality, no member may have a close association with the subject area. Examples of those with a close association are given below:

• members of staff of affiliated or associate colleges of GCU or who are currently

teaching elsewhere on a programme leading to a GCU award • former members of staff who, within the last five years, have been employed

within GCU or one of its associated or affiliate colleges, or who have taught on a programme elsewhere leading to a GCU award

• External Examiners on the programme (or subject area) under consideration or review or on another programme in the same cognate area, or who have served in this capacity within the last five years (including newly-nominated External Examiners who have been nominated as Examiners but have not yet carried out any assessment)

• lay members of the University Court, or anyone who has been a lay Court member in the last three years

• close relatives or friends of staff employed by GCU within the subject area or programme under consideration

Individuals with a close connection to any area of the University must declare this in advance. A decision will be made by the Department of Academic Quality and Development on the appropriateness or otherwise of the individual’s involvement. There should be no more than one external member of staff from any one institution on a panel.

25

The same external member should not be used so frequently that his/her familiarity with the University might prejudice objective judgement.

The appointment regulations of professional, statutory, and regulatory bodies must also be taken into account in the case of joint approval/review events.

4. Internal Panel Members

Internal panel members will be appointed on the basis of their knowledge and expertise of academic quality enhancement and assurance procedures or of other specific areas of the University’s work, such as teaching and learning, digital learning, work-based learning, assessment regulations, or flexible entry (Recognition of Prior Learning). Any member of academic staff (full-time, part-time, permanent, or temporary) may act as an internal panel member provided he or she is not involved in the delivery, design, or management of any part of the provision being considered. Panel members may be nominated from another School or a separate Department within the School. NB. Interschool representation is acceptable provided the panel member is from another cognate area. This means that the Panel can access and be guided by a member of academic staff who has specialist school based knowledge. This can be useful when dealing with questions around professionally regulated Programmes and School based issues that require further explanation or clarification.

5. Student34 The student member of the Panel will be an individual who has been involved in quality processes within the sector. The ‘student’ role may be undertaken by an individual who has graduated within the last two years. Training and support to student reviewers will be provided by the GCU Students’ Association and SPARQS.

6. Student Support Services35

The role of the representative from Student Support Services will be, in particular, to comment on the adequacy and use of learning and support resources within the subject area being reviewed.

34 For ELISR panels only. 35 For ELISR panels only.

26

4. PROGRAMME APPROVAL36

When planning programme approval it is important to take account of the following general guidance, referenced in the UK Quality Code (B1):

• Student demand • employer requirements • external benchmarks, including subject benchmarks and where appropriate the

requirement of PSRBs (professional, statutory, and regulatory bodies) • compatibility with University, School and Department aims, mission and existing

provision including globalisation • strategic academic and resource planning (e.g. GCU portfolio refresh or review)

All Programme Approval events will normally be held by the end of November of the academic year preceding commencement of the programme. N.B. This indicative timeline refers to programmes commencing at the beginning of the academic year. For other programmes, e.g commencing in January, the Department of Academic Quality and Development will provide an appropriate timeline.37

4.1 Procedure for the Development of New-Named Programmes38

4.1.1 Initial Approval39

Stage 1: Concept identification

This process should take place as part of the planning process of Schools and include evidence of market demand research and School Board approval.

Concept papers should be brief and should address:

• fit with the University mission • Clear demand/Market for the programme (including details of

consultation with Marketing and, if appropriate, the International Office). • Fit with the University and School portfolio. • Will the programme compete internally with other programmes at

GCU? • Does the programme compete directly with known/strong/local

competitors? • If new investment is required, where will the resource come from? • Is there evidence the programme has been successful in a non-

competitive peer university?

36 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/quality-code-b1.pdf 37 Please contact the appropriate Business Partner (Academic Quality) 38 Approval may take place as a stand-alone process or be subsumed within Enhancement Led

Internal Subject Review. 39 The process and timeline for initial development of new programmes is outlined diagrammatically in

Appendix 4(b).

27

• Sustainability

(Template for concept paper in Appendix 4(a)(i)).

The concept paper should be considered and approved by the School Board no later than January in the calendar year preceding delivery of the programme. Following approval by School Board the concept paper should be forwarded to the Academic Policy Committee for consideration and approval.

Stage 2: Approval of the concept by Academic Policy Committee

The concept paper should be considered and approved no later than the meeting of APPC held in February of the calendar year preceding the commencement of the programme. Following approval of the concept, detailed development of the proposed programme can begin in the School. A Programme Development Team will be established (see 4.1.3 below). At this stage, Teams should also complete the ‘Intent to Create a New Programme’ process within ISIS Academic Database System (ADS) entering the agreed mandatory data for new programme creation and marking ‘subject to approval’.

Stage 3: Development of Academic and Business Case

This stage involves the detailed development of the programme by the Programme Development Team and completion of the Academic and Business Case (see template in Appendix 4(a)(ii)). The Concept paper must have been approved prior to commencing this stage. The proforma for documenting an Academic Case for a new programme should include:

• Student demand • the final programme title • background and rationale for programme development • an outline of the programme content • outline statement of demand • summary of consultation with, e.g. academic support departments,

agents (if appropriate), GCU alumni, careers staff in Schools or FE, potential applicants and likely employers

• summary of consultation with Academic Development/Learning Resources/Student Support Services.

• detailed costs (forming the Business Case and, once agreed, confirmation of approval by the Finance Office)

Stage 4: Approval of the Academic Case

The Academic Case should be approved by the School Board no later than April of the calendar year preceding the commencement of the programme and forwarded to the Department of Academic Quality & Development for initial scrutiny prior to submission to the Academic Policy Committee. The Academic Case should be considered by the Academic Policy Committee no later than May of the year preceding.

28

Stage 5: Programme Approval

A programme approval event must be held no later than end November for launch in the following academic session.

4.1.2 Timeline for Programme Approval (and Review)

Appendix 4(b) outlines the normal approval process timeline. A flowchart of the programme approval process is presented in Appendix 4(b). In order to manage and plan approval (and review) activity and in consultation with the ADLTQ, the Department of Academic Quality & Development will construct a list of programme development proposals following Stage 2 of the initial approval process, i.e. after approval of the concept by the Academic Policy Committee. For each individual programme, Schools will be provided with a timeline for the subsequent stages of the approval process.

4.1.3 Programme Development Team

Programme Development Teams should be established. Normally consisting of members of academic staff and student representation, a member of staff representing the contributory disciplines of the proposed programme, a representative from Student Support Services, Academic Quality, Academic Development plus such other persons as the School(s) may think appropriate. In the case of a proposed programme where the academic input is derived from different Schools, one School (normally referred to as the ‘host School’) shall assume administrative responsibility for the programme development and the programme shall reside in that School. Students recruited to the programme will be the responsibility of the host School. The Dean of the host School, in consultation with the Dean(s) of Schools contributing to the programme will appoint the Chair and members of the Board. The School’s ADLTQ is responsible for providing guidance on learning, teaching, and assessment strategies for programme and module development.

The Programme Development Team is responsible for developing the programme, producing appropriate documentation (including initially the Academic and Business Case) and for responding to the outcome of the approval event. Guidelines on the content of the documentation are given in Appendix 4(c). Further advice on the preparation of the submission document, is available from the Department of Academic Quality & Development. N.B. In consultation with the University’s PBS Compliance Officer, the PDT must ensure and confirm, by way of a written statement, the programme’s compliance with current UKVI regulations for Tier 4 students in force at the time of approval, including any restrictions that Tier 4 students studying on the programme will face.

29

4.1.4 Exceptions to Assessment Regulations and Qualifications Framework

Any proposed exceptions to the University Assessment Regulations and/or Qualifications Framework for new programme proposals must be submitted to the Department of Academic Quality and Development for consideration and approval by the Exceptions Sub-Committee (held annually) prior to inclusion in the submission document. Programme documentation must contain a statement confirming that approval has been obtained

4.1.5 Modules

All of the modules which make up a new programme proposal leading to a GCU award must be credit rated, following the Glasgow Caledonian University Qualifications Framework. Programme Development Boards should refer to Section 7 of the QEAH in the development of modules for approval via the programme approval process. Where previously-approved modules are included in a proposed new programme, panel members will be asked to note that they may comment on the approved modules only in relation to their place within the programme being presented for approval. Any suggested changes to such modules need to take full account of possible implications for all students (including those accessing the modules from other programmes) and should, therefore, be presented as recommendations and not requirements. Alternatively the Panel can ask that a new programme specific module be developed if this is more appropriate. Where the proposed range of delivery modes of the new programme include flexible and distributed learning, appropriate materials must be provided for the Approval Panel sufficient to allow a judgement to be made on the appropriateness of the arrangements to deliver the learning outcomes of the programme via this mode and physical and staff resources in place to support the student experience (including staff development needs)

4.1.6 Initial Scrutiny of Programme Approval Submission Documentation

The responsibility for ensuring that a new programme approval submission document is at an appropriate level of preparedness for consideration by a Programme Approval Panel lies with the School, in consultation with the Department of Academic Quality and Development. Once completed and signed off by the ADLTQ or nominated Departmental Learning and Teaching Lead, a set of draft documentation must be submitted to the Department of Academic Quality and Development no later than six weeks prior to the approval event date. Once it has been confirmed that the documentation meets University requirements, the School is responsible for providing, no later than four weeks prior to the event, the appropriate number of sets to the Department of Academic Quality & Development, for circulation to panel members. The Department of Academic Quality & Development will ensure that the documentation and briefing guidelines for approval events are distributed to approval panels at least three weeks prior to approval events.

30

4.1.7 Honours and Masters Level Teaching

All Module Leaders at honours and masters levels and Programme Leaders must be clearly research-active and/or be engaged in advanced scholarship and/or advanced practice and able to deliver authoritative subject leadership. It is a requirement that members of module teams, collectively, must have a research/advanced scholarship/advanced practice profile that is demonstrably linked to module content and level. It is expected that normally staff teaching on postgraduate programmes hold a postgraduate qualification (or professional body equivalent) that is at least the same level as the degree on which they are teaching.

4.1.8 Programme Approval Panels

The Department of Academic Quality & Development will be responsible for the establishment of Programme Approval Panels to scrutinise new programme proposals and make recommendations as to their approval. Guidelines for panel membership are set out in Appendix 3(b) of this Handbook. In summary, in determining an appropriately-balanced panel membership:

• account will be taken of the nature and aims of the programme, the

subject content, the relevant experience of internal members, and any particular factors or focus which might apply to any individual new programme proposal

• Programme Approval Panels will always include an appropriate number of external members (normally a minimum of two) who are subject experts, or whose experience and expertise will be of value to the Programme Development Team. Normally, one of the external members will have recent experience of the needs of the industry, commerce, public service, or professions in relation to the proposed programme

In order to ensure impartiality, no member, either internal or external, may have a close association with the proposed programme, for example as programme contributor or in a management role.

4.1.9 Professional, Statutory, and Regulatory Bodies

In some cases, separate accreditation visits may be necessary, but wherever possible the involvement of representatives of the relevant professional, statutory, and regulatory body (PSRB) as members of Programme Approval Panels will be sought. The aim will be to allow the quality enhancement and assurance requirements of the University and PSRB to be satisfied by a single event. In cases where separate accreditation visits take place, the report from the PSRB must be forwarded to the Department of Academic Quality & Development for consideration by the Learning and Teaching Subcommittee.

31

4.1.10 Responsibilities and Reporting of Programme Approval Panels

All recommendations concerning programme approval are subject to formal approval by the Learning and Teaching Subcommittee of APPC on behalf of Senate. Programme approval reports will normally take the form of a list of conclusions from the event, which include commendations, good practice, requirements and/or recommendations. Requirements are issues, which must be addressed by the Programme Development Team before the programme can be approved. Recommendations are issues which must be considered by the Programme Development Team before the programme can be approved. In some cases, for example where professional, statutory, and regulatory bodies are involved, a full report of the event may be required. Reports will be circulated to both internal and external members of the Panel for confirmation. The approval report will also contain a list of modules approved at the event/approved subject to the fulfilment of any requirements (including existing modules which have been significantly altered: see Section 7). Programme Development Teams will be responsible for submitting, within twenty working days, a formal response to the Programme Approval/Review Panel report to the Department of Academic Quality & Development who will progress the report and response in accordance with the University’s programme approval process. The response should clearly indicate to the Panel how the requirements have been met and, where appropriate, changes have been made to the programme documentation. An electronic copy of the updated programme documentation (Definitive Programme Document) should be submitted to the Department of Academic Quality and Development with the response. For any recommendations that have not been accepted, the response should indicate the reasons and what alternative action, if any, to be taken. Programme Approval Panels are not permitted to set resource-related requirements or recommendations as this is not within the control of the Programme Development Team. The Programme Approval Panel should normally accept that resource requirements have been addressed as part of the approval process for the Academic and Business Case. However, discussion should take place at the event with the Senior Management Group, regarding resources, to confirm that any resource requirements identified in the Academic and Business Case are, or will be, in place. A flowchart describing the process is shown in Appendix 4(b).

4.2 Appeals by Programme Development Teams

Where a Programme Development Team wishes to contest the conclusions of a Programme Approval/Review Panel and/or the Learning and Teaching Subcommittee it shall do so in the first instance by bringing the reasons for contesting the recommendation to the attention of the Department of Academic Quality & Development who will seek to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of all parties. Where the disagreement cannot be resolved by the Department to the satisfaction of all parties, the matter should be referred to the DVC Academic who will determine whether a

32

prima facie case for an appeal exists, whereupon an ad hoc group, with such delegated powers as they shall deem appropriate, shall be established to consider the appeal and make appropriate recommendations to Senate. The membership of the group appointed shall not include those associated in any way with the original decision. The decision of Senate as a result of this procedure shall be final.

4.3 Programme Handbooks

All approved programmes must prepare Programme Handbooks for circulation to students. The content of the handbook is shown in Appendix 4(d).

33

Appendix 4(a)(i) Appendix 4(a)(i) Template for Concept Paper TEMPLATE FOR CONCEPT PAPER When completing a concept paper for development of a new programme, address the following in a concise narrative for consideration by the School Board and the University’s Academic Policy Committee:

• Clear demand/Market for the programme (including details of consultation with Marketing and Communications and, if appropriate, the International Office).

• Fit with the University and School portfolio. • Will the programme compete internally with other programmes at GCU? • Does the programme compete directly with known/strong/local competitors? • If new investment is required, where will the resource come from? • Is there evidence the programme has been successful in a non-competitive peer

university?

• Sustainability

• School and University has necessary expertise and underpinning to deliver successfully

N.B. Not more than two sides

[insert School]

[insert proposed programme title] Office Use Programme Lead Designate Approved by School Board

34

Appendix 4(a)(ii) Appendix 4(a)(ii) Academic Case

ACADEMIC CASE 1. PROGRAMME DETAILS Programme Title

Final/Exit Awards

Host School

Date Concept approved by APPC

Modes of Delivery [Please tick ]

Full-time

Part-time

Distance Learning

Work-based Learning

Other (please specify)

Location of Delivery

Eligible for SFC Funding Yes No Please insert appropriate SFC Price Group 1-6

Proposed academic session for initial programme delivery

35

2. MEMBERSHIP OF PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT TEAM40 Programme Leader Designate/Chair of Programme Development Team

[insert name and designation] [insert School]

Members of Programme Development Team [insert names and designation]

[insert School]

3. THE NEW PROGRAMME 3.1 Background and Rationale

[Refer to guidance notes]

3.2 Consultation Undertaken [Refer to guidance notes]

3.3 Programme Content (in outline) [Refer to guidance notes]

3.4 Minimum viable numbers

4. THE BUSINESS CASE41

[Note to authors: include the following text and insert date] The Academic Programme Costing Model for the proposed new programme was approved by the Chief Financial Officer (or nominee) on >insert date<. The Academic Programme Costing Model is appended to the Academic Case.

40 Please refer to Section 4.1.3 of the Quality Enhancement and Assurance Handbook. 41 Information on the costing of academic programmes and costing model is available from the

Finance Office. http://www.gcu.ac.uk/financeoffice/financeteams/managementaccounting/businesspartnersupport/costingofacademiccourses

36

5. SCHOOL-LEVEL APPROVAL

Note: Signatures of the Dean of the host School and Dean(s) of any other Schools contributing to the programme are required to confirm School agreement to the proposal.

School

Dean of School Date

Signature

Print name

Signature

Print name

Signature

Print name

6. APPROVAL OF EXTERNAL INSTITUTION/ORGANISATION (if appropriate)

If a partner institution(s) or organisation(s) will contribute to the programme this table should be signed by the relevant authorities representing the institution(s) or organisation(s).

Institution/Organisation Authorised Signatory Date [insert name, address, telephone number]

Signature

Print name & Designation

[insert name, address, telephone number]

Signature

Print name & Designation

ANNEX: The Business Case As noted above (see 4) the Academic Programme Costing Model has been approved and forms the Business Case for the new programme. Reminder

1. The Academic Case is prepared following approval of the Concept paper by Academic Policy Committee. Please refer to the guidance notes for preparing the Academic Case for development of a new programme.

2. Ensure the Chief Financial Officer has approved the Business Case (programme costing model) before appending it to the Academic Case.

37

Guidance for Completion of Academic Case 1. Programme Details

Programme Title As it will appear in the prospectus and other promotional material. It

must reflect the named award to which students will be recruited.

Final/Exit Awards

Please refer to the University’s Qualifications Framework for award titles approved by Senate.

Host School School administratively responsible for the proposed programme.

Concept approval

Date concept initially approved by Academic Policy Committee.

Mode(s) of Delivery

Please tick [] or give details as appropriate.

SFC Funding and proposed Subject Group

Schools must consult with the University’s Head of Strategy and Planning prior to final School approval of Academic Case and onward submission to APPC to confirm eligibility of programme for SFC funding and accuracy of proposed price group (see also www.sfc.ac.uk).

2. Membership of Programme Development Team

Please refer to Section 4.1.3 of the Quality Enhancement and Assurance Handbook. 3. The Programme

Background and Rationale

Provide details, including:

• rationale for programme development • aligns with the SfL • how the development aligns with the School’s portfolio, mission,

and objectives • examples of research/scholarly activity that underpins the

programme in School or cross University • proposed (if any) relationship with other University programmes

in terms of module development and sharing • confirmation that agreement has been reached regarding the

sourcing of subject-specific modules from other programmes, or schools (service teaching)

Consultation undertaken

Provide details, including:

• demand for proposed new programme including evidence of student and employer demand and, where relevant, the views of professional, statutory, and regulatory bodies

• evidence of consultation with careers staff in secondary schools and college sector and, if appropriate, University alumni, career staff in GCU

• if programme is aimed at an international market, evidence that the University’s International Office has been consulted (and, if appropriate, a selection of agents as appropriate).

• The Library, regarding resources available or recommended

38

Syllabus (in outline)

Provide an outline of the proposed curriculum. If an external organisation will be involved, briefly describe the nature and extent of the partnership and commitment. If another School’s Programme is providing ‘service teaching’ a brief outline confirming agreement

4. Business Case

This section confirms approval of the Business Case for the new programme. The Academic Programme Costing Model must be appended to the Academic Case. 5. – 7. Approvals and Authorisation

School Approval Signatures must be obtained from the Deans of all Schools contributing

to the teaching of the programme.

External Approval

If applicable, signatures of appropriate authorised individuals within any external institutions/organisations also contributing to the programme must be obtained.

N.B. Approval by Academic Policy Committee Once School-level approval of the Academic Case (with Business Case appended) has been completed, the School will forward the Academic Case to the Department of Academic Quality and Development for approval by the Academic Policy Committee (APPC). Following approval by APPC, the under-noted academic and support departments will be advised (by the Department of Academic Quality and Development):

• School • The Library • The Registry • Student Support Services • Admissions and Enquiry Service • International Partnerships Office • Finance Office • Marketing and Communications • Strategy and Planning

39

Appendix 4(b) Appendix 4(b) Timeline: Programme Approval Process

PROCESS FOR INITIAL DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PROGRAMMES

Stage 1

Concept paper considered/approved by School Board

Concept paper considered/approved by APC

PDT established, Academic and Business Case developed (confirmation of approval of

Business Case to be included in Academic Case submitted to School

Board)

Academic Case approved by School Board and authorised by

Dean of School

School Board submits Academic

Case to AQD

Academic Case approved by APC

School and AQD agree a timetable for approval

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

Not approved

Not approved

Approved

APC informs AQD of decision, AQD

returns the Academic Case to

the proposing School

Concept identified by School for new programme development and paper

prepared

Not approved

School reconsider/adapt/stop

Not approved

School re-work or stop development

School re-work or stop development

40

TIMELINE: PROGRAMME APPROVAL PROCESS

< = no later than N.B. An 18-month Programme Approval timeline (Senate 2009) from School Board consideration to Programme Delivery. It should be noted that this can only be compressed where a timely response to commercial and fully funded commissioned programmes is required. The need for adequate time for marketing and publicity coupled with CMA requirements reinforces the need for an 18-month timeline. All Programme Approval events will normally be held by the end of November of the academic year preceding commencement of the programme. NB: This indicative timeline refers to programmes commencing at the beginning of the academic year. For other programmes, e.g commencing in January, the Department of Academic Quality and Development will provide an appropriate timeline.42

42 Please contact the appropriate Business Partner (Academic Quality)

Concept identified and considered/approved by School Board

Concept considered/approved by APPC

Establishment of PDT and development of Academic and Business Case Academic/Business Case approved by School Board Approval of Academic and Business Case by APPC Development and preparation of Programme Approval Submission Documentation including approval of any programme-specific assessment regulations, exceptions or deviations Pre-scrutiny of draft Programme Approval Submission Documentation by AQD Submission of finalised Programme Approval Submission Documentation to AQD Distribution of Programme Approval Submission Documentation to Panel Members by AQD

PROGRAMME APPROVAL EVENT

Programme Approval Report from event provided to PDT by AQD for response

Response to Programme Approval Report submitted To AQD from PDT

Programme Approval Report and PDT response forwarded to LTSC for formal approval

Response approved by Chair of Approval Event

New programme approved/not approved by LTSC

<May

<April

<February

<January

Following APPC approval of concept

Following APPC approval of Academic Case

- 6 weeks

- 4 weeks

- 4 weeks

Date of Approval Event no later than November

+ 4 weeks

+ 8 weeks

+ 10 weeks

+ 12 weeks March LTSC

September Programme commences

41

Appendix 4(c) Appendix 4(c) Programme Approval Documentation and Updating of Approved Programme Documentation

PROGRAMME APPROVAL SUBMISSION DOCUMENTATION AND THE UPDATING OF PROGRAMME DOCUMENTATION 1. Programme Approval Submission Documentation

All Programme approval submission documentation should comply with GCU corporate requirements and it is the responsibility of the School to ensure this prior to submission to the Department of Academic Quality and Development. Relevant documentation should be submitted to the Department of Academic Quality and Development fully bound, with front covers for all sections of the documentation provided, page numbering and, where appropriate, cross-referencing. The front cover(s) should be in the style shown in Appendix 4(g). Documentation should comprise the sections and sub-sections noted below. This list is not exhaustive and Programme Development Teams should include any other relevant information, for example details required by professional, statutory and/or regulatory bodies. GCU is a ‘programmes’ University and the submission document should clearly evidence the focus and cohesion of the Programme It is anticipated that increasingly programme design will incorporate flexible, distributed, online and part-time modes of delivery The University will follow the indicators as laid out in the QAA Quality Code Chapter B3: Learning and Teaching43, and B10: Managing Higher Education Provision with Others44 in respect to the approval of programmes (or modules) involving flexible and distributed learning. The QAA uses the following definition of flexible and distributed learning: A programme or module that does not require the student to attend classes or events at particular times and locations.

Cover Refer to template in Appendix 4(g)

Table of Contents

1. GENERAL PROGRAMME INFORMATION

Key programme information In consultation with the University’s PBS Compliance Officer, the PDT must ensure and confirm by way of a written statement, the programme’s adherence with current UKVI regulations for Tier 4 students in force at the time of approval, including any restrictions that Tier 4 students studying on the programme will face. The confirmation should be presented as a footnote within this section.

43 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/quality-code-B3.pdf 44 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/quality-code-B10.pdf

42

2. PROGRAMME RATIONALE AND DEMAND

2.1 Rationale This section should build on the approved Academic Case.

2.2 Student Demand This section should build on the market research provided in the Concept Paper/Academic Case

2.3 External Demand To include details of employer and graduate demand and, where relevant, professional, statutory or regulatory body input. This section should also include details of relevant external reference points and guidance.

2.4 Benchmarking Benchmarking of the programme against similar offerings elsewhere in UK higher education.

3. RESOURCES

Overview of resources (physical and human) to support programme delivery, including student support facilities particularly where delivery the delivery mode may mean that students are not able to frequently access on-site facilities and resources. Programme Development Teams are reminded that they should ensure that all resource requirements are discussed with appropriate staff and confirmed during the academic case stage in the programme development process. Where the proposed modes of delivery include digital learning material must be provided for the Approval Panel in order to provide evidence about the likely capacity to develop and deliver the programme. For each level within the proposed programme the Panel should have access to an example of one module as it will be presented to learners including its digital, and where included, traditional components

4. RESEARCH, STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND SCHOLARLY UNDERPINNING

4.1 Research Include a brief account of how research and advanced scholarly activity underpins the programme.

4.2 Staff Development This section should identify where staff development may be required to support the programme and should, where appropriate, draw reference to School and University policy (the AcceleRATE Framework45 and associated CPD (Learning and teaching) Policy); and outline opportunities for staff development in learning and teaching, research and CPD including further study; participation in staff development activities, internally and externally; peer support for teaching; fellowship of the Higher Education Academy, and/or PSRBs; and any other relevant activities.

45 http://www.gcu.ac.uk/lead/leadthemes/acceleratecpd/

43

5. STRATEGY FOR LEARNING46

5.1 Introduction Include an introduction to the University’s Strategy for Learning (SfL) 2015-2020; and demonstrate curriculum alignment with each of the eight design principles. The SfL Curriculum Design Template, designed to support staff in implementing the design principles in their subject specific contexts is to be completed and should identify where the design principles have been embedded in programme design, but also reflect areas for enhancing practice in the future, and timelines for achieving this. The template should be included as an appendix to the submission document.

5.2 Learning and Teaching Approaches Include details of the learning and teaching approaches to be adopted by the programme and examples of these. These will encompass traditional and alternative approaches including:

• the intended e-learning approach(es) meet the needs of the target learner population and how it provides a student experience equivalent to that of an on campus delivery

• how induction/transition will be carried out • how feedback will be obtained from students and how the Student

Staff Consultative process will operate Common Good Attributes should be considered as part of this section (refer to appendix 2(a)).

5.3 Enhancement Themes Include details of the programme’s intended approach to enhancing the student learning experience through the specific areas targeted for development via the QAA Scotland Enhancement Themes47.

5.4 Programme Accessibility and Inclusiveness48 Provide a summary overview of the inclusiveness and accessibility of learning, teaching and assessment in the programme and modules. The Inclusive and Accessible Learning and Teaching Checklist which represents a minimum standard that the University would consider for making programmes more accessible and inclusive should be cross referenced.

5.5 Internationalisation49 Guidance on possible approaches is given in Appendix 4(h). This section, in an introduction, should draw reference to the SfL curriculum design principles, in particular, Global Learning. Specific consideration should be given to initiatives and in particular to curriculum embedding mobility into curriculum design. The programme should provide commentary that clearly identifies the process and

46 http://www.gcu.ac.uk/gaq/strategyforlearning2015-2020/ 47 http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/enhancement-themes 48 http://www.gcu.ac.uk/lead/leadthemes/flexibleaccessibleandinclusivecurriculum/ http://www.gcu.ac.uk/student/disability/index.html 49 http://www.gcu.ac.uk/lead/leadthemes/internationalisation/

44

procedure to be in place for inward and outward mobility in line with University policy. In particular, this should also include the arrangements for the consistent transfer of credit and marks for the purpose of progression and final award decisions between the University and host institutions.

5.6 Management of Work Based/Practice Learning50 If applicable, reference should also be made to Appendix 10(h).

5.7 Engagement with External Stakeholders51 For example, input from industry/employers, service users and professional, statutory or regulatory bodies.

5.8 Supporting and Developing Students Provide details of the programme’s and School’s alignment to the Student Experience Framework and the other student-facing policies in respect to student entitlement and engagement designed to underpin the University's strategic goals for access, progression, retention, employability, and enhancement of the student experience.

5.8.1 Student Induction and Transition 5.8.2 Academic Support 5.8.3 Student Performance Feedback 5.8.4 Student Engagement 5.8.5 Career Development and Employability

5.9 Assessment Strategy and Loading

Provide an overview of the assessment strategy for the programme and modules. An assessment matrix(ces) must be included.

5.10 Programme-specific Assessment Regulations If applicable, include confirmation of exceptions and that these have been approved by the Exceptions Committee (provide Case Number).

5.11 Procedures for Project and Dissertation Supervision Include details of the specific arrangements for projects and/or dissertations and, where relevant, any requirements for the selection of project topics, provisions for supervision, and requirements for submission of projects which are not detailed in the programme assessment regulations.

APPENDICES 1. PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION (AND CURRICULUM MAP)

2. MODULE DESCRIPTORS

To be submitted in ISIS format only. These should be preceded by a list

identifying all modules forming part of the programme which require approval (i.e. existing modules which have been substantially altered and new modules),

50 http://www.gcu.ac.uk/lead/leadthemes/flexibleaccessibleandinclusivecurriculum/ 51 http://www.gcu.ac.uk/lead/leadthemes/employability/

45

modules approved and currently running, which form part of the programme as approved. Refer also to Appendix 7(d)

3. ACADEMIC STAFF CURRICULUM VITAE

CVs for ALL staff involved in the delivery of the programme. See Appendix 4(d).

4. STRATEGY FOR LEARNING CURRICULUM DESIGN TEMPLATE

2. Approved Programme Documentation

The Definitive Programme Documentation (DPD) is produced by the Programme Development Team following the approval event and submitted, in electronic format, to the Department of Academic Quality and Development with the formal response. The DPD will consist of the original Programme Approval Submission Document, updated to incorporate any revision(s), as a result of requirements and recommendations, if any, placed upon the Programme Development Team. The DPD forms the basis of the Programme Handbook for students.

3. Updating Programme Information

Following formal approval of the programme, no changes may be made to the programme-specific regulations on the progression or assessment of students without formal consultation with the students on the programme who may be directly affected by the proposed change, and formal approval from the Exceptions Subcommittee (see Section 4.1.4). Any such changes which affect the programme-specific regulations for the assessment of students for an award must also receive the written consent of the approved External Examiner(s). The Programme Board should initially consult with the Department of Academic Quality and Development with an outline of the proposed changes.

46

Appendix 4(d) Appendix 4(d) Programme Handbooks

PROGRAMME HANDBOOKS

• The Programme Board will be responsible for ensuring the preparation and provision of a Programme Handbook to each student at enrolment or, if there is no enrolment, through a mechanism designed by the Programme Board to ensure that each student receives their copy of the Handbook prior to the commencement of the programme.

• The Programme Leader will be responsible for maintaining and annually updating the

Programme Handbook for which they are responsible. Where possible the information will be provided by electronic means (with associated web links).

• Programme Handbooks shall contain the following information:

Section/sub-section Source/where accessed

Programme Leader’s name

School

Trimester Calendar http://www.gcu.ac.uk/theuniversity/calendar/

Programme Timetable

School

Self-Registration http://www.gcu.ac.uk/registration/

Campus map

http://www.gcu.ac.uk/theuniversity/howtofindus/campusmap

Staff List

School or Programme Board: list of academic, technical and administrative staff involved with the programme, together with contact details and room numbers (as appropriate)

External Examiner(s) Name, position and affiliation (no personal contact details)

Programme Specification (Summary and Approach to Learning and Teaching)

School

Programme-Specific Assessment Regulations

Programme Board (should be included in Programme Specification)

Personal Development Planning

School

University Assessment Regulations and Associated Policies

http://www.gcu.ac.uk/gaq/regulationsandpolicies/assessmentregulationsandassociatedpolicies/

University Assessment Regulations (Concise Guide)

https://www.gcu.ac.uk/media/gcalwebv2/theuniversity/gaq/gaqfiles/assessmentregulations/Concise%20Guide%20to%20Assessment%20Procedures%202015-16.pdf

Academic Advising School

47

Section/sub-section Source/where accessed

Code of Student Conduct http://www.gcu.ac.uk/media/gcalwebv2/theuniversity/gaq/gaqfiles/CodeofstudentDisciplineApproved111209_001.pdf

Marking Criteria School

Online Similarity Checking Policy

http://www.gcu.ac.uk/media/gcalwebv2/theuniversity/gaq/gaqfiles/GCU%20Similarity%20Checking%20Policy.pdf

Student Feedback

http://www.gcu.ac.uk/futurelearning/

Assessment Timetable

http://www.gcu.ac.uk/theuniversity/calendar/

Assessment Results http://www.gcu.ac.uk/student/exams/results/index.html

Central Services for Students

http://www.gcu.ac.uk/student/index.html

Learning Development Centre (School-based student support)

School

Disability Support http://www.gcu.ac.uk/student/disability/index.html

Student Representation

Students’ Association and http://www.gcustudents.co.uk/

Student Leaders’ Programme

http://www.gcustudents.co.uk/slp

Health and Safety Regulations

Student Home Page and http://www.gcu.ac.uk/healthandsafety/index.html

Complaints Handling Procedure

Student Home Page and http://www.gcu.ac.uk/gaq/appealscomplaintsandstudentdiscipline/complaints/

Student Experience Framework

http://www.gcu.ac.uk/segaq/studentexperienceframework/

48

Appendix 4(e) Appendix 4(e) Curriculum Vitae Template

CURRICULUM VITAE TEMPLATE

Curriculum Vitae

[insert Name, Title(s) etc.]

Note: With the exception of qualifications, please provide information for a maximum of the last ten years, listing the most recent first. [Delete this note prior to publication/printing]

Academic Qualifications [insert date] [insert details of qualifications]

Professional Qualifications [insert date] [insert details of qualifications]

Current Post [insert period] [insert employer] [insert post]

Previous Employment [insert period] [insert employer] [insert post]

Teaching Experience [insert details] Current Research and Scholarly Activities, Advanced/Professional Practice [insert details] Recent Publications [insert date]

[insert details of recent publications]

Recent Presentations [insert date]

[insert details of recent presentations]

Consultancy and Other Relevant Activities [insert date]

[insert details of consultancy/other relevant activities]

49

Appendix 4(f) Appendix 4(f) Programme Approval Process

PROGRAMME APPROVAL PROCESS

PDB produces required programme approval documentation, signed off by

School and submitted to AQD

AQD confirms that the documentation meets University requirements and

despatches the documentation to the Approval Panel

Programme Approval Event

Approval Panel decides whether

or not to recommend approval to LTSC

LTSC considers the report of the Approval Panel and the response of the Programme Development Team

LTSC approves the programme on behalf of Senate

Not approved

Not approved

Approved

Approved

Programme Development Team considers the

feedback from LTSC and produces a revised

response

Programme DevelopmentTeam either abandons the proposal or

resubmits at a later date

Programme Development Team produces a response to any

requirements and recommendations of the Approval Panel and submits to

AQD with the DPD

AQD informs Programme Development Team and updates

Register of Approved Programmes

50

Appendix 4(g) Appendix 4(g) Cover: Programme Approval Submission Document

Insert School

Insert Award(s)

Programme Approval Submission Document

Insert date

51

Appendix 4(h) Appendix 4(h) Guidelines: Internationalisation of the Curriculum

GUIDELINES FOR THE INTERNATIONALISATION OF THE CURRICULUM 1. Introduction

The variety of ways in which internationalisation and cultural inclusiveness can be incorporated into programmes means that there can be no one set of guidelines that will be appropriate for all programmes. Schools and Programme Development Teams should be able to demonstrate that, where appropriate, international and intercultural perspectives are appropriately integrated and infused into the programmes for which they are responsible. Examples of internationalisation initiatives are listed below.

2. Programme and Learning Outcomes

Programme Teams should review and revise learning outcomes to ensure that, where appropriate, outcomes include the development of understandings and skills that enable students to perform competently in a global environment. This capacity will also include an awareness of other cultures and perspectives, as well as an awareness of their own culture and its perspectives. Examples of learning outcomes that can be adapted to specific programmes and modules:

• identify the major demographic, economic, political, and institutional trends that provide the context for international/intercultural relations in their field of study or professional practice

• demonstrate specific knowledge of similarities and differences among cultures in regard to intellectual work and professional practices and obligations in their field

• locate and use international content related to professional and academic tasks • identify ethical issues that may arise in their personal and professional lives in

international and/or intercultural contexts. 3. Reviewing Syllabi

Module Leaders should review syllabi to ensure that, where appropriate, they reflect diverse local and international perspectives on economic, political, environmental, and social issues of global significance. This will ensure that students have opportunities to understand the implications of cultural differences and diversity for academic and/or professional work within their specialisations. Examples of approaches to syllabi that can be adapted to specific programmes and modules:

• include explicit references to both international and local subject matters, avoiding monolithic and stereotypical descriptions

• address issues such as social justice; equity; human rights; and related economic, social, and global environmental issues

• include examples and case studies from other countries and from culturally and linguistically diverse groups

• include information on academic and professional practices in other cultures

52

• include a reassessment of the currency of the national and international content in courses

• be culturally sensitive and accessible to a wide spectrum of learners and teachers; this applies to on campus programs as well as online learning programmes.

(See also point 7.1, below.)

4. Approaches to Learning and Teaching

Programme Teams and Module Leaders should review and revise learning and teaching strategies to ensure that they are culturally inclusive, support diverse modes of learning and engage local students with international students. Wherever appropriate, experiential learning should be encouraged and facilitated through extension activities involving collaborative arrangements within the University or with external local and international partners. Examples of approaches to learning and teaching that can be adapted to the requirements of specific programmes and modules:

• include problem-solving exercises in international or intercultural contexts • provide opportunities for experiential learning such as ‘language partnerships’

which pair local and international students to help each other learn the other’s language and culture; local volunteer work in intercultural environments and in culturally diverse welfare agencies and institutions

• include inquiry-based assignments involving contact and communication (face-to-face or electronically mediated) with people from different cultural backgrounds and/or located in other countries.

And, in terms of delivery:

• seek to secure the participation of all staff and students (local, indigenous, and

international) and encourage all staff and students to know and listen to each other

• avoid negative or potentially offensive cultural stereotypes and assumptions. 5. Instructional Materials, Media and Resources

Module Leaders should review and revise instructional materials, media, and resources to ensure that the learning resources have diverse authorship and cultural origin and, where appropriate, optimise the development of global perspectives. Some points in relation to reviewing instructional materials, media, and resources are noted below for consideration. Do the instructional materials, media, and resources:

• promote diverse cultural and international perspectives • challenge accepted orthodoxies and dominant cultural constructions (e.g.

Eurocentric histories) • relate to international professional best practice standards, where they have

been developed

53

and are they reviewed before adoption to identify and eliminate cultural stereotypes and biases?

6. Assessment Strategies

Programme Teams and Module Leaders should review and revise assessment strategies to ensure that they measure the skills and understandings associated with global and intercultural perspectives. Some points for consideration in relation to reviewing assessment strategies:

• ensure that the requirements of assessment tasks are clear and unambiguous

for students of different backgrounds and in different locations • address learning outcomes specific to those aspects of the curriculum that are

internationalised • identify cultural biases, and adjust if necessary to minimise such biases • include explicit and supported pedagogy to clarify use and reporting of sources

and understanding of academic integrity. 7. Internationalisation Initiatives: Some Examples 7.1 Examples of Curriculum Initiatives

• use of culturally diverse texts, materials, examples and case-studies in teaching • expansion of curriculum to include international examples beyond Anglophile/

Western/ Eurocentric orientation • ensuring a culturally-inclusive approach to teaching • building in activities to encourage exchanges between students of cultural

beliefs and assumptions • options developed with a specific international perspective • offering modules that foster cultural competence, e.g. cross-cultural

communication • negotiation in a multicultural context • overt awareness of need to ‘think globally, act locally’ in curriculum development • ‘scaffolding’ students who are asked to use unfamiliar types of assessment • using the experience of international students as a resource for learning.

7.2 Examples of Student-centred Initiatives

• international study abroad programmes/study tours • student exchange programmes • international placements and internship programmes • participation in international competitions/programmes • induction designed to build cohort coherence • formal programmes to assist student transition • front-loading extra teaching support for students using English as an additional

language in the first semester of tertiary study. 7.3 Examples of University-level Initiatives

• strong collaboration with overseas firms, companies, and other institutions of higher education

• collaboration with national governments for the education of international students

54

• employment of a director/senior manager responsible for international programmes and curriculum development

• delivery of programmes overseas, i.e. through collaborative provision or by partner institutions in other countries

• development of ‘admission with credit’ pathways for students from a range of institutions in other countries

• staff appointed from culturally diverse backgrounds; positive encouragement of such to apply

• staff appointed with experience of living and working overseas; using this attribute as valued when selecting between equally able candidates

• establishment of committees to develop strategies and approaches to internationalise the curriculum

• establishment of research centres specifically targeting international collaborative research

• professional development workshops for staff on internationalisation and appropriate skill development

• professional development for staff who will teach overseas • study programmes for academic staff to establish links with international

colleagues and institutions • opportunities for students to provide feedback at student fora on international

experiences • introduction and awareness of cultural calendar, e.g. festivals, holidays, food

prohibitions • provision of language services for students for whom English is an additional

language • academics provided with opportunities to teach overseas • academic visitors’ programme.

55

5. PROGRAMME MONITORING

5.1 Programme Monitoring Process: Matters for Consideration

Programme monitoring and review is the process for discharging responsibilities for setting and maintaining academic standards, and assuring and enhancing quality of learning opportunities within the University. This is a core activity and all staff have a responsibility to uphold standards. Programme monitoring and review takes place in a planned cycle based on a transparent rationale to ensure that all provision is monitored adequately and evidence how it is experienced by the student body. GCU values student feedback as a core element of programme monitoring and review. GCU adheres to the principles of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education (Chapter B852) and:

• maintains strategic oversight of the processes for and outcomes of programme

monitoring and review to ensure that processes are applied systematically and operated consistently

• takes deliberate steps to use the outcomes of programme monitoring and review for enhancement purposes

• operates a process to protect the academic interests of students on programme closure or as the result of portfolio review

• defines the processes for programme monitoring and review and communicates them clearly to all internal staff and external bodies involved

• evaluates the process for programme monitoring and review • involves external stakeholders and draws widely on internal and external

expertise • involves students in all aspects of programme monitoring and review • enables staff, students and external participants to contribute effectively by

putting in place arrangements for support and development.

Programme monitoring and review acknowledges that information can be drawn from a range of sources and stakeholders within and outside the institution and are particular stages within an on-going process. Opportunities to change a programme may be identified at any time, particularly as part of on-going team discussion but the process of monitoring and review provides a formal opportunity for Programme Boards to evaluate and reflect on the academic provision and highlight how the student learning experience can be enhanced. All changes must comply with GCU policy and procedure. The purpose of monitoring and review is to ensure that the programme remains fit for purpose. In GCU monitoring takes place on an annual basis and in addition to opportunities for the identification for enhancement is the opportunity to identify and disseminate good practice internally and, if appropriate, across the sector. Programme Boards must consider key performance indicators(KPIs) annually as part of the programme monitoring process using the proforma in Appendix 5(b) (much of the data will be supplied by the Strategy and Planning Office). For audit purposes, evidence of consideration (KPIs) should be provided within the minutes of the

52 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/quality-code-B8.pdf

56

Programme Board and the Board should retain the complete evidence base on which the considerations were founded. Process

Annual Programme Monitoring is carried out ‘in-year’ and should formally commence at the beginning of each new academic session in September and follow the flow of the academic year, completing in June and updating in October for UG Programmes. Rather than being a static, retrospective process, completing the APA should now be regarded as a continuous enhancement process. The APA document is housed on all School Portal Programme Sites and should be completed and updated over the period of an academic year (September to June), as information, such as first diet statistics and NSS/ISB results, are released by Strategy and Planning. The process should start with evaluation of the past academic session expressed via the Programme Enhancement Plan (PEP) and lead into an (academic) yearlong cycle of on-going monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the programme. This should be substantially completed by June of each year and updated with second diet assessment results added as they become available. Appendix 5(a) shows a flow chart of the process. The key performance indicators to be considered are:

• review of the previous year’s Programme Enhancement Plan (PEP) including

areas identified for development in the new academic year • trends in admission progression and awards statistics, including RPL53 and

articulation54 policies, and honours classification (as an appendix to the main document)

• trends in graduate employment, including the most recently available graduate employment statistics

• the minutes of the Student Staff Consultative Group and an evaluation of the GCU student experience priorities related to the programme (SEF)

• the External Examiner comments and final report(s) and the Programme Board’s response to the Examiner(s). Comments should be made in a timely manner.

• an analysis of evidence of interaction with the academic units contributing modules to the programme

• equality and diversity • a review of the Strategy for Learning (SfL) in relation to the demonstration and

application of the curriculum design principles • collaborative and professional/statutory/regulatory body activity • reference to the requirements or recommendations of approval/review events or

visits from professional/statutory/regulatory bodies.

N.B. Statistical information (the first three items in the list above) should include a

comparison with no more than three previous years. Where the monitoring covers a suite of programmes, such as within a framework document, the statistical information should, where possible, be collated and held separately for each programme within the suite.

53 http://www.gcu.ac.uk/lead/leadthemes/recognitionofpriorlearning/ 54 http://www.gcu.ac.uk/study/collegeconnect/

57

• The monitoring process must now take into account any changes to the programme since approval/last review that may affect the programme’s compliance with UKVI regulations for Tier 4 students in force at that time.

The outcome of the monitoring process, which must be approved by the School Board, will be:

• the production/updating of the Enhancement Plan for the programme which sets

out how the Programme Board will enhance both the quality and standards of the programme. This plan will be based on improvement key performance indicators and will include ‘SMART’ targets.

• where the monitoring process identifies problems within a programme, including where:

o students have shown dissatisfaction with a programme o progression rates after the second diet are lower than agreed School

benchmarks o an External Examiner has expressed concern in relation to the quality

and/or standards of a programme. the Enhancement plan must address these problems directly.

• a review of the Programme Specification55, and updating where required, should be carried out on a yearly basis as this forms the basis of KIS56 data. The programme specification is part of University public information and accountability and is used to explain the aims and intended learning outcomes of the programme (please refer to Quality Code B3 Appendix 1, page 9 for specific prompts for the development and updating of the programme specification57

• the identification of wider issues for consideration by the School and/or University.

5.2 Department and School Annual Report on Monitoring, Quality Enhancement and

Assurance of Programmes

Each Department Learning, Teaching and Quality Lead, based on analysis of the APAs, will, following approval by the Departmental Learning and Teaching Committee, submit a summary Department Report (Department analysis template is provided in Appendix 5(b)) to the ADLTQ. The ADLTQ will submit a strategic report to School Board (School analysis template is provided in Appendix 5(b)). Each School will submit this report to the Department of Academic Quality and Development for discussion by the LTSC.

5.3 University Consideration of the Programme Monitoring Process

The Department of Academic Quality and Development will produce an overview report and submit it, together with the reports from Schools, for consideration by the Learning and Teaching Subcommittee. NB. A summary of Annual Monitoring Roles and Responsibilities is detailed in Section 15 of the Programme Monitoring Manual

55 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality 56 Key Information Statistics 57 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality

58

Appendix 5(a) Appendix 5(a) Diagram: Annual Programme Monitoring Process

THE PROGRAMME MONITORING PROCESS

Programme Leader prepares Annual Programme Analysis encompassing:

Consideration and

commentary on programme

stats

Evaluation of last session’s Enhancement

Plan

Student Staff Consultative

Groups

External Examiner reports

Graduate employment commentary

Interaction with academic

units

Equality and Diversity

Strategy for Learning review

Collaboration and

Professional Body activity

Approval,Re-approval and PSRB

events

Good practice and issues for

wider consideration

*Stats Appendix

Programme Leader produces/updates Programme Enhancement Plan

Programme Leader submits Annual Programme Analysis to School for approval by School

Board

Annual Programme

Analysis revised and resubmitted

Annual Report on Monitoring, Quality Enhancement and Assurance of Programmes

to LTSC

Strategy and Planning will provide statistical data for this section of the report.

Not approved

Approved

Approved

59

Appendix 5(b) Appendix 5(b) Programme Monitoring Manual

DEPARTMENT OF ACADEMIC QUALITY AND DEVELOPMENT

QUALITY ENHANCEMENT AND ASSURANCE

ANNUAL PROGRAMME MONITORING MANUAL

ACADEMIC SESSION 2016/17

60

Contents

59

1 Summary 61 2. Introduction………………………………………………………………….. 61 2.1 Statistical data……….………………………………….….…... 61 3. Admissions………………………………………………………………….. 62 4. Progression and Completion……………………………………………… 62 4.1 Commentary…………………………………………………….. 62 5. Student Feedback and Engagement…………………………………… 63 6. External Examiner Feedback……………………………………………... 63 7. Strategy for Learning………………………………………………………. 64 8. Career Development............................................................................. 64 9. Interaction with Academic Units………………………………………….. 64 10. PSRB Activity………………………………………………………………. 64 11. Approval and Review……………………………………………………… 65 12. Good Practice……………………………………………………………… 65 13. Issues for Wider Consideration…………………………………………… 65 Appendix A Annual Programme Analysis Schedule 66 Appendix B Programme School and Module Template 68 Appendix C Annual Monitoring Roles and Responsibilities 75

61

1. Summary Programme monitoring and review is the process for discharging responsibilities for setting and maintaining academic standards, and assuring and enhancing quality of learning opportunities within the University. Programme monitoring and review takes place in a planned cycle based on a transparent rationale to ensure that all provision is monitored adequately, how it is experienced by the student body and whether it can be offered using alternative forms of delivery, e.g. blended or digitally mediated learning. GCU adheres to the principles of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education (Chapter B858) and

• maintains strategic oversight of the processes for and outcomes of programme monitoring and review to ensure that processes are applied systematically and operated consistently

• takes deliberate steps to use the outcomes of programme monitoring and review for enhancement purposes

• operates a process to protect the academic interests of students on programme closure or as the result of portfolio review

• defines the processes for programme monitoring and review and communicates them clearly to all internal staff and external bodies involved

• evaluates the process for programme monitoring and review • involves external stakeholders and draws widely on internal and external

expertise • involves students in all aspects of programme monitoring and review • enables staff, students and external participants to contribute effectively by

putting in place arrangements for support and development.

2. Introduction This handbook provides detail on the content of the Programme APA and the timescales for completion and Programme Board consideration for undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes. See appendix A for details. 2.1 Statistical data All statistical data e.g. admission data, progression and completion data, must be included as an appendix to the APA. The statistical data will be provided by the following areas: Category Source of data Date available Admissions Strategy and Planning December 2016 Progression and Completion first diet

Strategy and Planning June 2017 (Within 5 working days after the deadline has passed for results to be communicated to students)

58 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/quality-code-B8.pdf

62

Progression and Completion second diet

Strategy and Planning September (Within 5 working days after the deadline has passed for results to be communicated to students)

Progression and Completion masters awards

Strategy and Planning October 2017 (Within 5 working days after the deadline has passed for results to be communicated to students)

Progression and Completion results confirmed

Strategy and Planning 2016-17 results confirmed 1st week of December and made available at the beginning of the 2nd week of December

NSS Strategy and Planning August 2017 ISB Strategy and Planning February 2017 DLHE Careers May 2017 3. Admissions A commentary on trends, based on a comparison with previous two sessions, should be provided i.e. are numbers falling, increasing etc., relationship to target numbers and benchmark entry qualifications, entry through clearing. Consideration should also be given to gender balance, mature entrants, part-time demand (if appropriate), direct entry including formalised articulation arrangements with partner colleges, international enrolments to provide a comprehensive picture of the ‘health’ of the programme in respect of demand. Any Programme Board actions to address issues identified should be included in the Programme Enhancement Plan. 4. Progression and Completion This is a critically important area and appropriate consideration and explanation is required in respect of progression and awards. 4.1 Commentary Where appropriate, commentary should be provided in respect of:

• total number of students in the cohort at the beginning of the session • total number of students who withdrew, transferred, etc. during the session, • total number of students remaining who successfully progressed, including those

allowed to carry modules • total number of students who did not progress and the reasons for this • For those cohorts who are eligible for award, i.e. Level 3, 4 and/or Masters, analysis

of the awards made at both levels should be provided and compared with previous two sessions. Trends and spread of awards should be considered and national figures (where available).

63

It is particularly important that the reasons for student withdrawal are highlighted, as far as possible, as this may in turn identify wider issues to be addressed by the Programme Team, the School or the University. The Programme Board should outline potential programme strategy to maintain and develop progression and completion rates. 5. Student Feedback and Engagement Student feedback and engagement is an integral part of all aspects of University business and a key source of information in the programme monitoring process. Apart from the formal feedback mechanisms identified through the University-level committee structure, principally Student Staff Consultative Groups (SSCG), where student feedback is sought and acted upon, there are a range of other mechanisms where students can and do provide feedback. These include the Academic Advising system; student and staff interaction at tutorials, seminars, lectures or practical classes/labs; and feedback via GCU Learn. Student engagement also includes analysis of the NSS and if appropriate ISB. Please include any key issues that students have raised during the session relevant to this analysis including an indication of any issues that are on-going from previous cohorts; and any action taken in response to this feedback (and how changes have been communicated back to students). 6. External Examiner Feedback This section must include a comprehensive analysis of issues raised by External Examiners. The Programme Board should provide:

• a summary of the key issues raised by the External Examiner(s) at the Assessment Board

• a summary of the key issues raised by the External Examiner(s)in their annual report*

• the response to the External Examiner to each of the issues raised including issues referred to the appropriate Module Leader, Programme Team or to other parties.

* Please note that the full external examiner(s) report(s) should be considered by the Programme Board If an External Examiner has expressed concern in relation to the quality and/or standards of a programme the PEP must be updated to address the issues directly and include details of proposed action. 7. Strategy for Learning All programmes must demonstrate at approval/review that the current Strategy for Learning (SfL) design principles have been embedded in the programme.

64

Where programmes are proposing enhancements to the curriculum, either at programme or module level, in response to issues that have come to light through annual monitoring it must be evidenced within the Programme Enhancement Plan that the SfL curriculum design principles have been utilised in determining the appropriate action. This section should highlight any issues which require to be considered at School/University level and may merit inclusion in the School action planning process for the SfL, which forms part of the University Annual SfL Operational Plan. 8. Career Development Where possible this section should be completed in partnership with the Careers Adviser for the programme. This section should outline the learning opportunities to support career and employability development which students have within the programme and through active, timely referral to the Careers Service. This will include contributions employers make through case-study resources, talks, skills workshops, consultation to inform curriculum development etc. A review of the destinations dataset for the programme should be undertaken and comment made on the progress of graduates from the programme in relation to the graduate labour market and this should inform planning with the Careers Adviser for the next academic session. 9. Interaction with Academic Units This section should summarise the interaction with all departments providing modules, including key issues referred by the Programme Board to departments and any significant module delivery and development issues raised by module staff. The School’s annual reports on module monitoring may also be referenced for module issues impinging on the programme. 10. PSRB Activity This section should be completed if the programme has had a visit from a professional, statutory, and/or regulatory body (PRSB). A summary should be provided of the key aspects of working relationships with (PSRB), employers and/or partner organisation(s) over the session, e.g. through formalised work-based learning arrangements. This should include details of any accreditation events/visits (including name of PSRB and date of visit), an overview of those issues impacting on the programme and how these are monitored by the PSRB.

65

Employer engagement, including those who may be directly involved in the programme (for example in offering placement learning opportunities) should also be considered. Plans for developing/enhancing arrangements should also be included. This might be highlighted as an activity within the PEP together with how the programme will address any significant issues raised during the event. *N.B. Programmes delivered under a collaborative programme arrangement will be subject to the completion of a separate APA*. 11. Approval and Review Any relevant outcomes not otherwise included in the Programme Team’s formal response to the Programme Approval and/or Review Event, impacting on the analysis, should be integrated into the PEP. Include any plans for approval and review within next session(s). 12. Areas of Good Practice in Learning, Teaching and Assessment This section should provide evidence of good practice e.g. if students have particularly valued an element of the programme, or an approach to learning or if the External Examiner(s) have commented favourably on elements of the programme and/or modules, this should be detailed to aid dissemination and enhancement across the School and University. Please also consider the SFL priority of Digital Innovation in this section. 13. Areas for Wider Departmental/School Consideration There may be issues arising from the programme monitoring process which are not programme-specific rather, that they have wider implications for the Department/School/University. To ensure that such issues are identified and actioned as appropriate, the APA should detail these here. The Programme Board may be contacted for further information if needed.

66

Appendix A. Annual Programme Analysis Schedule Annual Programme Analysis – Undergraduate Programmes

Key Performance Indicator

Required/As Appropriate

Programme Board Consideration

Update

Admissions Required January October

Progression and Completion

Required June October

Student Feedback and Engagement

Required June October

External Examiner Feedback

Required June October

Strategy for Learning As appropriate June October Career Development Required October Interaction with Academic Units

Required June

PSRB Activity Required June Approval and Review As appropriate June Good Practice As appropriate June October Issues for Wider Consideration

As appropriate June October

Programme Enhancement Plan

Required June October

67

Annual Programme Analysis – Taught Postgraduate Programmes

Key Performance Indicator

Required/As Appropriate

Programme Board Consideration

Update

Admissions Required June Progression and Completion

Required October December

Student Feedback and Engagement

Required October

External Examiner Feedback

Required October December

Strategy for Learning As appropriate October Career Development Required (excluding

DHLE) October

Interaction with Academic Units

Required October

PSRB Activity Required October Approval and Review As appropriate October Good Practice As appropriate October Issues for Wider Consideration

As appropriate October

Programme Enhancement Plan

Required October December

68

Appendix B 1. Programme Monitoring Report Template (APA) 2. Department Monitoring Report Template 3. School Monitoring Report Template

69

Glasgow Caledonian University

Annual Programme Analysis Report

Academic Session 2016/2017

(For Undergraduate and Taught Post Graduate timelines for completion of each section

please refer to Section 14 of appendix 5(b)) School: Department: Programme: Programme Leader: Interim Analysis Approved by PB Date Final Analysis Approved by PB Date KPI Commentary on previous PEP

This section should provide a concise overview of the progress made on the previous session Programme Enhancement Plan (PEP). The APA from the previous session will have identified a number of enhancement issues and actions related to the KPIs that are transitional and require action. These should be briefly discussed in this section. Programme Board will then consider these issues throughout the academic year.

KPI-Admissions (see section 3 for details)

Commentary: June: full analysis

KPI- Progression and Completion (see section 4 for details) Commentary: June:1st Diet Analysis September: update to include 2nd Diet Analysis

KPI-Student Engagement and Feedback (see section 6 for details) Commentary: June: summary of key issues raised during session and PB response/NSS/ISB

KPI-External Examiner Feedback (see section 6 for details) Commentary June: issues raised at AB September: areas raised from EE Reports All Programme EE Reports have received appropriate response where indicated

70

Yes/No (delete as appropriate) If no please provide details: Areas of good practice identified: Areas for improvement identified:

KPI- Integration of Strategy for Learning Design Principles (see section 7 for details)

Commentary: June: where appropriate KPI-Career Development and Employability including Graduate Employment (see section 8

for details) Commentary: September: full analysis

KPI- Interaction with Academic Units (see section 9 for details) Commentary: June: full analysis

KPI- PSRB Activity (see section 10 for details) Commentary: June: has the Programme been subject to PSRB review/approval/accreditation in this academic year Yes/No (delete as appropriate) If yes please provide details:

KPI- Programme Approval and Review (see section 11 for details) Commentary: June: has the Programme been subject to review/approval/accreditation in this academic year Yes/No (delete as appropriate) If yes please provide details and confirm that any outstanding areas for action not addressed in the Programme Team response have been integrated into the PEP and cross referenced to the report KPI-Areas of Good Practice in Learning, Teaching and Assessment including Digital Innovation (see section 12 for details) Commentary: June: full details

KPI- Areas for Wider Department/School Consideration (see section 13 for details) Commentary: June: full details

71

Programme Enhancement Plan The PEP to be completed defines, identifies and summarises all Programme Board deliberations in-year, recording and reporting enhancement actions and activities noted in the PB and SSCG minutes and should record the key themes of PB discussions in relation to programme milestones. This should provide an audit trail and directly identify the relationship between PB and Annual Monitoring. Transitional activities and actions should be identified and carried forward to the review of the PEP section in the following year, completing the monitoring cycle in year. Generally this section should demonstrate indicators of sound practice. UG June and updated in September PG October and updated (if required) in December PEP Objective Details of proposed objective

APA Section Cross reference to relevant section of APA

Proposed Action Details of proposed action

KPI Inset relevant KPI

Action by Who will be responsible

Smart Target for current session Anticipated outcome

Outcome Achievement Detail measurement of outcome

72

Glasgow Caledonian University

Department Annual Monitoring Report

Academic Session 2016/2017 School: Department: LTQ Lead: Date Date approved by LTQ Committee:

Department Admissions (Using the APA data please provide an overview of current trends and identify any areas of concern)

Commentary:

Progression and Completion (Using the APA data please provide an overview of current trends and identify any areas of concern)

Commentary:

Student Engagement and Feedback (SSCG/NSS/ISB) (Using the APA data please provide a brief overview of current trends, good practice and identify any areas of

concern)

External Examiner Feedback

(Using the APA data identify areas of good practice and highlight any issues. Please include verification that all EE Reports have received a response from the Programme Team where indicated)

All Departmental EE Reports have received appropriate response from Programme Leaders where indicated Yes/No (delete as appropriate)

73

If no please provide details: Areas of good practice: Areas for improvement:

Strategy for Learning Principles (Using the APA data please highlight key areas of activity)

Commentary:

Career Development (Using the APA data please provide an overview of employability and levels of graduate employment,

highlighting trends and any overall increase or decrease) Commentary:

Interaction with Academic Units

(Using the APA data please highlight any current developments and challenges) Commentary:

PSRB Activity (Using the APA data please detail PSRB review/approval/accreditation)

Commentary:

Approval and Review (Using the APA data please detail any Programmes that have been subject to review/approval in this academic

year) Commentary:

Good Practice in Learning, Teaching and Assessment including Digital Innovation (Using the APA data please highlight any major areas of innovative practice)

Commentary:

Areas for Wider Department/ School Consideration (Using the APA data please identify any major areas of concern)

Commentary:

Key Areas for Consideration by the Department LTQ Committee arising from the APA’s (This will inform learning and teaching discussions at first Department LTQ Committee to highlight priorities for

consideration by UG/PG programmes in the forthcoming year) Commentary:

74

Glasgow Caledonian University

School Annual Monitoring Report

Academic Session 2016/2017 School: Associate Dean (LTQ): Date: Date Approved by School Board:

Trends in School Admission, Progression and Completion

Commentary:

Trends and Challenges in Student Engagement and Feedback (SSCG/NSS/ISB)

Commentary:

Good Practice and Challenge Highlighted External Examiner Feedback

Strategy for Learning Principles and Priorities Commentary:

Overview of Career Development (DHLE) Commentary:

Major Areas of Good Practice in Learning, Teaching and Assessment Including Digital

Innovation Commentary:

Major Areas for Wider School/University Consideration

Commentary:

75

Appendix C: Annual Monitoring Roles and Responsibilities

Role Responsibility Head of Academic Quality and Business Partners (Academic Quality)

The Head of Academic Quality and the Business Partners (Academic Quality) prepare a strategic overview of the School reports, identifying key themes and challenges. This is submitted along with the School Reports to LTSC.

Business Partners (Academic Quality)

The School facing Business Partners (Academic Quality) support the Associate Dean with the construction of the high level School Report in preparation for submission to LTSC.

ADLTQ The ADLTQ completes the high level School analysis based on the information contained in the Departmental analysis. This is submitted for approval to the School Board. Once approved by School Board the School Reports are submitted by the ADLTQ to the Department of Academic Quality and Development.

Department Learning, Teaching and Quality (LTQ) Lead

The Department LTQ Lead provides support and guidance to the Programme Leaders around the APA process and supports the ADLTQ to construct the high level School Report by completing the Department analysis template. The Department level analysis is based on, and summarises, the metrics and narrative contained in the APA’s

Programme Leader The Programme Leader (PL) in is accountable to the PB and is responsible for the ongoing maintenance, currency and academic integrity of the Programme. This includes having oversight of and responsibility for all modules including those accessed by other academic units. The PL, on behalf of the Programme Board, leads the development and completion of the Annual Programme Analysis (APA) and submits it to PB for approval and then to the Department Learning, Teaching and Quality Lead. Section 14 of this appendix details the schedule

Module Leader The Module Leader (ML) is responsible and accountable to the host Programme Board59 (PB). The ML submits all module changes for approval, completed Module Monitoring Reports and responses to External Examiner Reports to the host PB to inform the APA process. The ML is accountable for the maintenance, currency and academic integrity of a module and supports upholding academic quality and the enhancement of the student experience.

59 The host Programme Board is the owner of all the modules that make up the programme regardless of the number of academic units that may access an individual module.

76

6. PROGRAMME REVIEW*

*All Programme Review events will take place by the end of November each year.

6.1 Process

This process will either take place as part of Enhancement-Led Internal Subject Review (ELISR) or as a stand-alone process, however Schools must scrutinise their programmes at least once every five years. The review process at programme level may be carried out by grouping programmes in appropriate clusters or suites. Clustering must be approved by the Department of Academic Quality before the Programme Review Process begins. The responsibility for the programme review process lies with the Programme Board. Consideration of the outcomes of the annual programme monitoring process forms the basis of programme review. Where possible, the review process will be aligned with the requirements of professional, statutory, and regulatory bodies, with the aim of satisfying the requirements of the University and these bodies in a single scrutiny process. The Department of Academic Quality and Development will be responsible for the organisation and facilitation of the review process. To ensure the University complies with and adheres to consumer law (CRA/CMA) there is a need to ensure that programme and module amendments are conducted in a timely manner, with due consideration to the impact on current and potential students. The Programme Specification on the website must be the definitive and most up to date Programme Specification, and the content of the programme, the modules offered and the approach to learning and teaching, must adhere to and comply, in practice, with all detail included in the published Programme Specification. Altering a programme and not providing an amended and accurate Programme Specification means that the University is not fully compliant with consumer law (CRA/CMA) and the School/Programme will be in breach of university policy.

6.2 Viability of Programmes within review cycle

As part of the normal portfolio review process Schools, on an annual basis, review the on-going viability and academic congruence of all programmes. The assessment of viability must include a review of current strategic KPIs (Strategy 2020). The criteria for the viability of programmes will be determined annually by the SMG in consultation with the University Executive as part of the portfolio review and annual planning process (1). Where the programme continues to be viable and is due for formal review, the review documentation will follow the guidance contained within the QEAH including the rationale for re-approval in the form of evidence of congruence with the GCU programme and awards portfolio (Strategy 2020), continuing demand for the programme, financial viability, student satisfaction and satisfactory retention, progression and first destination statistics.

77

6.3 Portfolio change outwith review cycle (programme withdrawal)

A School may, at any time (out with the approval/re-approval cycle), propose that an approved programme of study be withdrawn. Consultation regarding programme closure should be initiated with all key stakeholders at the earliest point. The recommendation to close a programme may emanate from the Programme Board and/or the Senior Management Group. After consultation with stakeholders and due consideration by the programme board, a report will be submitted to School Board for consideration and approval of the proposal before onward submission to APPC. The report should include full minutes (as described below) of the rationale for the decision. Where the proposal emanates from the Senior Management Group, such minutes shall include:

• Senior Management Group minute with rationale for the decision to withdraw the programme.

• Programme Board minute which will record programme board discussion in support or not in support of the decision to withdraw the programme as proposed by the Senior Management Group. The minutes should contain the following|:

Support for the proposal together with associated rationale

Outright rejection of the proposal Rejection of the proposal with associated rationale Evidence that any Schools, other than the host School,

which contribute to or are served by modules on the programme have been consulted at an early stage and that any comments have been fed into the consultation process.

• A School Board minute containing evidence of communication with Programme Board and the rationale for the withdrawal of a programme.

• A description of how provision for continuing students will be managed

• Confirmation that the change has been communicated to students ’at the earliest opportunity’ and how students will be supported to complete any outstanding modules and their programme of study. Students must be re-assured than any decision to withdraw the programme will not impact on their studies.

78

Where the proposal emanates from the Programme Board such minutes shall include:

• Programme Board minute which will record the programme board’s decision to seek approval

to withdraw a programme outline the rationale for the proposed withdrawal of the

programme provide evidence that any Schools, other than the host

School, which are either served by contribute to modules on the programme have been consulted at an early stage and comments fed into programme board consideration of the proposal.

• Senior Management Group minute evidencing consideration of the proposal to withdraw the programme.

• A School Board minute containing evidence of communication with Programme Board and the rationale for the withdrawal of a programme.

• A description of how provision for continuing students will be managed

• Confirmation that the change has been communicated to students’ at the earliest opportunity’ and how students will be supported to complete any outstanding modules and their programme of study. Students must be re-assured than any decision to withdraw the programme will not impact on their studies.

6.4 Communicating Programme Changes

The decision of APPC regarding any proposal to withdraw programme(s) will be communicated to the host School. To ensure prospective students are fully informed, immediately following APPC resolving to recommend to Senate that a programme be withdrawn, Enquires and Admissions shall be advised and a statement shall be added to the University website to reflect that the programme is under review and may be withdrawn together. Clear contact details for enquiries will be included in the statement together with an offer of alternative programmes of study, if applicable. Where either APPC or School Board minutes contain decisions and/or recommendations relating to the withdrawal of a programme this will be explicitly highlighted to Senate in the agenda. Following Senate Enquiries and Admissions will amend the website and prospectus and communicate with applicants. Academic Quality and Development and the host School will ensure all relevant documentation pertaining to or referencing the programme being withdrawn is amended.

79

6.5 Programme Review Submission Documentation

Programme review submission documentation should be submitted to the Department of Academic Quality and Development and should comprise the sections and sub-sections outlined in Appendix 6(a). In consultation with the University’s PBS Compliance Office, the Programme Board must ensure and confirm, by way of a written statement, the programme’s adherence with current UKVI regulations for Tier 4 students in force at the time of approval, including any restrictions that Tier 4 students studying on the programme will face.

6.6 Programme Review Panels

Composition and membership of Programme Review Panels and arrangements for appointing and supporting review Panels are normally the same as those for the new programme approval process (see Section 4.1 & appendix 3(b)).

6.7 Programme Review Panel Reports

Programme Review Panel reports will follow the same format and be considered in an identical manner to the reports from the programme approval process, as described in Section 4.1.10).

6.8 Professional, Statutory, and Regulatory Bodies Where possible, Programme Review will be undertaken in partnership with professional, statutory, and regulatory bodies (PSRBs). If a PSRB visit takes place independently, the Department of Academic Quality and Development must receive:

• notification in advance of the proposed visit and the schedule for the visit • the confirmed report of the event.

6.9 Change of Programme Title or Award

In exceptional circumstances, a School may, outwith the processes described above, resolve to change a programme title or award. In all such cases, early notification of the proposed change should be forwarded to the Department of Academic Quality and Development. Thereafter full minutes, as described below, of the rationale for the decision should be submitted to the Department of Academic Quality and Development and will be forwarded to the Academic Policy Committee for consideration. Such minutes shall include:

• a Programme Board minute containing the rationale for the change, including

evidence of consultation with students • a School Board minute approving the decision of the Programme Board.

6.10 Minor Changes to a Programme Exceptionally within the normal five year period of approval of a programme it may become necessary to make minor changes to a programme. In such cases the Programme Board should provide the Department of Academic Quality and

80

Development with an outline of the proposed changes. The Department will then confirm the level and scope of the approval process. The proposal should have been discussed with the programme’s External Examiner(s) prior to be presented. The outline of the proposal should include:

• The rationale for the change • Confirmation of programme board approval (normally an extract from

programme board minutes • External scrutiny (which may have been undertaken by an external subject

specialist not currently part of the external examining team) • Confirmation of consultation with programme boards which either contribute to

or access any impacted modules. The proposal will be submitted to the Learning and Teaching Subcommittee for formal approval. N.B Schools/programmes should not implement any such changes until the formal approval process has been completed. Following approval, the Programme Specification must be updated and any necessary changes to the external examining team processed.

6.11 Extension to Period of Approval (Deferment of Review)

As indicated above, Schools must scrutinise their programmes at least once every five years and the mechanism for this is the programme review process. The Department of Academic Quality and Development hold the University timetable for this process and liaises with the ADLTQ at the beginning of each academic year to schedule events. In certain circumstances, a School may seek an extension to the period of approval and thus defer the scheduled review of a programme. While not an exhaustive list, such circumstances may be as a result of: the bedding-in of strategic restructuring and changes in the School/subject area having an impact on the programme to be re-approved; portfolio review activity; the impact and timing of changes external to the University from professional, statutory, and regulatory bodies, for example, cognisance and integration of new standards and the preference for this to be simultaneously considered within the review process; or other external and/or internal policy changes. Proposed extensions to the period of approval of a programme must be approved by the Learning and Teaching Subcommittee and should include:

• a Programme Board minute containing the rationale for the change together with any relevant supporting information

• a School Board minute approving the decision of the Programme Board.

The extension will normally be granted for one academic session only.

81

Appendix 6(a) Appendix 6(a) Programme Review Documentation

PROGRAMME REVIEW SUBMISSION DOCUMENTATION AND THE UPDATING OF PROGRAMME DOCUMENTATION 1. Programme Review Submission Documentation Programme review submission documentation should be submitted to the Department

of Academic Quality and Development fully bound, with front covers for all sections of the documentation provided, page numbering and, where appropriate, cross-referencing. The front cover(s) should be in the style shown in Appendix 4(g). The timescale for the review process and the submission of documentation is similar to that indicated for the programme approval process in Appendix 4(b). Documentation should comprise the sections and sub-sections noted below. This list is not exhaustive and Programme Teams should include any other relevant information, for example details required by professional, statutory, and/or regulatory bodies.

Cover Refer to template in Appendix 4(g)

Table of Contents

1. GENERAL PROGRAMME INFORMATION

Key programme information In consultation with the University’s PBS Compliance Office, the PT must ensure and confirm by way of a written statement, the programme’s ongoing compliance with current UKVI regulations for Tier 4 students in force at the time of review, including any restrictions that Tier 4 students studying on the programme will face. The confirmation should be presented as a footnote within this section.

2. PROGRAMME PERFORMANCE AND DEVELOPMENTS In the narrative include cross-references to other sections of the documentation as appropriate.

2.1 Programme Monitoring Process Include summary of key performance indicators, listed below.

2.2 Programme Viability60 Include ongoing rationale, philosophy and programme demand.

2.3 Admissions Include quantitative data and narrative.

60 The Programme Leader should ensure that the Academic Programme Costing Model has been

completed:http://www.gcu.ac.uk/financeoffice/financeteams/managementaccounting/businesspartnersupport/costingofacademiccourses

82

2.4 Progression and Awards Include quantitative data and narrative.

2.5 First Destinations Include quantitative data and narrative.

2.6 External Examiner feedback

2.7 Benchmarking Benchmarking of the programme against similar offerings elsewhere in UK higher education.

2.8 Student Feedback

2.9 Success of enhancement plans since approval/previous review of programme Cross-refer to other sections of the documentation as appropriate.

2.10 SfL and curriculum development since approval/last review of programme Cross-refer to other sections of the documentation as appropriate.

2.11 Other programme initiatives and developments since approval/last review of programme Cross-refer to other sections of the documentation as appropriate.

2.12 Rationale for any proposed changes to the programme The process of programme review is the opportunity to examine the continuing currency of the programme and the quality of the learning experience offered to students. It is an opportunity to evaluate and reflect upon the programme in depth, and to undertake any modifications for enhancement.

3. RESOURCES

Overview of resources (physical and human) to support programme delivery, including student support facilities. Programme Boards are reminded that they should ensure that all resource requirements resulting from changes emanating from the review are discussed with appropriate staff and confirmed at an early stage in the review process.

4. RESEARCH AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT

4.1 Research Include a brief account of how research and advanced scholarly activity underpins the programme.

4.2 Staff Development This section should draw reference to School and University policy (the AcceleRATE Framework61 and associated CPD (Learning and teaching) Policy); and outline opportunities for staff development in learning and teaching, research and CPD including further study; participation in staff development activities, internally and externally; peer support for teaching; fellowship of the Higher Education Academy, and/or PSRBs; and any other relevant activities.

61 http://www.gcu.ac.uk/lead/leadthemes/acceleratecpd/

83

5. STRATEGY FOR LEARNING62

5.1 Introduction

Include an introduction to the University’s Strategy for Learning (SfL) 2015-2020; and demonstrate curriculum alignment with each of the eight design principles. The SfL Curriculum Design Template, designed to support staff in implementing the design principles in their subject specific contexts is to be completed and should identify where the design principles have been embedded in programme design, but also reflect areas for enhancing practice in the future, and timelines for achieving this. The template should be included as an appendix to the submission document.

5.2 Learning and Teaching Approaches Include details of the learning and teaching approaches to be adopted by the programme and examples of these. These will encompass traditional approaches, digital learning, blended learning, flexible delivery, and work-based learning.

5.3 Enhancement Themes Include details of the programme’s intended approach to enhancing the student learning experience through the specific areas targeted for development via the QAA Scotland Enhancement Themes63.

5.4 Programme Accessibility and Inclusiveness64 Provide a summary overview of the inclusiveness and accessibility of learning, teaching and assessment in the programme and modules. The Inclusive and Accessible Learning and Teaching Checklist which represents a minimum standard that the University would consider for making programmes more accessible and inclusive should be cross referenced.

5.5 Internationalisation65 Guidance on possible approaches is given in Appendix 4(h). This section, in an introduction, should draw reference to the SfL curriculum design principles, in particular, Global Learning. Specific consideration should be given to initiatives and in particular to embedding mobility into curriculum design. The programme should provide commentary that clearly identifies the process and procedure to be in place for inward and outward mobility in line with University policy. In particular, this should also include the arrangements for the consistent transfer of credit and marks for the purpose of progression and final award decisions between the University and host institutions.

5.6 Management of Work Based/Practice Learning66 62 http://www.gcu.ac.uk/gaq/strategyforlearning2015-2020/ 63 http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/enhancement-themes 64 http://www.gcu.ac.uk/lead/leadthemes/flexibleaccessibleandinclusivecurriculum/ http://www.gcu.ac.uk/student/disability/index.html 65 http://www.gcu.ac.uk/lead/leadthemes/internationalisation/ 66 http://www.gcu.ac.uk/lead/leadthemes/flexibleaccessibleandinclusivecurriculum/

84

If applicable, reference should also be made to Appendix 10(b). 5.7 Engagement with External Stakeholders67

For example, input from industry/employers, service users and professional, statutory or regulatory bodies.

5.8 Supporting and Developing Students Provide details of the programme’s and School’s alignment to the Student Experience Framework and the other student-facing policies in respect to student entitlement and engagement designed to underpin the University's strategic goals for access, progression, retention, employability, and enhancement of the student experience.

5.8.1 Student Induction and Transition 5.8.2 Academic Support 5.8.3 Student Performance Feedback 5.8.4 Student Engagement 5.8.5 Career Development and Employability

5.9 Assessment Strategy and Loading

Provide an overview of the assessment strategy for the programme and modules and include standard assessment matrices.

5.10 Programme-specific Assessment Regulations If applicable, include confirmation of any deviations and/or exceptions and that these have been approved by the Exceptions Committee (provide Case Number).

5.11 Procedures for Project and Dissertation Supervision Include details of the specific arrangements for projects and/or dissertations and, where relevant, any requirements for the selection of project topics, provisions for supervision, and requirements for submission of projects which are not detailed in the programme assessment regulations.

APPENDICES 1. PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION (AND CURRICULUM MAP)

2. MODULE DESCRIPTORS

To be submitted in ISIS format only. These should be preceded by a list

identifying all modules requiring approval (i.e. existing modules which have been substantially altered and new modules), and indication of modules approved and currently running. Refer also to Appendix 7(d) of the QEAH.

3. ACADEMIC STAFF CURRICULUM VITAE

CVs for ALL staff involved in the delivery of the programme. See Appendix 4(e) of the QEAH.

4. STRATEGY FOR LEARNING CURRICULUM DESIGN TEMPLATE

67 http://www.gcu.ac.uk/lead/leadthemes/employability/

85

2. Definitive Programme Documentation

The Definitive Programme Documentation (DPD) is produced by the Programme Team following the review event and submitted, in electronic format, to the Department of Academic Quality and Development with their formal response. The DPD will consist of the original Programme Review Submission Document, updated to incorporate any revision(s), as a result of requirements and recommendations, if any, placed upon the Programme Team.

3. Updating Programme Documentation

No changes may be made to the programme-specific regulations on the progression or assessment of students without formal consultation with the students on the programme who may be directly affected by the proposed change, and formal approval from the Exceptions Subcommittee (see Section 4.1.4). Any such changes which affect the programme-specific regulations for the assessment of students for an award must also receive the written consent of the approved External Examiner(s). The Programme Board should initially consult with the Department of Academic Quality and Development with an outline of the proposed changes.

86

7. MODULE QUALITY ENHANCEMENT AND ASSURANCE68

This section constitutes the University procedures relating to the Quality Enhancement and Assurance of modules, including their initial approval and continued development. The process of module development and approval adheres to the principles of the Quality Code (B8). Regardless of the mode of delivery, GCU is a Programme centred institution. All modules, regardless of whether they are accessed by a single or a number of academic units belong to a host programme. To ensure consistency, transparency and fairness, all module assessment results are considered at the host Assessment Board and the ratified results reported to the associated academic unit Assessment Boards. In a similar way any proposed module changes should be deliberated and discussed with the other academic units at the host PB and any module changes mediated via the host PB and approved by the Departmental Learning and Teaching Committee or equivalent. All major and minor module changes should be processed by 30th June of each academic year for delivery in the following Academic Year. NB. From 2016 all new and major changes must be, approved by the Departmental Learning and Teaching committee or equivalent and signed by the Departmental Learning, Teaching and Quality Lead or the ADLTQ before forwarding to the Academic Quality Team.

7.1 Responsibilities for Module Quality Enhancement and Assurance

In accordance with the principle that responsibility for quality enhancement and assurance should rest as closely as possible with those at the point of delivery, each module is strategically the overall responsibility of the host Programme Board, but the operational development is the responsibility of the Module Leader. With respect to the coherence of the academic content with programme learning outcomes, the Module Leader reports, in the first instance, to the Programme Leader and thereafter to the Host Programme and Assessment Board. The host Programme and Assessment Board includes representation from all programmes accessing the module. Decisions about module changes and the reporting and confirmation of module marks are the responsibility of the host Programme and Assessment Board.

Any disputes regarding the primary location of modules (i.e. ownership and delineation of the host Programme Board) should be referred to the Department of Academic Quality and Development via the School’s Business Partner (Academic Quality) in the first instance.

7.2 Responsibilities of Module Leaders All the modules in a Programme are owned by the host Programme Board. They are the strategic responsibility of the Programme Leader, in conjunction with the relevant AHoD/HoD including resourcing issues. Operational responsibility for an individual module lies with the Module Leader (identified within the module descriptor). Module Leaders, in collaboration with the Programme Leader and guided by the

68 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/quality-code-B8.pdf

87

Department LTQ Lead are responsible for the planning, delivery, monitoring, standards, and academic development of their modules, and for ensuring that the module descriptor is accurate and up-to-date. A full description of the role and responsibilities of Module Leaders is provided in Annex 1 of this Handbook.

7.3 Responsibilities of Schools

Schools shall, through Dean and ADLTQ:

• encourage the development and adoption of high-quality teaching, learning, and assessment strategies for modules within their remit

• ensure (via the PL) that each module within their remit has a suitably qualified Module Leader and that each is allocated to an appropriate External Examiner

• oversee the implementation of the University process for module evaluation. • consider any problems raised by Module Leaders at the host Programme

Board and disseminate instances of good practice within the Department and to the School

• inform all host Programme Boards currently accessing the module(s) of changes to the module descriptor.

7.4 Development and Approval of New Modules and Changes to Modules

The following sections outline the high-level processes for the development and approval of new modules and for major and minor changes to modules. The relevant ISIS (ADS and Curriculum) User Manuals69 should be read in conjunction with this section, i.e. the system processes for adding/changing a module within ISIS (ADS and Curriculum).

7.4.1 Via Programme Approval/Review Process

1. New Modules

• the School creates the new module(s) in the Maintenance section of ISIS ADS. N.B. The module(s) must not be submitted to Workflow prior to the approval/review event, but held in Maintenance.

• the module(s) are approved as part of the approval/review process

• the School completes all required (and, where appropriate, recommended) changes to the module(s) and submits the module(s) to Workflow ensuring that the (Re-)Approval Event box is checked within the User Defined Information section. The School will confirm that this process has been completed in the Programme Development Team (PDT)/Programme Board (PB) response to Programme Approval/Review Panel conclusions.

• the Department of Academic Quality and Development approves and exports the module(s) after PDT/PB response signed off by the Chair of the Programme Approval/Review Panel

• LTSC approves the outcome of the event and the PDT/PB’s response

69 http://www.gcu.ac.uk/isis/training/usermanuals.html

88

2. Current Modules: Major Changes Refer to Appendix 7(a) for definitions

• the School amends the module(s) as required in the Maintenance

section of ISIS ADS. N.B. Major changes to a module will require the allocation of a new module code. The module(s) must not be submitted to Workflow prior to the approval/review event, but held in Maintenance.

• the module(s) are approved as part of the approval/review process • the School completes all required (and, where appropriate

recommended) changes to the module(s) and submits the module(s) to Workflow ensuring that the (Re-)Approval Event box is checked within the User Defined Information section. The School will confirm that this process has been completed in the PDB/PT response to Programme Approval/Review Panel conclusions.

• the Department of Academic Quality and Development approves and exports the module(s) after PDB/PT response signed off by the Chair of the Programme Approval/Review Panel

• LTSC approves the outcome of the event and the PDB/PT’s response

3. Current Modules: Minor Changes

• the School amends the module(s) as required in the Maintenance section of ISIS ADS and submits the module to Workflow

• the Department of Academic Quality and Development approves/exports the module(s) onto the Curriculum section of ISIS ADS. N.B. These modules should be included in programme approval/review submission documentation as ‘Currently Running’.

The School must indicate within the programme approval/review submission documentation which modules are being presented to the Panel for approval (i.e. those which are completely new and those which have undergone substantial or major changes) and those which are ‘Currently Running’. A list of the modules approved by the Programme Approval/Review Panel will be produced by the Panel Secretary and included in the programme approval/review report.

7.4.2 Independent of Programme Approval/Review Process

1. New Modules

• the School creates the new module(s) in the Maintenance section of

ISIS ADS • the module(s) are scrutinised by an external expert • the School Quality process confirms approval of the work in progress

module descriptor(s) • the School submits the new module(s) to Workflow • the School submits the signed Module Approval Proforma (Appendix

7(b)) to the Department of Academic Quality and Development • the Department of Academic Quality and Development approves and

exports the module(s).

89

From session 16/17 Schools are required to indicate which programme board has ownership of the new module.

2. Current Modules: Major Changes

Refer to Appendix 7(a) for definitions

• the School amends the module(s) as required in the Maintenance section of ISIS ADS. N.B. Major changes to a module will require the allocation of a new module code

• the module(s) are scrutinised by an external expert, normally the External Examiner

• the School Quality process confirms approval of the work in progress module descriptor(s)

• the School submits the new module(s) to Workflow • the School submits the signed Module Approval Proforma (Appendix

7(b) to the Department of Academic Quality and Development • the Department of Academic Quality and Development approves and

exports the module(s). From session 16/17 the Programme Board is required to provide evidence of consultation with other programmes accessing the module and that the proposed changes do not impact on programme learning outcomes (see section 6.8) Any disagreement that cannot be resolved by the School should be referred to the Department of Academic Quality and Development.

3. Current Modules: Minor Changes • the School amends the module(s) as required in the Maintenance

section of ISIS ADS and submits the module to Workflow • the Department of Academic Quality and Development

approves/exports the modules onto the Curriculum section of ISIS

7.5 Monitoring and Enhancement of Existing Modules

It is recognised that the monitoring of modules is an inherent part of programme review and module delivery. All modules, however, must be formally monitored and reviewed via the host Programme Board every year. A template and guidance notes for module monitoring process is shown in Appendix 7(d). The Module Leader is responsible for monitoring the module In accordance with University policy and procedures. The Module Leader reports the outcomes to the Programme Leader via the host Programme Board The School must ensure that monitoring has taken place and that an enhancement plan is in place. The enhancement plan should clearly state the locus of responsibility for the actions contained within the plan. Progress will be monitored by the by School Board following approval by the Head of the Department/AHOD/LTQ Lead within the Department in which the module is located, and reported on through the Annual Programme Monitoring process.

90

7.6 Withdrawal of Existing Modules

Schools are responsible for making decisions to withdraw existing modules. Such decisions must be documented so as to confirm that all interested parties, particularly Programme Boards, have been consulted, and that any concerns have been dealt with sensitively. Assurances must have been received that the achievement of the learning outcomes of affected programmes is not threatened by the proposed changes. Where issues have arisen that the Schools have been unable to resolve this should be referred to the Department of Academic Quality and Development.

7.7 Module Handbooks

All modules must have an associated Module Handbook for circulation to students. The content of a Module Handbook is shown in Appendix 7(c). Guidance on the development of new modules in terms of SfL requirements will be provided by the Department of Academic Development Team and the School’s (LTQ).

91

Appendix 7(a) Appendix 7(a) Changes to Modules: Major and Minor

CHANGES TO MODULES: MAJOR AND MINOR 1. As a guideline, changes of the following nature would be regarded as major and will

require the allocation of a new module code:

• major changes to the learning outcomes • major changes to the syllabus • all changes to the mode of assessment • all changes to the weighting of assessment • major changes to the learning and teaching strategy • a change to the module title • a change to the credit level • a change to the credit value. • changes to activity hours • changes to pre/co requisites that impact on programme learning outcomes.

2. Proposed major changes to modules must be discussed via the host Programme

Board with all programmes currently accessing the module. Where interested parties have expressed serious concerns over the proposed changes, particularly where there is a potential impact on the achievement of programme learning outcomes, a process of negotiation may be necessary. If the parties themselves cannot resolve the issues, they should be referred to the Department of Academic Quality and Development. Major changes to modules must be approved by the mechanisms outlined in Section 7.4.1 or 7.4.2 above. The School must give all programmes currently accessing the module formal notice of the changes at this stage. All elements of the approval process (including ADS Workflow) for changes and updates to modules to be delivered in the next academic session must be completed by 30th June of the preceding academic session.

NB. From 2016 all new and major changes can be signed by the Departmental Learning, Teaching and Quality Lead/AHoD nominated by the ADLTQ (following approval by the Departmental Learning and Teaching Committee or equivalent. The Template for Module Approval/Change is provided in Appendix 7(b).

3. Any proposed changes to modules not falling into the categories specified in 1 above will

normally be regarded as minor. 4. Modules will have the following status on the catalogue:

• Work in progress • Current • Archived (i.e. withdrawn)

92

93

Appendix 7(b) Proforma: Module Approval and Module Changes Appendix 7(b)

MODULE APPROVAL/CHANGE PROFORMA NEW MODULE Module Title/Programme ownership

Module Code

External Examiner or Subject Specialist Approval by

Date of Approval

School Approval by

Date of Approval

MAJOR CHANGE(S) TO AN EXISTING MODULE Module Title

Module Code

External Examiner or Subject Specialist Approval by

Date of Approval

Programme Board/*School Approval by

Date of Approval

NEW Module Title (if applicable)

NEW Module Code (always required for major changes)

Details of change(s) to module

Evidence of consultation I confirm that the above new/major change(s) to existing module has been processed in accordance with the Quality Enhancement and Assurance Handbook. Signed Date NB. All new and major changes must be signed by the Departmental Learning, Teaching and Quality Lead/ADLTQ *extract from Programme Board minutes

94

Appendix 7(c) Preparation and Circulation of Module Handbooks Appendix 7(c)

PREPARATION AND CIRCULATION OF MODULE HANDBOOKS Every student registered on a module should receive a copy of the relevant Module Handbook. It is the responsibility of Module Leaders to prepare, maintain, and update the Module Handbook. Module Handbooks must be provided to students at the start of each trimester70 as soon as the students commence their studies. It is the responsibility of the Module Leader for each module to ensure that each student has been provided with a Module Handbook. Each Module Handbook will contain the current module descriptor and the following information for students:

• module timetable (i.e. scheduling of classes) • the assessment methods (including timing, type of assessment, description, duration,

weighting, and (where applicable) components of the assessment) • marking criteria specific to the module • details of how to access past exam papers • details of how to access GCU Learn • details of student performance feedback • name and position of all approved External Examiners.

70 The module handbook can be in hard and/or electronic copy (on GCU Learn)

95

Appendix 7(d) Proforma: Module Monitoring Report Appendix 7(d)

Module Monitoring Report

Notes on Module Monitoring (please read the following notes before completing the template on the next page) The Module Leader works with the Programme Leader and the Department Learning, Teaching and Quality Lead to review or develop a module that is congruent with the overall programme aims and philosophy, and adopts and reflects the programme approaches to learning, teaching and assessment.

Module monitoring is completed for every Trimester that the module runs and is tabled at the appropriate Programme Board. Modules may be accessed by a number of programmes but the Module is owned by the Host Programme Board71. To ensure consistency and transparency of practice; all decisions regarding module changes and assessment of marks are made by the host Programme and Assessment Boards and the decisions are then fed back to the accessing Programmes. In order to gain feedback that reflects all programmes accessing the module, it is expected that there will be cross programme representation at host Programme and Assessment Boards.

When monitoring individual modules it is important to consider the ongoing fit of the module with the host programme and therefore consideration should be given to this as part of the overall programme approaches to and development of learning, teaching and evaluation strategies (section 4 below). The report should underpin the process of Annual Module Review (section 7 below), feeding into overall decisions about the forward direction of the Programme and informing the APA.

All elements of the approval process (including ADS Workflow) for changes and updates to modules to be delivered in the next academic session must be completed by 30th June of previous academic session. NB. From 2016 all new and major changes can, following approval by the Departmental Learning and Teaching Committee or equivalent, be signed by the Departmental Learning, Teaching and Quality Lead/AHoD nominated by the ADLTQ prior to submission to the Department of Academic Quality & Development for approval in accordance with the process outlined in section 6.8. The Template for Module Approval/Change is provided in Appendix 7(b).

NB. For an overview of all the monitoring roles and responsibilities please see Programme Monitoring Manual (Appendix 5(b), section 15).

71 The host Programme Board is the owner of all the modules that make up the programme regardless of the number of programmes that may access an individual module.

96

Module Monitoring Report

School: Department: Programme: Module Title: Module Code: Academic Session: Trimester: Module SCQF Level: Module Credit: Module Leader: Students Registered: Programme Board Date: Pass Rate and Progression (1st Diet): Pass Rate and Progression (2nd Diet): Overall Module % Progression:

Section 1. Student Performance • Comment on the pass rate at 1st diet and any actions that may be required to enhance the

1st Diet result going forward, include consideration of non-submissions and comment generally on any trends identified

• Comment on the overall performance of any other programmes accessing this module Commentary:

Section 2. Student Feedback • Comment on the key challenges and good practice arising from an analysis of Module

Questionnaires, SSCG’s, and any implications (if relevant) arising from the of NSS/ISB results for the module

Commentary:

Section 3. External Examiner Feedback • Comment on the feedback from the External Examiner Reports, in particular detail any

challenges and areas of good practice identified Commentary: Confirmation of response to any issues raised in the External Examiner Report Yes/No If no please detail:

Section 4. Approaches to Learning, Teaching and Assessment • Comment, (based on module pass rates and Student and Module Team feedback) on the

overall approaches to learning, teaching and assessment utilised in the module and consider the ongoing overall fit with the host Programme. This can include actions for consideration including development of digital delivery (online and blended learning) and evaluation of the

97

effectiveness of the modes of delivery and assessment. Commentary:

Section 5. What is working well? • Based on the narrative above provide a concise overview of areas of success that will inform

the Annual Module Review Commentary:

Section 6. What needs to be changed? Commentary:

• Based on the narrative above provide a concise overview of areas of challenge that need to be addressed as part of the Annual Module Review

Commentary:

Section 7. Module Enhancement Plan (Annual Programme Analysis) • Based on sections 5 and 6, comment on any proposed actions and activities to be

undertaken that will inform the APA. Commentary: NB. All elements of the approval process (including ADS Workflow) for changes and updates to modules to be delivered in the next academic session must be completed by 30th June of each academic session. NB. From 2016 all new and major changes can be signed by the Departmental Learning, Teaching and Quality Lead/AHoD nominated by the ADLTQ *The Template for Module Approval/Change is provided in QEAH Appendix 7(b).

98

8. STUDENT EVALUATION AND FEEDBACK MECHANISMS 8.1 Student Staff Consultative Groups

Student Staff Consultative Groups are one of the principal mechanisms used within the University to evaluate the student experience on programmes, and to communicate to students details of actions resulting from the evaluation.

8.1.1 Purpose

The purpose of the Student Staff Consultative Group is:

• to act as an effective and representative consultative forum in which students and staff meet to discuss matters of mutual interest and concern arising from the content, teaching, and development of the programme, and any other aspects of the student experience at the University

• to provide an opportunity to obtain views representative of students on all levels and modes of the programme, and to take these into account in contributing to the programme monitoring and development processes

• to provide feedback to students on how the programme, or the University more widely, has responded to concerns raised by students.

8.1.2 Operation

The operation of the Student Staff Consultative Group should be as follows:

• groups are required by Programme Boards to meet at least once per

trimester, in an informal environment, with hospitality provided by the host School

• the Programme Leader, acting on behalf of the Programme Board, will in the first instance make arrangements for the establishment of the group. The group will, at the start of each meeting, elect a Chair who should normally be a student. The Programme Leader will be responsible for convening meetings of the group

• the Programme Leader and Chair, in consultation with other group members, will provide an agenda for each meeting (an outline agenda is included in 8.1.4 below)

• groups are required to keep formal minutes (by a Clerk who is a member of staff) and should produce a record of actions arising from the discussions

• any issues referring to modules shall be passed immediately to the Module Leader for action in the first instance. Programme, School, and/or University matters should be passed to the relevant Head of Department ,Programme Board, and/or School Board and, if appropriate, with the relevant University department

• the minutes and outcomes will be forwarded to the Programme Board (and any other relevant bodies) for information or action as appropriate. The minutes must contain sufficient detail for the Programme Board to be convinced that the group is operating successfully. The minutes will constitute the students’ primary input to the annual monitoring process

99

• groups may be established which cover whole programmes, or a single level or levels of a programme. In some cases, groups may be established which cover combinations of programmes with close academic links

• in the case of programmes delivered at a distance, Programme Boards should make alternative appropriate arrangements, for example the use of web-based discussion sites or paper-based consultation processes.

8.1.3 Composition

The Student Staff Consultative Group should have a majority of student members over staff members. The composition of the Group should be:

• elected students representing all levels and programmes constituting

the group (it is the Programme Leader(s) responsibility to make sure elections are conducted and the outcomes recorded among all relevant student cohorts at the start of each academic year)

• the Dean of the School or his/her nominee, responsible for administering the Programme(s), and/or the Chair of the Programme Board(s)

• the Programme Leader(s) • appropriate members of the teaching staff, nominated by the

Programme Leader(s) • students, staff, and other individuals, such as employers associated

with the programme, who are not members of the group, may be invited to attend and to participate in discussions.

The information in 8.1.2 and 8.1.3 above represents a template for the operation of Student Staff Consultative Groups. It is recognised that, particularly with part-time programmes or for programmes delivered via digital mode, some further flexibility may be required. However, all levels of each programme must have representation on a group. The Programme Board should arrange induction for class representatives at the start of each academic year in collaboration with the Students' Association.

8.1.4 Agenda

The following outlines a shell agenda for Student Staff Consultative Groups:

• apologies • purpose of Student Staff Consultative Groups72 • performance indicators for programmes and modules • minutes of the previous meeting • review of the results of actions arising from the previous meeting • matters raised by students • matters raised by staff • any other business.

72 At the first meeting of the academic session.

100

8.2 Module Feedback

In addition to the Student Staff Consultative Group, students currently utilise GCU Learn to provide feedback on modules. It is the responsibility of the module leader to ensure that such feedback is incorporated into the module evaluation process.

8.3 Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

In addition to the internal mechanisms for student feedback (SSCG and end of module evaluation mechanisms), the University receives feedback on the student experience via the National Student Survey (NSS). This is completed by students at most UK universities in their final year of undergraduate study. In addition, and in line with many UK universities, the International Student Barometer Survey is also run. The University’s Learning and Teaching Subcommittee and the Academic Policy Committee will each receive a yearly report from Schools and support departments on the actions taken in response to these surveys. In addition, the Academic Policy Committee will consider University-wide implications of the survey results.

101

9. EXTERNAL EXAMINERS 73 9.1 Appointment of External Examiners

The procedures for the appointment of External Examiners are outlined in the Regulations for the Appointment and Responsibilities of External Examiners74. The Department of Academic Quality and Development is responsible for the administration and management of this process. Senate appoints External Examiners on the basis of nominations from Schools. External Examiners are appointed for a period of four years. Appendix 9(a) outlines the nomination process. The External Examiners’ Approval Panel, chaired by the Head of Academic Quality, has devolved authority from the Learning and Teaching Subcommittee to approve External Examiner appointments. On appointment, each External Examiner will be invited to attend an Induction Session (normally held at GCU’s Glasgow Campus) and will receive a Handbook from the University which describes the role of the External Examiner at GCU in detail plus a copy of the approved Assessment Regulations and any approved exceptions from the regulations which are pertinent to the programme(s). GCU adheres to the Quality Code expectations and indicators of External Examining (B7, Appendix 1) and the national criteria for appointment. External Examiners are appointed to provide the University with impartial and independent advice, as well as informative comment on standards and student achievement in relation to these standards.

• The University normally appoints appropriate Examiners, for a period of four

years, with an exceptional extension of one year for continuity purposes, from academia, industry, business, and the professions in line with Quality Code B7 (indicator 5; person specification);75

• An External Examiner may be re-appointed in exceptional circumstances but only after a period of five years or more has elapsed since their last appointment.

• External Examiners should normally hold no more than two appointments for taught programmes or modules at any point in time.

The University appoints a proportion of External Examiners from industry, business, and the professions because of their unique expertise. In such cases, in line with Quality Code guidelines (B7), the individual will join a team of examiners and appropriate peer support is put in place. If the individual appointed is a first time External Examiner a similar system of peer support is implemented. The University, through the External Examiners’ Approval Panel, ensures a balance of professional and academic expertise and experience within the External Examining team on each programme. In line with the QAA Quality Code, reports will be made available to students, with the sole exception of any confidential report which will be made directly and separately to

73 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/quality-code-B7.pdf 74http://www.gcu.ac.uk/media/gcalwebv2/theuniversity/gaq/gaqfiles/assessmentregulations/Regulation

s%20for%20the%20appointment%20and%20the%20responsibilities%20of%20External%20Examiners.pdf

75 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/quality-code-B7.pdf

102

the Department of Academic Quality and Development. This reflects the principles of engaging students in quality management processes.

It is understood that reports will be redacted where:

• the individual Examiner has identified and named an individual • the individual Examiner has included something to cause harm or bring the

institution into disrepute.

9.2 Resignation of External Examiners

The resignation of any External Examiner prior to the completion of their approved term of office must be reported to the Department of Academic Quality and Development in all instances. If resignation is over a matter of principle, the Department of Academic Quality and Development will follow the procedure in the Regulations for the Appointment and the Responsibilities of External Examiners76.

9.3 Termination of an External Examiner’s contract

Where an external examiner has failed to fulfil their duties the contract can be terminated prematurely. The process for this is outlined in the Regulations for the Appointment and the Responsibilities of External Examiners75

9.4 Consideration of External Examiners’ Annual Reports

9.4.1 The Department of Academic Quality and Development should normally receive the External Examiners’ annual reports no later than 31st July in each year of the Examiner’s appointment for Examiners with responsibility for undergraduate programmes, and 31st October for Examiners with responsibility for postgraduate programmes77.

9.4.2 Once received by the Department of Academic Quality and Development the

report will be forwarded, in the first instance, to:

• the Chair of the Learning and Teaching Subcommittee • the Head of Academic Quality • the School Head of Administration.

9.4.3 The Head of School Administration will be responsible for forwarding the

report to the Dean, the ADLTQ and the relevant Chairs of Programme Boards and Module Leaders, where appropriate.

9.4.4 The Department of Academic Quality and Development will, on receipt of

each report, scrutinise the report and bring any concerns to the attention of the ADLTQ (for action), and copied to the Dean of the School.

9.4.5 As a result of the initial scrutiny, the Head of Academic Quality may consider

a report to be of a serious nature and request the ADLTQ (copied to the

76 Regulations for the Appointment and the Responsibilities of External Examiners 77 Where programmes or modules do not follow the standard academic calendar alternative dates may be set

103

Dean) to initiate immediate action. In any such instances the DVC Academic should be advised. Depending upon the nature of the issues raised, the Head of Academic Quality may wish to respond directly to the External Examiner on behalf of the University. This procedure will be instigated where issues of comparability of standards are raised, or in cases where the Head of Academic Quality feels it appropriate to respond on behalf of the University. Where less serious issues are raised, the Head of Academic Quality will request that the School formulates the response to the External Examiner. Prior to the response being sent, the Head of Academic Quality will approve it in terms of sufficiency. In all cases where a serious issue has been raised, the Department of Academic Quality and Development requires confirmation that the External Examiner is satisfied with the response. Appendix 9(b) outlines the process for responding to External Examiners.

In line with the Chapter B7 of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education,

External Examiners have the right to raise any matter of serious concern with the Principal and Vice Chancellor of the University, if necessary by means of a separate confidential written report. When this happens, the Department of Academic Quality and Development, in consultation with the relevant School, will provide the Examiner with a considered and timely response, outlining what action the University has taken, or intend to take as a result.

9.4.6 Schools will be required to confirm to the Department of Academic Quality

and Development, as part of the annual monitoring process, that:

• an adequate and timely report has been received from each External Examiner

• each report has received sufficient consideration by the Programme Board, and the requisite responses have been carried out by the School(s) and Programme Board

• an appropriate formal, written response has been made to each External Examiner by the Chair of the Programme Board and/or Dean of School, as appropriate

• the minute of the relevant Assessment Board meetings have been sent to each External Examiner.

9.4.7 The reports on actions taken in response to External Examiners’ reports will

be included within the Programme and Module Monitoring processes. 9.4.8 The Department of Academic Quality and Development will pursue

outstanding reports. 9.4.9 The Department of Academic Quality and Development is responsible for

providing the Learning and Teaching Subcommittee with an overview report on External Examiner activity encompassing issues raised, actions undertaken and elements of good practice.

104

Appendix 9(a) Diagram: Process for Appointment of External Examiners Appendix 9(a)

PROCESS FOR APPOINTMENT OF EXTERNAL EXAMINERS

EXT1 / EXT2 considered by School Quality Assurance

Mechanisms

EEAP considers the application on behalf of the LTSC

Approval by School EXT1/EXT2 sent to

AQD

Approval by EEAP

Problems identified

Yes

No

LTSC receives note of all approved appointments as Part C item AQD notifies Schools of approval

AQD completes formal process of appointment of EE and update

the University External Examiner Database

External Examiner nominated by Programme or Module Team and EXT1 form

completed

External Examiner’s duties require to be modified.

Programme or Module Team complete EXT2 form

Form returned to Programme or Module Team

School advised

Information on form modified

Appointment abandoned/

replacement normally sought

ABBREVIATIONS* EEAP External Examiners’ Approval Panel* EXT1 Nomination of new External Examiner* EXT2 Extension to duties* LTSC Learning and Teaching Subcommittee

NOTES1. ‘School Quality Assurance Mechanisms’ refers to Programme Boards and Learning Teaching and Quality Committees etc.2. ‘School Approval’ refers to School Board or approved delegated authority.

AQD provides a formal letter of appointment and

summary of duties to newly appointed EE including an

invitation the next available Induction and Briefing

Session

Programme Team makes contact with EE to confirm

administrative arrangements and timescales, and provide

EE with relevant information.

105

Appendix 9(b) Diagram: Process for Consideration of External Examiner Reports Appendix 9(b)

PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF EXTERNAL EXAMINERS REPORTS

Report received

Report scrutinised

Criticism of operation or

performance of programme or

modules which are minor subject related points

Positive report

Criticism of the University’s

services, resources, quality and/or standards

Head of Academic Quality responds directly to External

Examiner on behalf of the University

Programme Board responds directly to External Examiner

Programme Board responds directly to External Examiner*

In some cases the Head of Academic Quality reserves the right to approve the response to the External Examiner, prior to it being sent.

106

10. MANAGING PROVISION DELIVERED IN PARTNERSHIP

10.1 Context

The University, in common with the sector, is involved in a wide range of arrangements and opportunities for delivering learning and teaching at all academic levels, both in the UK and internationally. The University additionally recognises partnership activity as a key enabler to support its strategic goal to engage globally; and Internationalisation is a core theme that runs across all the University’s 2020 goals. The key principles and overarching procedures laid out within this section apply to the development, approval, monitoring and review of all UK based and transnational education (TNE) partnership arrangements. Any proposed partnership arrangement for TNE to be developed must align with the University’s framework for growth of international students. Where appropriate, there must be consultation with the Strategic Internationalisation Teams established through the Framework.

10.2 Governing Principles and Criteria

In setting up a partnership arrangement, the partnership must achieve an end which the University would not be able to achieve acting alone; i.e. the partnership must be necessary to meet the University’s strategic goals. In this context, a partnership arrangement will normally be expected to promote the following:

• to be strategic in its intention. It should benefit the overall mission, vision and strategic goals of the University and enhance, where relevant, School and Departmental plans.

• to be financially viable and sustainable. At minimum, arrangements should cover their direct costs and where this is the case they should be able to demonstrate significant other benefits and return on investment. Wherever possible they should generate a financial surplus. The benefits brought by the proposed partnership or collaborative arrangement should seek to outweigh the resources required to establish and maintain it.

• compliant with the QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education, in particular, Chapter B10: ‘Managing higher education provision with others’

• compliant with the University’s policies and procedures including those for anti-bribery, anti-corruption and cyber security.

• compliant with UK Government policies, in particular UKVI and Consumer Rights Act (and associated CMA advice).

• assessed using a risk-based approach. The approach taken should be proportionate to the level of risk, nature, and complexity of the proposed arrangement.

• the potential to be multi-layered, expressed by the total number of activities that the University has with a single partner and defined as partnership intensity.

• widening participation and access to the University’s programmes • strengthening the University’s position in the recruitment and selection of

students

107

• contributing to the research activities of the University or enhancing the scholarship of the University’s staff

• the exchange (with or without the conferment of dual awards) of students and staff for the purposes of teaching and supervision.

In all partnership arrangements, and specifically one involving the award of academic credit granted in the University’s name, the University will have ultimate responsibility for the quality and maintenance of academic standards, and the quality and enhancement of the student’s learning experience wherever these take place and whoever provides them. The University has also agreed a set of KPIs which will be used to measure and monitor partnership arrangements. These are detailed in the section below on monitoring and review.

10.3 Partnership Types

The following table provides an extended typology of the various types of partnership arrangements that the University will consider. Depending on the type, Schools submitting proposals will be asked to follow a particular process and submit specific documentation. Procedures for the approval, monitoring, and review of arrangements will also vary according to type and the degree of risk involved. As such, some arrangements will require a higher degree of oversight than others. It is important to be clear from the outset which model of partnership arrangement is being proposed.

Table 1. Extended Typology

Type Definition

Accreditation A programme of study (or module) designed, delivered, and assessed by a partner institution, awarded by the University and subject to the quality assurance procedures of the University. The programme (or module) must be of an appropriate quality and standard to lead to an award (credit) of the University.

Articulation A specific form of partnership between the University and a partner institution, whereby the University will agree to recognise specified qualifications offered by the partner institution for entry, or advanced entry, to applicants from the partner institution to enter a specified programme of study at the University. The agreement also commits the partner institution to a series of related actions and communications regarding the articulation process. Articulation partnerships are a useful international recruitment tool and a way for GCU to assure the quality of articulating students. Planned articulation pathways can greatly augment recruitment, which can be subject to fluctuation.

Branch Campus A branch (or satellite) campus is a campus of the University that is physically at a distance from the original University site. The campus may be located in a different city or country, and is often smaller than the main campus of the University. The establishment of a branch campus will be an institutional arrangement, normally a GCU strategic objective.

Close Co-operation

The University agrees to promote co-operation, discussion, and positive academic relations with another partner institution to their mutual benefit, without establishing a binding legal relationship between the two institutions. An agreement may be multi-layered and

108

Type Definition

include a number of activities. Any of the party has the ability, in co-ordination with the respective points of contact identified in the agreement, to develop and engage in further joint activities. The content and special conditions of such further activities will be specified by a party in a supplementary agreement or contract to the general agreement of co-operation that will govern the partnership activity.

Credit Rating (External)

A process of evaluation by GCU of programmes or individual units delivered by an external organisation. The evaluation takes place against the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) guidelines in order to assess the level and volume of credit attributable to the programmes or units concerned. Its primary purpose is to give a specific value at a specific level, of general credit to learning undertaken in the workplace, or learning that is work related. From the external organisation’s perspective, it may enhance the attractiveness of the learning from the point of view of potential learners. The process and procedures laid out in the Handbook for Credit Rating at GCU will be followed.

Dual Award The University, with one or more partner institution(s) together provide a programme leading to separate awards conferred by both, or all, of the partners.

Exchange (ERASMUS+)

A scheme which encourages universities throughout Europe to establish close links through joint activities, in particular, student and staff exchange. In all cases, agreements should not be entered into without an assessment of the suitability of the exchange partner including evidence of the status of the institution. A relevant academic staff member is required to undertake an initial assessment of the proposed exchange partner institution to determine if entering into an exchange agreement will be viable or not.

Exchange (non- ERASMUS+)

An exchange arrangement not otherwise covered under the ERASMUS+ scheme, for example, with a transatlantic/overseas partner. Similar process as above applies to determine suitability of partner.

Franchise An approved GCU programme (level of a programme or part of a programme), delivered and assessed by staff of another educational institution or other body, leading to an award of the University. Such institutions/bodies will be subject to the quality assurance procedures of the University.

Joint Award A programme delivered by GCU together with one or more degree-awarding institution(s), leading to the conferment of a single award made jointly by both or all partners. The nature and extent of the collaboration may vary and may require the design of programme-specific regulations and quality assurance procedures which are approved by all partners.

Joint Delivery An arrangement where one (or more) partner institution(s) provide teaching towards an award of the University.

Off-campus delivery

An arrangement whereby an approved GCU programme (level of a programme or part of a programme) is taught by University staff at an off-campus location. The University will need to assure itself of the quality of the resources and student support facilities at the site for

109

Type Definition

the off-campus delivery, whether in the UK or overseas, before final approval of off-campus delivery.

Research Degrees (Joint supervision)

A student associated with a partner institution and registered for the award of a higher degree with GCU in accordance with the University’s Higher Degree Regulations. Part of the student’s period of study may be spent at a partner institution, with a co-supervisor appointed from the partner institution.

Serial Arrangement The University does not permit any serial arrangements, which is effectively sub-contracting by a partner institution to a third party.

Study Abroad (Incoming)

A scheme whereby fee-paying incoming students from non-exchange partners study for a trimester or year at GCU as part of their home programme of study.

Study Abroad (Outgoing)

A scheme whereby GCU-registered students on a GCU programme of study undertakes a trimester or year of study at a non-exchange partner institution. There should be agreement between the outgoing GCU student and the host institution with approval from the relevant GCU Programme Leader. The University guidelines on placement learning shall apply and a placement learning agreement must be concluded with the student prior to departure.

Summer School (International)

International Summer School programmes give incoming students the chance to complete a shorter period of study at GCU. Summer School programmes at GCU may be divided into two possible types of programme: credit-bearing courses or non-credit experiences.

10.4 Supporting Structures and Governance

A range of support is available within the University to support the development and approval process of partnership arrangements. Professional support advice should be sought at the outset to aid the development of any proposals. The Department of Academic Quality and Development and the International Partnerships Office are two key offices and sources for support and co-ordination of activity, as follows:

110

Within the University’s framework of academic governance, institutional oversight for the quality assurance and approval of partnership arrangements, UK and transnationally, is undertaken by the International Committee and the Academic Policy Committee on behalf of Senate. The level and scope of oversight will be dependent on the nature of the partnership arrangement being proposed. For example, an articulation arrangement with an international partner institution requires consideration and approval by the International Committee, whereas an arrangement such as off-campus delivery with an international partner institution will require to be considered and approved by both the International Committee (initial approval of international partner) and the Academic Policy Committee (institutional academic approval of arrangement).

10.5 Outline of Development and Approval Stages

The development and approval of partnership arrangements is generally split into six main stages. The specific process to follow is dependent on the nature of the proposed arrangement and the risk associated with the proposal. At each stage of the process, the partnership proposer will be guided through a framework of forms and templates which will capture the essential and mandatory information and responses required for the key elements of the development and approval stages including initial concept identification, due diligence, risk assessment and register, academic case and business (financial) case, draft outline agreement and/or contract. Diagram 1. Process stages

10.6 Contractual Arrangements and Agreements

All partnership arrangements will be supported by a written agreement setting out the objectives and activities of the arrangement and the respective rights and

111

responsibilities of the parties and signed by the authorised representatives of the University and the partner institution. The content of the contract will vary depending on the nature of the partnership arrangement, e.g. for partnership arrangements which lead to an award, or to specific credit, of the University, specific elements will be mandatory, including: • the University’s ultimate responsibility for the maintenance and oversight of the

quality of student learning experience and of the academic standards of all awards granted in its name; including the ways in which standards are to be maintained

• the processes and responsibilities for the approval, monitoring, and review of provision, including proposed changes to any aspect of provision including, without limitation, the structure, curricula, admission regulations, assessment regulations, programme title, or any other significant changes

• management of admissions and registration • responsibilities for marketing, recruitment and promotion • arrangements for the assessment and teaching of students, including the

language and teaching of assessment • External Examiners • graduation and conferment of award, issue of certificates and transcripts • management and administration of programme(s) including student support and

welfare • arrangements for complaints, discipline, and academic appeals.

Discussion and negotiation with the partner will be required in order to formulate the agreement/contract. Not until this is finalised and signed by the authorised signatories can activity within the scope of the agreement/contract commence. The agreement/contract will be subject to regular monitoring and review as defined and agreed by parties.

10.7 Partnership Register

All arrangements that are subject to a formal agreement will be recorded in the University’s Partnership Register maintained by the International Partnerships Office. The purpose and objectives of the central register is to:

• act as the principal and definitive record of the University’s all partnership and collaborative arrangements;

• ensure the University’s policies and practices are compliant with the QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education Chapter B10: Managing Higher Education Provision with others, in particular, the Indicator which states that all HE providers maintain records (by type and category) of all arrangements for delivering higher education with others that are subject to a formal agreement; the register of partnerships should be maintained and be publicly available on the University website.

• capture key management information to support the administration, ownership and oversight of partnership activity such as partnership owner and the period of agreement covered within the formal agreement; this is key for partnership liaison and risk management activity;

• set key milestones for partnership review activity including closure action and exit strategy planning;

112

• act as a key reference point to inform potential new developments and to support the University’s requirements of due diligence and academic case development, an integrated approach to future developments;

• support internal and external monitoring and reporting requirements including University KPI measurement;

• support in-country marketing and recruitment activity through the promotion of current partnership activity;

Specific to internationalisation

• act as a ‘live’ supplement to the Internationalisation Strategy of current activity; • act as the mechanism to fulfil the term of reference of the International

Committee to oversee the University’s register of international partnership arrangements.

A partnership arrangement will have a dedicated owner/lead allocated within their respective School/Department. This individual will be responsible for the maintenance of the Risk Register initially developed during the approval stages as outlined above. Review of Partnership Register Standing Data A review of information held in the Partnership Register will be undertaken by the IPO on a bi-annual basis and reported to the University Internal Audit Committee. The review will include updates to partner standing data such as type of arrangement, partner owner, contacts, and updates to risk register. The timeline for the bi-annual review will be as follows:

• 1st review of partnership list will start July of each year to allow time for collection of partnership updates from Schools/Departments to ensure information is correct and accurate and that performance against KPIs is evaluated for submission of a confirmed report to the Internal Audit Committee in September.

• 2nd review will start in January of each year to request details as above for a finalised report to be submitted in March to the Internal Audit Committee.

10.8 Changes to Partnership Arrangements

Any proposed changes to existing partnership arrangements which may require an amendment to the existing agreement or contract, or the development of a new one, for example, the addition of an academic programme(s) with an existing partner or extension to articulation arrangement, should be notified to the Department of Academic Quality and Development or the International Partnerships Office (as appropriate to type).

10.9 Monitoring and Review

All partnership arrangements will be monitored and reviewed in a range of ways to meet the needs of various stakeholders across the University and will include, as appropriate, ongoing ‘fit’ with current and emerging strategy, the effectiveness of partnership liaison activity, KPIs and objectives, the on-going maintenance of academic standards, and the quality and enhancement of the student’s learning experience. The set of KPIs that the University has agreed to measure and monitor partnership arrangements are as follows:

• Contribution to student and staff mobility; • Contribution to fee paying student numbers; • Financial contribution to the University;

113

• Number of research publications produced associated with the partnership; • Contribution to the reputation of GCU through the quality of partners as defined

by the relevant external ranking of partner; • Partnership intensity expressed by the total number of partnership activities the

University has with the partner; • Strengthening of the University’s reputation as the University for the Common

Good; multifaceted • Supporting the development of GCU’s learning and teaching pedagogy, in

particular in relation to the Common Good Curriculum; • Contribution to University-wide strategic projects.

All formal academic programme arrangements, in common with all institutional academic provision, will be subject to periodic approval, appraisal, and review. In general, the review of partnership arrangements is embedded within the normal quality enhancement and assurance procedures covered by the Annual Programme Monitoring and Review processes. All partnership arrangements which lead to an award or credit of the University will require to have an External Examiner. To assist the External Examiner in fulfilling their duties, as defined in the University Assessment Regulations, they will be required to visit the partner institution periodically. In their annual report, External Examiners will be invited to comment on the comparability of standards, the quality of the student learning experience, and the effectiveness of assessment arrangements across locations (where this is applicable for the arrangement) for the programme(s) and/or module(s) under their responsibilities. In particular, this will include comment on the quality of the work of the students who studied in the different locations, the level of achievement of the different cohorts of students, consistency of practice, and equity of treatment of students.

10.10 Withdrawal and Termination of a Partnership

A partnership agreement may come to an end for various reasons: a partner institution may successfully achieve degree-awarding powers; a partner may decide to cease offering a programme; the articulation arrangement is no longer viable; or the University may decide, following a review, that the collaboration no longer fits with its strategic plan. In all cases, the withdrawal and termination must adopt key principles, some of which will be more relevant for specific partnership arrangements. These include:

• must be carefully managed so as to ensure that academic standards and the

quality of the student learning experience is maintained for remaining students • both the University and partner institutions continue to have responsibilities until

all students have completed or have left the programme or programmes • the withdrawal decision must be communicated promptly to the partner

institutions by the University or vice versa. Communication of the decision must allow sufficient time for detailed arrangements to be discussed and agreed.

• an action plan (incorporating any teach out arrangements) must be agreed via a meeting(s) of the partner institutions

• the plan should include an agreed date for final student admissions to the programme that are the subject of the partnership agreement

114

• following the completion or departure of the final students, the University will write to the partner institution to confirm the termination of the partnership arrangement

10.11 Appointment of Associate Lecturers

The status of Associate Lecturer is reserved for individuals involved in collaborative arrangements, normally as employees of the partner institution (for details on appointment of other categories of part-time staff, please see the relevant HR Policy). The procedures described in Appendix 10(a) are not intended to apply to ‘guest’ lecturers who make contributions to the teaching of a module.

115

Appendix 10(a) Appendix 10(a) Appointment of Associate Lecturers

APPOINTMENT OF ASSOCIATE LECTURERS 1. Definitions 1.1 An Associate Lecturer is involved in the delivery of a GCU award. They may have

responsibility as Module Leader and will normally be engaged in one or more of the following activities: lecturing, tutorials, seminars, and assessing student work.

1.2 The procedures described below are not intended to apply to ‘guest’ lecturers who make contributions to the teaching of a module.

2. Procedure 2.1 The CVs of staff proposed for designation as Associate Lecturers will normally be

considered as part of the programme approval or Review process, but may also be considered outwith these processes. In the latter case the following procedures must be followed. The flowchart in Appendix 10(b) summarises the process.

2.2 The Dean of School (or nominee at the appropriate senior level) will ensure that an

individual proposed for Associate Lecturer designation meets the minimum candidate profile for appointment as a lecturer at GCU* (see below). The only exception will be when an applicant has an externally-recognised professional qualification in substitution for an honours degree. Individuals without appropriate HE teaching experience will be required to undergo an appropriate training programme and will be assigned an appropriate mentor.

2.3 The individual’s CV, together with details of their contribution to teaching, will then be

passed to the Department of Academic Quality and Development. 2.4 The Department of Academic Quality and Development, either as part of the

consideration of the reports of the approval/review process or individually, will pass the nominations to the Learning and Teaching Subcommittee for formal approval. Senate will be informed of decisions via a ‘for information’ agenda item. The Department of Academic Quality and Development will maintain a list of all Associate Lecturers.

2.5 The Dean of School will be responsible for informing the Associate Lecturer of his/her

appointment and for ensuring he/she is aware of, and complies with, the GCU quality enhancement and assurance procedures as laid out in this Handbook.

2.6 When a School withdraws Associate Lecturer status from an individual, the Department of Academic Quality and Development must be notified.

2.7 The designation of Associate Lecturer status implies that the individual has satisfied

the criteria adopted by GCU for the granting of such a title only in relation to the award in which he/she will be involved. This must be clearly indicated in any correspondence in the following form, e.g. ‘Associate Lecturer (Programme title), Glasgow Caledonian University’. Any misuse of the title will result in it being revoked.

*The candidate profile for a GCU lecturer includes the following essential criteria:

• Honours degree in a relevant subject

116

• special interest in (or the potential to develop) research, and/or consultancy/income generation, and/or specific teaching experience

• demonstrate effective interpersonal skills, including communication (written and verbal), and team working skills

• demonstrate a commitment to the University’s mission, values, principles of governance, and strategic priorities

• demonstrate an ability to undertake academic administration • demonstrate an ability to undertake research and to develop a research profile if

teaching at levels H and M • demonstrate an ability to teach effectively • demonstrate an ability to develop teaching and research links with industry in

the UK and overseas, and to contribute towards the growing international teaching, research, and income generation activities of the School.

*The following criteria are desirable:

• higher degree (preferably PhD) • membership of an appropriate professional body • membership of HE Academy or a teaching qualification • lecturing experience in HE • experience of raising external research and/or consultancy income • record of scholarly publication • experience of quality enhancement and assurance in HE

117

Appendix 10(b) Appendix 10(b) Flowchart of the Process for the Appointment of Associate Lecturers

FLOWCHART OF THE PROCESS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ASSOCIATE LECTURER AND/OR TEACHING ASSISTANTS

Individual’s CV, together with details of their contribution to

teaching, will then be passed to AQD

AQD will pass the nominations to LTSC for formal approval

Senate are informed of all appointments via confirmed APC

minutes

AQD will maintain a register of all Associate Lecturers

Dean of School or nominee ensures proposed Associate Lecturer meets minimum candidate profile for appointment as a lecturer at GCU

Dean of School informs Associate Lecturer and HR of his/her

appointment

118

Appendix 10(c) Appendix 10(c) Guidelines on Placement Learning GUIDELINES ON PLACEMENT LEARNING 1. Introduction

These guidelines78 are sufficiently broad to cover all types of placement learning at the University and outline the minimum requirements that the University expects should be met by Schools. It is not intended to cover which is not a planned part of a programme of study, such as part-time and vacation work which students have arranged for themselves. The guidelines should also be read in conjunction with the document ‘Managing Risk: Guidelines for the Management of Student Placements at GCU’ (ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT)79.

2. Scope

There are several different types of placement learning for students on undergraduate and postgraduate taught programmes. These are:

• Academic Placements: study abroad as part of the programme of study. Some

are available through the ERASMUS+ exchange programme scheme, others are through individual agreements with other partner institutions

• Work/Industrial Placements: to gain work/industrial experience relevant to the programme of study

• Practice Placements: to develop the practical skills and competencies that will be required for practice in a profession or other employment.

The method of assessment/credit rating of the placement varies between programmes. On some placements, students are assessed and gain credits which count to their final award, whilst on other placements there are no credits awarded but completion of the placement is required in order to meet progression and professional requirements.

3. Preparation for Placement Learning 3.1 General Principles

Schools should include information about placement learning in the Programme Specifications and Programme Handbooks. This should include intended learning outcomes, which should relate to the programme learning outcomes, monitoring and review procedures, and methods of assessment. The School should consider whether any assessment of placement learning is covered by their arrangements for internal moderation and external examining and whether the standards which are applied to any assessment of placement learning are consistent with available subject benchmarks and other relevant reference points and, where appropriate, fulfil professional, statutory, or regulatory body requirements.

3.2 Checklist of School’s Responsibilities: Information for Students Pre-Placement

Schools should: 78 All placement activity which includes international students on Tier 4 visas must comply with the UKVI

regulations. Advice should be obtained from the Registry Operations Manager (PBS Compliance). 79https://www.gcu.ac.uk/media/gcalwebv2/theuniversity/gaq/gaqfiles/Guidelines_for%20_management_of_studen

t_placements_revised_June_2012.pdf

119

• inform eligible students, at an appropriate stage, of placement opportunities offered by the School

• ensure that students are adequately informed about the procedures for securing, approving, and allocating placements and, if applicable, define their procedures and criteria for approval of individual placement opportunities

• ensure that the School has sufficient up-to-date information about each of their placement providers (e.g. partner institutions or work placement providers) for dissemination to interested students

• where relevant, ensure that students are informed in detail about the programme of language study which is required, and about language study facilities at the University

• ensure that students are adequately informed about the academic requirements of the placement learning period and, if applicable, how the marks obtained will be processed and incorporated into their degree classification

• make students aware of the procedures for claiming mitigating circumstances • inform students about the consequences of failure to secure, or fully attend and

complete, a placement • ensure that each student has a Learning Agreement/Practice Action Plan agreed

prior to departure; • ensure that students are adequately informed about any induction and

registration procedures at the placement provider • provide students with full contact details for the members of staff who will be

responsible for them during their placement learning period both in the School and at the host institution

• provide students with information about the University’s support services that will remain available to them during the placement

• ensure that students are aware of relevant health and safety, insurance, personal safety, and cultural information

• ensure that students are made aware of the relevant procedures to be followed for dealing with misconduct and student discipline while on placement

• ensure that students are aware of the University’s Complaints Handling Procedure and that these should be used if students wish to make a complaint regarding their placement.

3.3 School’s Responsibilities: Information for Staff

Schools should ensure that:

• staff responsible for placement learning activities are adequately trained to meet the needs of their role

• placement providers should be informed of the University’s formal mechanism for students who wish to make a complaint

• the placement provider has been supplied with information about the student by the deadline required by the placement provider

• the International Partnerships Office (Exchange and Study Abroad) has been informed of the students who will be undertaking a study abroad period and that these offices are notified immediately of any subsequent changes.

3.4 Responsibilities and Rights of Students

Schools should ensure that students are aware of their responsibilities:

• as representatives of the University

120

• towards the placement provider and its customers, clients, patients, and employees. This would include maintaining appropriate dress/uniform code and maintaining punctuality, reliability, and professional conduct

• for managing their learning and professional relationships • for recording their progress and achievements • for alerting the placement provider and their home School to problems with the

placement that might prevent the progress or satisfactory completion of the placement.

Schools should also ensure that students are aware of their rights:

• to a safe placement environment • to be treated in accordance with applicable legislation.

3.5 Students who have a Disability

Schools have a responsibility to ensure that the needs of students who have a disability, and who are participating in placements, are considered prior to departure and that appropriate support is available before, during, and after their placements.

3.6 Responsibilities of Placement Providers

Schools should be able to assure themselves that placement providers know what their responsibilities are during the period of placement learning, including their roles in providing learning opportunities, the assessment of students, and the health and safety of students.

4. During the Placement Learning Experience

Schools should require students to keep in regular contact with the School during their placement period in order to review their progress. This could be facilitated by e-mail communication. In addition it is recommended, where practical, that academics aim to visit students during the placement period. Students should be given information about their subsequent period of study back at the University, particularly any regulation changes.

5. Post-Placement Checklist for Schools

Schools should:

• monitor and periodically review their placement policies and procedures in order to evaluate their effectiveness in providing intended learning outcomes and meeting appropriate levels of quality and standards

• encourage students to write a brief evaluation of their experiences at the host institution and country in order to provide user-friendly advice for future students

• seek formal or informal feedback from the placement provider • consider holding information events for future students, using the returning

students, and should consider asking returners to help integrate incoming students from partner institutions

• remind students to complete reports/receipts/contracts relating to the student grant, if applicable.

121

6. Marks and Credit Transfer for Students on Placements/Exchanges at Partner Institutions

6.1 Policy

Where students participate in periods of study abroad at another educational institution which results in the award of marks and credit by the partner Institution, the University undertakes to provide arrangements for the consistent transfer of credit and marks to GCU for the purpose of progression and final award decisions. This will ensure that students on exchanges are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged parallel to peers remaining at GCU and not participating on an exchange.

6.2 Setting up Agreements

The ownership of an exchange scheme rests at School level, with advice and guidance from the International Partnerships Office (Exchange and Study Abroad).

6.3 Credit Equivalence

Schools must define and document what, in their belief, is the amount of work to be undertaken at the exchange institution which corresponds most closely to the level and number of credits required for that period of academic study at GCU. This should be done by obtaining information on the academic regulatory framework (credit systems) in place at partner institutions and, with advice from the International Partnerships Office (Exchange and Study Abroad), defining a range which equates with a range of GCU credits and levels.

6.4 Mark Translation

Schools must have a documented procedure for translating a mark awarded by a partner institution into a mark to be used for the purposes of determining a student's progression or award. The procedure may be based on one or more combinations of the methods described below:

• Schools may agree standards of achievement in the form of assessed learning

outcomes and relate these to marks on their GCU scale. These standards/learning outcomes must be agreed with the partner institution and levels of achievement indicated by the partner for each student.

• Schools may request that all or a portion of a student's work is returned to GCU to be double marked and or shown to the External Examiner.

6.5 Student Learning Agreements (Exchange and Study Abroad)

Schools must ensure that each individual student undertaking an exchange has a Learning Agreement. Students attending the same exchange institution should undertake a broadly equivalent workload to other GCU exchange students in the same subject area. Students should be informed prior to departure of the way in which credit and marks are to be transferred and this confirmed in the Learning Agreement. The student’s Learning Agreement should state the manner in which re-assessment will be undertaken if a fail mark is received during a placement.

122

Options are:

• the re-assessment is set and marked by the institution at which the student is undertaking the placement (prior agreement will need to have been sought from the placement institution)

• the re-assessment is set and marked by the student’s School • the student is required to enrol on a substitute module at GCU in order to accrue

the credits not gained during the placement. This may entail the student enrolling on extra credits during the next year/stage of the programme in order to complete the previous year/stage. Alternatively, it may mean the student is unable to progress to the next year/stage until the requisite numbers of credits have been gained by taking the substitute module(s) as a part-time student.

123

11. THEMATIC REVIEW

11.1 Purpose The purpose of thematic review is to:

• provide the opportunity for the University to facilitate an institution-wide perspective on major themes that may not necessarily be explored through Enhancement Led Internal Subject Review or programme approval/review processes.

• review the operation of existing processes and procedures and/or to assess current practice across all relevant aspects of the QAA Quality Code for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education80.

• to fulfil an enhancement function through the dissemination of information on good practice throughout the University and, where weaknesses are identified, to require and/or recommend appropriate action for improvement.

11.2 Review Schedule

A rolling programme of thematic reviews will be developed by the Department of Academic Quality and Development and approved by LTSC. The format and scope of each thematic review will be designed in relation to the particular theme being reviewed.

11.3 Reporting and Follow-up Activity

The outcomes of the review will take the form or recommendations to the Learning and Teaching Sub-Committee. The Department of Academic Quality and Development will co-ordinate an the development of an action plan which will be submitted to the Learning and Teaching Subcommittee together with the report of the review. Where weaknesses are identified, the Review Panel will make recommendations for appropriate action.

11.4 Dissemination of Good Practice

The identification of elements of good practice arising from Thematic Review is maintained as part of the Department of Academic Quality and Development website.

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

124

Annex 1

ACADEMIC QUALITY, ENHANCEMENT AND ASSURANCE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ANNEX: ACADEMIC QUALITY, ENHANCEMENT AND ASSURANCE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Department of Academic Quality and Development

The roles and responsibilities of the Department of Academic Quality and Development at Glasgow Caledonian University in relation to academic quality, enhancement and assurance are summarised below:

• development and review of policy and procedures for quality management in

compliance with the QAA Quality Code • monitoring and review of academic quality and standards and providing advice

and guidance to staff, both academic and administrative, on all aspects of the University quality enhancement and assurance procedures

• preparation for and organisation of QAA Enhancement-Led Institutional Review • the organisation and facilitation of Enhancement-Led Internal Subject Review

and the monitoring of the implementation of the action plans derived from the reviews

• management and co-ordination of approval of new programmes and the Review of existing programmes

• providing advice on the development, enhancement, and approval of modules • management and institutional oversight of the approval and appointment of

External Examiners for taught programmes and learning contracts, and the consideration of External Examiners’ annual reports

• provision of guidance, advice and support in the development, approval, and monitoring of partnership arrangements

• maintain the Department of Academic Quality and Development website, including programme specifications, regulations, etc. and the publicly available information provided to the QAA

• management of the thematic review process • the collation of information on quality enhancement and assurance matters and

annual summary reports for consideration of Senate and Senate Standing Committees and Court

• ensuring that Senate, Senate Standing Committees, and Assessment Boards act in accordance with the University’s Assessment Regulations

• providing advice to Assessment Boards on the Assessment Regulations • business process owner for programme and module approval and review

2. Schools

2.1 School-level Responsibilities: Programmes

2.1.1 Schools are responsible to Senate, through the Academic Policy Committee, for ensuring the effective implementation of the processes and procedures to review, monitor, and enhance the quality and standards of their academic provision and for the implementation of the University’s Strategy for Learning.

125

2.1.2 The specific responsibilities of Schools are summarised below, with respect to programmes:

• the implementation of University processes and procedures to

monitor, review, and enhance the quality and standards of all of their academic provision, principally at programme level, in accordance with University policy

• to be responsible to Senate, through Academic Policy Committee, for the development, approval, Review, and maintenance of all programmes, suites of programmes, and frameworks offered by the School

• to take full cognisance of the requirements of the Quality Assurance Agency/Scottish Funding Council in providing robust evidence on the quality and standards of all academic provision, principally at programme level, embraced by the School

• to ensure where relevant the involvement, as far as possible, of appropriate professional, statutory, and regulatory bodies in the associated quality enhancement and assurance activities

• to provide sufficient resources, human and physical, to ensure the maintenance of standards within all programmes and modules

• to ensure an adequate infrastructure for the support of School programmes is provided, and to draw the attention of the University to any shortfall in this support

• the appropriate consideration of the academic and financial implications of all proposed partnership arrangements

• to review research and staff development strategies within the Schools for the purpose of ensuring that all programmes and modules are underpinned by relevant scholarly and professional activity.

N.B. For programmes organised outwith a School, these responsibilities will be undertaken by the relevant directorate/unit.

2.1.3 Quality enhancement and assurance in a modular framework requires

regular and effective communications between Programme Boards and Schools involved in delivering the programme. The relationship between these bodies must ensure high levels of mutual understanding and a firm commitment to act co-operatively.

In the event of tensions emerging amongst Schools, Programme Boards, and Programme Development Boards, the matter will be referred to the Head of Academic Quality who will attempt to resolve the issue. If this is not possible, then matters of quality enhancement and assurance will be referred to Academic Policy Committee; matters of resourcing will be referred to the DVC Academic.

2.2 School-level Responsibilities: Modules

2.2.1 Schools are responsible for the development, maintenance, and

monitoring of all modules within their subject-area remit. 2.2.2 The specific responsibilities of Schools are noted below, with respect to

modules:

126

• developing all new and existing modules within the relevant discipline areas of the School, including the determination of appropriate standards in relation to the level of the module and subsequent updating of ISIS

• developing appropriate learning, teaching, and assessment strategies for each module, consistent with the learning objectives of the programme(s) on which the modules are delivered

• for modules within their remit, identifying the continuing professional development and training needs for staff involved in the development and delivery of learning outcomes and instruments of assessment

• monitoring the delivery and enabling the enhancement of the quality and standards of the modules within their remit

• the annual module monitoring process • ensuring the academic health of all modules for which the unit has

responsibility • ensuring all proposed changes to modules are fully discussed with

appropriate Programme Boards and due regard is given to their view prior to approval

• considering timeously the External Examiners’ reports insofar as they affect their modules and provision of an appropriate response

• implementing the objectives of the learning, teaching, and assessment strategy for which the Schools are responsible

• where appropriate, to work with Programme Boards to ensure that quality enhancement and assurance and academic standards activities pursued at the subject level are informed by the requirements of professional, statutory, and regulatory bodies

• the monitoring of research and scholarly activities designed to underpin the programmes to which their modules contribute

• ensuring the appropriateness of the human and physical resources underpinning the quality and standards of the academic provision within their constituent disciplines

• ensuring that the provision which Schools develop and offer is consistent with the academic policy and programme strategy of the School and University.

3. Department Learning Teaching and Quality Leads

3.1 The University recognises the academic leadership provided by the Department Learning, Teaching and Quality Leads in the areas of Programme Approval/Reapproval and the Annual Monitoring Process. The Department LTQ Lead provides support for and advice and guidance on LTQ matters to Programme and Module Leaders, academic and professional staff. The Department LTQ supports the work of the HoD and AHoDs, and works closely with, supports, and where appropriate, represents, the School ADLTQ at internal and external meetings and committees. The Department LTQ Lead provides a summary analysis of the Department APAs to support the ADLTQ in the preparation of the Report to School Board and LTSC. The Department (LTQ) Leads are members of the LTQEN’.

127

4. Programme Leaders

4.1 The Programme Leader remains the cornerstone of Programme and Module Approval/Re-approval and Review and holds overall responsibility for the leadership and academic integrity of the programme and all associated modules.

A Programme Leader, reporting to the Programme Board81 (see 5, below), is responsible for defining, in conjunction with the Department Learning Teaching and Quality Lead and the Programme Team82, the philosophy, rationale, and objectives of the programme, as well as defining the content; structure; and teaching, learning, and assessment strategies. He/she is required to ensure that programmes provide a coherent professional, academic, and intellectual experience appropriate to the defined philosophy and objectives.

4.2 The role of a Programme Leader is to:

• own, lead and co-ordinate the delivery of the programme • ensure that appropriate processes are undertaken for the Quality

Enhancement and Assurance of the programme as specified in the University Quality Enhancement and Assurance Handbook, among other things to : o produce the Annual Programme Analysis, including Programme

Enhancement Plan, for consideration by the Programme Board and approval by the School Board

o ensure that student/staff consultation takes place on a regular basis and action directly any issues requiring attention

o ensure that programme documentation (Programme Specification) is kept up to date and approved by the Programme Board, and forwarded to the Department of Academic Quality

o in liaison with professional support staff, ensure that electronic versions of Programmes and Modules are accurate and up to date in the Integrated Student Information System (ISIS) and the online module and programme catalogues

o co-ordinate the Programme Review process o ensure that the annually-updated Programme Handbooks are

available to students.

• ensure the continuous development of the programme to maintain relevance of content and the enhancement of the student learning experience including addressing issues in relation to students with a disability

• provide information and advice to the Head of Department on resource issues arising from the delivery of the programme

• monitor admissions, progression, and completion rates in accordance with the University and external requirements (PSRBs)

• in liaison with appropriate staff, ensure that programme admission, registration, and student induction operates effectively, including the maintenance of University policy with regard to Equality and Diversity

81 Programme Boards are ultimately responsible to the School which hosts the programme for all

aspects of quality enhancement and assurance related to the programmes or suite of programmes under their jurisdiction.

82 Academic staff involved with the delivery of the programme.

128

• ensure appropriate attendance monitoring is carried out by Module Leaders

• ensure that the loading and timing of assessments are appropriate • ensure that the Assessment Board has been provided with the necessary

data to allow it to discharge its remit as defined in the GCU Assessment Regulations and Terms of Reference and Standard Operations of Assessment Boards

• liaise as appropriate with the External Examiners to ensure effective External monitoring of the programme and associated modules

• liaison with professional, statutory, and regulatory bodies.

5. Module Leaders

5.1 Module Leaders (in conjunction with the Programme Leader) are accountable to the host Programme Board and are responsible for:

• the planning, delivery, review, monitoring, standards and academic

development of module(s) and for ensuring that such modules are accurate and up to date; resulting in a Module Enhancement Plan

• day-to-day administration of the module, including coordination of the module team if more than one individual is involved in delivery

• preparing a Module Handbook • developing appropriate learning, teaching, and assessment strategies for

each module, consistent with the learning objectives of the programme(s) to which the modules are delivered

• monitoring student progress and liaising with the Programme Leaders or other appropriate individuals with regard to the individual problems and needs of the students, including students with disabilities

• providing academic advice including feedback on assessment in relation to students’ progress through the module

• reporting to Programme Boards on matters concerning the delivery of the module

N.B. The Programme Board, in turn, will ensure that any issues/concerns are remitted to the appropriate assessment board meetings with regard to the individual performance of students, and matters related to the assessment of the module.

• the Quality Enhancement and Assurance of the module, including the

annual module monitoring process and the creation and updating of the Module Enhancement Plan

• the assessment of the module as detailed below.

5.2 In relation to assessment, the role of the Module Leader is outlined in the University Assessment Regulations83 (Appendix 1).

6. Programme Boards

6.1 Programme Boards (PB) are responsible to the School which hosts the programme for all aspects of quality enhancement and assurance related to the programmes or

83 http://www.gcu.ac.uk/gaq/regulationsandpolicies/

129

suite of programmes under their jurisdiction. A PB shall be established for each programme or suite of programmes. The PB shall comprise: programme officers; nominated representatives, normally from each subject area contributing to the programme; and student representatives from the programme. Where appropriate, representatives from industry, commerce, or the appropriate professions may be invited to be members of the PB. Alternatively, PBs may make other arrangements, which will be documented, to ensure that the views of industry, commerce, professions etc. are considered by the PB and have an appropriate impact on the programme.

6.2 The specific responsibilities of Programme Boards, in liaison with appropriate

Schools, as necessary, are:

• the monitoring and maintenance of academic standards within their programme area

• the quality of the student experience within their programme area • the academic coherence and development of their programme • the creation and maintenance of Programme Specifications • the timeous consideration of External Examiners’ reports and

communication of the associated responses to the Externals • the establishment of Student Staff Consultative Groups (SSCG) under the

terms of the guidelines agreed by Senate • where appropriate, the maintenance of effective relationships with

professional, statutory, and regulatory bodies within their programme area to ensure that quality enhancement and assurance and academic standards activities at the programme level are informed by the requirements of these bodies

• the Annual Programme Monitoring process (described in Section 5 of the University’s QEA Handbook).

6.3 Composition and Meetings of a Programme Board For every approved programme there is a corresponding Programme Board. Each Programme Board, which may represent a single programme or a suite of programmes, is responsible to the appropriate School Board for implementing the policies of Senate.

Composition

• Programme Leader [Ex Officio] • an appropriate number (as determined by the Programme Board) of

representatives of each subject area with modules under its remit which are part of the programme(s). Each subject area must normally have at least one representative.

• one registered student, to be elected by, and from, the registered • students on each level of each programme or suite of programmes, save that in

the case of one-year programmes two such students shall be so elected • the election and method of appointment of student(s) will be in accordance with

such regulations made by the Court on the recommendation of the Students’ Association

• the representative(s) in this category will normally be members of the appropriate Student Staff Consultative Group

• the composition of the Programme Board must normally include external members (see Section 5.1 of this Annex, above).

130

Other Ex Officio members of Programme Board:

• Principal or nominee, normally the DVC Academic. • Dean of the School (or nominee) in which the host programme is located • ADLTQ of the School in which the host programme is located • Dean(s) of the School(s) administratively responsible for the programme(s) or

one person nominated by each Dean of School appointed under this category • The Academic Liaison Librarian.

N.B. Chair appointed by the Programme Board, from among the members of the programme Board.

Meetings

Programme Boards must meet at least once per trimester and a minimum of three times per academic year. To facilitate more effective student involvement, student-related issues should be considered at the beginning of Programme Board agendas.

N.B. Quorum for Programme Boards: 50% of the membership. (Principal and DVC Academic) are excluded from the quorum).

If you have any queries on the contents of the Quality Enhancement and Assurance Handbook please contact a member of staff in the Department of Academic Quality and Development

Quality Enhancement and Assurance Handbook October 2016 (Version 6.3)

Prepared by Department of Academic Quality and Development Printed by Print Design Services

Department of Academic Quality and Development Glasgow Caledonian University

Cowcaddens Road Glasgow G4 0BA

Web: http://www.gcu.ac.uk/gaq/