Validation and Audit Sub-Committee (VASC) Standing Panel Annual Conference

Tuesday 13th September 2016

PROGRAMME

9:00 - 9:30am Registration and refreshments Wilson Foyer

9:30 - 9.35am Conference welcome Lynda Brady, Pro-Vice Chancellor (Student Experience) & University Secretary

W1

9:35 - 9.55am VASC Standing Panel Annual Report 2015/16 Tony Turjansky, Director of Quality Assurance & Chair of VASC

W1

9:55 - 10:25am

National Quality Update: Quality Assessment, Consumer Legislation and the Teaching Excellence Framework Tony Turjansky

W1

10:25 - 10.40am Changes to Validation and Periodic Review in 2016/17 Tony Turjansky

W1

10.40 - 10.45am Briefing for Breakout sessions Tony Turjansky

W1

10.45 - 11.05am Refreshments Wilson Foyer

11:05 - 11.50am Breakout sessions (1)- see next page W13,

W14 & W15

11.55 - 12.40pm Breakout sessions (2)- see next page W13,

W14 & W15

12:45 - 1.00pm Feedback from breakouts and closing thoughts Tony Turjansky

W1

1:00pm CLOSE

BREAKOUT SESSIONS: Session A will run once at 11.05-11.50am and is reserved for Standing Panel Chairs only. For the 11.55am-12.40pm slot, Chairs should select either Session B or C on the day of the conference, with allocations being confirmed on the day. Sessions B and C will run each twice at 11.05-11.50am and 11.55am-12.40pm and are open to all Standing Panel members. Session preferences can be indicated when registering, with allocations being notified on the day.

Session A: ‘Chairs’ Workshop” Facilitator: Professor Mark Schofield, Dean of Teaching and Learning Development Room W13 Chairing validations and periodic reviews requires specific knowledge and understanding of University regulations and national quality expectations as well as personal skills of communication, negotiating agendas and managing meetings. This session, which is reserved for Standing Panel Chairs, provides an opportunity to discuss matters of process, evaluate the service provided by AQDU staff, and identify any issues and themes that may be addressed through specific training and support for course teams and validation panel members.

Session B: ‘Validation and the Academic Regulations’ Facilitator: Helen Smallbone, Academic Registrar Room W14 The approval of new credit-bearing programmes is predicated on their alignment with the University’s Academic Regulations and institutional validation is the final opportunity to confirm this before they proceed to delivery. This session provides a forum to hear about and discuss some of the areas in which some course teams have previously struggled to achieve compliance with the regulations, and where validation panels should focus attention.

Session C: ‘Operationalising 2-Stage Validation’ Facilitator: Tony Turjansky, Director of Quality Assurance & Chair of VASC Room W15 The forthcoming move to 2-stage validation, with curriculum approval managed by Faculties and delivery approval by an Institutional panel, will impact the work of VASC Standing Panel members who may be involved at either stage of the process. This session explains the key features, including the relationship between stage 1 and 2, the documentation requirements for each and how validation judgements will be arrived at and recorded.

9:00 - 9:30am Registration and refreshments Wilson Foyer

9:30 - 9.35am Conference welcomeLynda Brady, Pro-Vice Chancellor (Student Experience) & University Secretary

W1

9:35 - 9.55am VASC Standing Panel Annual Report 2015/16Tony Turjansky, Director of Quality Assurance & Chair of VASC

W1

9:55 - 10:25am National Quality Update: Quality Assessment, Consumer Legislation and the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF)

W1

10:25 - 10.40am Changes to Validation and Periodic Review in 2016/17 W1

10.40 - 10.45am Briefing for Breakout sessions W1

10.45 - 11.05am Refreshments Wilson Foyer

11:05 - 11.50am Breakout sessions (1) W13, W14

& W1511.55 - 12.40pm Breakout sessions (2)

12:45 - 1.00pm Feedback from breakouts and closing thoughts W1

1:00pm CLOSE

Session A: ‘Chairs’ Workshop”Facilitator: Professor Mark Schofield, Dean of Teaching and Learning Development Room W13Chairing validations and periodic reviews requires specificknowledge and understanding of University regulations and nationalquality expectations as well as personal skills of communication,negotiating agendas and managing meetings. This session, which isreserved for Standing Panel Chairs, provides an opportunity todiscuss matters of process, evaluate the service provided by AQDUstaff, and identify any issues and themes that may be addressedthrough specific training and support for course teams and validationpanel members.

Session B: ‘Validation and the Academic Regulations’Facilitator: Helen Smallbone, Academic Registrar Room W14The approval of new credit-bearing programmes is predicated ontheir alignment with the University’s Academic Regulations andinstitutional validation is the final opportunity to confirm this beforethey proceed to delivery. This session provides a forum to hearabout and discuss areas in which some course teams havepreviously struggled to achieve compliance with the regulations,and where validation panels should focus attention.

Session C: ‘Operationalising 2-Stage Validation’Facilitator: Tony Turjansky, Director of Quality Assurance & Chair of VASC Room W15The forthcoming move to two-stage validation, with curriculumapproval managed by Faculties and delivery approval by anInstitutional panel, will impact the work of VASC Standing Panelmembers who may be involved at either stage of the process. Thissession explains the key features, including the relationship betweenStage One and Two, the documentation requirements for each andhow validation judgements will be arrived at and recorded.

VASC Standing Panel

Annual report 2015/16

Tony TurjanskyDirector of Quality Assurance & Chair of VASC

13th September 2016

Standing Panel activity in 2015/16

10 (re-)validations:• Re-validation of all English, History & Creative Writing,

Geography, Media and Social Sciences undergraduate degree programmes

• New undergraduate programmes in Biotechnology and Computer Science

• New Integrated Masters in Nursing & Social Work with dual PSRB accreditation

7 major modification panels• Study Abroad/ Erasmus Framework

Standing Panel activity in 2015/16

5 collaborative provision approvals• 3 new articulation routes from Chinese and Singaporean

HEIs• Delivery re-approval of Shrewsbury College (University

Higher Diploma/ PGCE Further Education and Training)• New Masters in Medicine and additional Master of

Chirurgiae pathways for delivery by Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

4 periodic reviews: Biology; English, History & Creative Writing; Geography; PPE (Health)

Themes from Validation

• Justification of proposed award title(s) • ‘Block’ implementation of a re-validated programme • Programme (credit) structure: modules, pathways• Integrated Masters: entry requirements, progression/

transfer arrangements and exit awards• Professional Statutory and Regulatory Body accreditation• Availability and organisation of work placements and/or

Erasmus exchanges including guidance and support for students and staff

Themes from Validation (contd)

• Promoting graduate employability and skills for employment including links with employers

• Support for international students• Operation of personal tutoring and/or personal

development planning• Alignment of staffing with projected student

numbers• Use of, and support for, Associate Tutors and/or

Graduate Teaching Assistants • Support for staff research activity

Themes from Validation (contd)

• Use of the Blackboard VLE to support classroom and/or blended learning

• Variety and inclusiveness of teaching and assessment including formative assessment

• ‘Mapping’ of modules to programme learning outcomes

• Module assessment: alignment with learning outcomes; assessment tasks, tariffs (wordages) and weightings

Themes from Validation (contd)

Course organisation, including programme management arrangements

Student experience on Joint Honours programmes Addressing industry (PSRB) requirements

including appropriateness and sufficiency of learning resources

Effective collaboration between the University and partner organisations

Themes from Periodic Review

• Validating/ refreshing curricula in line with industry and graduate expectations identified through consultation with students and employers

• Maintaining and increasing student recruitment • Developing students’ academic and transferable

graduate skills to enhance their employability• Reflecting changes to level 3 schools curriculum in

undergraduate degree programmes • Professional body accreditation

Themes from Periodic Review (contd)

• Developing a student community/ cohort identity • Opportunities for placement/ fieldwork, including

Erasmus exchanges • Staff expertise and capacity to deliver a diverse

portfolio • Balance between teaching and research including

preparation for the next Research Excellence Framework (REF)

• Department/ programme management structures and their effectiveness

Themes from Periodic Review (contd)

• Appropriateness and sufficiency of learning resources including specialist resources and use of new learning technologies

• Support for postgraduate/ international students and implications for staffing

• Use of observed teaching to assure teaching quality• Delivery of personal tutoring and Personal

Development Planning including promoting and monitoring student engagement

• Use of Graduate Teaching Assistants

Themes from Periodic Review (contd)

• Appropriateness, variety and inclusiveness of assessment

• Developing assessment literacy including students’ understanding and expectations of assessment feedback

Student Focus Groups – ‘Strengths’• Teaching quality (3)• Variety and appropriateness of assessment (1)• Quality of assessment feedback including detail and timeliness (3)• Academic and personal support (3)• Support for personal development including employability (3)• Explanation of learning outcomes and marking criteria (3)• Learning resources including IT (2)• Academically and professionally qualified staff (1)• Research-informed teaching (2)• Course organisation and approachability of/ communication with staff

(3)• Fieldwork activities (1)

Student Focus Groups – ‘Areas for development’

• Timeliness and consistency of assessment feedback (1)• Quality of electronic feedback (1)• Availability of module options (timetabling) and guidance

for students (2)• Signposting of learner support services (1)• Availability of course-specific resources (2)• ‘Bunching’ of assessment deadlines (1)• Financial support for fieldwork activities (1)

Recommendations and Citations• 9 Faculty recommendations, 8 University

recommendations• 52 good practice citations of which 11 identified as

potentially transferable including:- Assessed seminar participation (English, History and Creative

Writing; Social Sciences)- Support for student research (Computing)- Extra-curricular activities and field trips (English, History and

Creative Writing; Social Sciences) - Staff development for supporting students with learning

difficulties/ disabilities (Media)- Support for international students (Computing)

VASC Standing Panel in 2016/17

• New 2-stage Institutional validation process w.e.f. January 2017 (details later)

• Validation and review schedule now on the Y drive and expressions of interest welcomed (members should aim to volunteer for at least 2 validations or 1 periodic review during this year) and changes/ additions will be notified by email

• A full programme of staff development is available…

• Standing Panel Members’ Induction (repeated)• Standing Panel Chairs’ Workshop (repeated) • Curriculum Development Programme (3 sessions)• Consumer Rights (CMA): Implications for Programme

Approval and Modification• Using EHU’s Taught Degree Frameworks in Validation

and ReviewAlso:• ‘So You Want To Be An External Examiner?’• Committee Members Training

Full details in conference pack flyer andbooking available via Staff Learning & Development

VASC Standing Panel

National quality update: quality assessment, consumer legislation and the Teaching Excellence Framework

Tony TurjanskyDirector of Quality Assurance & Chair of VASC

13th September 2016

HEFCE revised operating model for quality assessment (March 2016)

• QAA six-yearly review to be replaced by a new review method promising a ‘proportionate and low-burden approach to regulation’

• Established providers will not normally be subject to repeat testing against the baseline (UK Quality Code) unless there is evidence of significant quality failure

Revised QA model (HEFCE)

• Annual Provider Review(from Dec 2016)

• Five-yearly HEFCE Assurance Review(next EHU HAR in 2018/19)

• Annual Provider Review

• Repeat visit after four year

• Peer review visit

• Test against baseline requirements

Review for established providers

Developmental period of enhanced scrutiny

Entry Gateway

Inte

rven

tion

whe

re

nece

ssar

y

‘Annual Provider Review’

HEFCE data-supported desk based review of:• Recruitment (in the context of WP)• Retention, progression and completion against

benchmark• Degree outcomes (classifications) including differential

outcomes for students with different characteristics• Student satisfaction (NSS Q.22 on ‘overall

satisfaction’)• Employment outcomes (DLHE)• Governors’ Annual Accountability Return (AAR)

‘AAR’

• Governors already provide annual assurances to HEFCE on financial sustainability, management and governance, data quality and value for money

• From December 2016 these will be expanded to include new statements on quality:- ‘The governing body has received and discussed a

report and accompanying action plan relating to thestudent academic experience and student outcomes,including the evidence from the institution’s ownperiodic review processes which fully involve studentsand external expert advice.’

AAR (contd)

• “The governing body has received and discussed a report and accompanying action plan relating to the continuous improvement of the student academic experience and student outcomes. This included evidence from the provider’s own periodic review processes, which fully involve students and include embedded external peer or professional review.”

• “The methodologies used as a basis to improve the student academic experience and student outcomes are, to the best of our knowledge, robust and appropriate.”

• “The standards of awards for which we are responsible have been appropriately set and maintained.”

• (From 2017/18) “The governing body has received a report that confirms that the provider continues to meet the standards of Part 1 of the European Standards and Guidelines (2015).”

HEFCE Annual Provider Review

Verification of a provider’s own review processes

Studentvoice

Newassuranceon ‘quality’

Publication on Register

Annual Accountability

Return

Analysis of data and

other intelligence

Risk letter to provider

Governing body

assurances

AnnualProviderReview

APR Outcomes (‘risk letter’)

• Provider meets APR requirements • Provider meets APR requirements with conditions (action

plan) • Provider referred for further investigation and intervention • Provider does not meet APR requirements (provider is

subject to enhanced scrutiny through review visits)* • Provider does not meet baseline regulatory requirements

(provider may be removed from the Register of HE Providers)*

* from 2017-18

Annual Provider Review: Preparation

• HEFCE expects that Governors will ‘challenge assurances from within the institution’ when producing their AAR

• This will require them to obtain more information on, and evidence of, quality processes and outcomes, e.g. overview reports of:

- Validation - Periodic Review- Annual Monitoring- External Examiners

• However Academic Board has supreme academic authority

Other QA-related activity (HEFCE)

• Approval process for new HE providers (QAA)• Conducting unsatisfactory quality investigations (QAA)• Liaison with overseas HE regulators and overview of UK

HEIs operating overseas (QAA)• Desk-based verification of institutions’ internal periodic

review processes (QAA)• Support for governing bodies (Leadership Foundation for

HE)• Calibration of degree standards including national (online)

training for external examiners (Higher Education Academy)

Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF)

• May 2016: BIS White Paper outlines first year implementation of a Teaching Excellence Framework (‘TEF1’) accompanied by a technical consultation for second year implementation (‘TEF2’)

• TEF1 (2016): Providers including Edge Hill with at least two previous satisfactory QAA reviews are permitted an inflationary fees increase* for 2017/18 based on a single judgement of ‘Meets Expectations’

* Based on forecast inflation for 17/18

TEF (contd)

• TEF2 (2017)*: Desk-based assessment of studentsatisfaction (NSS), retention (HESA) and graduateemployment (DLHE) supported by an institutionalcommentary – differentiated judgements of ‘MeetsExpectations’, ‘Excellent’ and ‘Outstanding’ permitinflationary increase for 2018/19 entry (award lasts 3 years)

• TEF3 (2018)*: Additional metrics, e.g. teaching contact hours and new graduate employment data. Differentiated judgements but only 50% inflationary increase for ‘Meets Expectations’. Subject-level TEF piloted (for rollout in 2019).

* Subject to technical consultation

TEF – progress to date

• TEF1 secured – Edge Hill fees set to increase to £9,250 p.a. from September 2017

• TEF2: Directorate steering group responds to the technical consultation (July 2016) and begins drafting an institutional commentary for submission in December. Commentary to contextualise the data and provide additional evidence of: Teaching quality – innovation and research in T&L;

teaching observation; external examining; teaching intensity (contact hours); staff qualifications, reward and recognition; responsiveness to student feedback; PSRB accreditations

‘Commentary’ (contd)

Learning environment – investment in teaching and learning infrastructure; tracking and monitoring student progress and development, including induction and ‘transitions’; student involvement in/ exposure to latest developments in research, scholarship or professional practice; employer engagement in course design and/or delivery

Student Outcomes and Learning Gain – retention strategy; support for students from different backgrounds, including disadvantaged backgrounds; employability strategy and progression of graduates into highly-skilled employment

TEF2 Commentary - challenges

• Everything must be accommodated within the 15 pages, i.e. contextualisation of data and evidence of teaching quality, learning environment and student outcomes – realistic? Links to other documents, appendices etc. are not permitted so how will our self-evaluation be verified?

• In addition to the judgements commendations are likely to be available, e.g. for excellence in teaching innovation, employer engagement and supporting students and staff –how do we approach this strategically when producing our commentary?

Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)

• CMA guidance to HE providers (March 2015) covers allstages of the ‘student journey’:- Pre-entry – “It is unlawful to mislead students by failing

to give them the information they need to make aninformed choice… Missing, hidden or inaccurateinformation may affect students’ decisions”, e.g. coursecontent, teaching arrangements and full costs of study.The offer of a place is deemed to be a contract foreducational services and changes must be notifiedprior to contract.

‘CMA’ (contd)

• Post-entry: “Terms that allow an HE provider to varysomething – such as the course content or fees – may beunfair where they allow wide discretion to the HE provider tomake changes to important aspects of the service. Termsallowing variation are not automatically unfair, and there islikely to be a need for an element of flexibility, given thatunforeseen events or circumstances may arise, but this hasto be balanced against giving an HE provider too wide adiscretion to make changes… without describing thecircumstances when and reasons why this mighthappen.”

Managing programme changes

• Evidence of student consultation required for programme modifications/ re-validation

• Major modifications to be completed by December of the year preceding implementation (except changes of programme/award title which must be completed by September of the year preceding implementation)

• Student consent is additionally required for:‐ Block implementation of a re-validated programme

affecting current students (majority consent)‐ Change of award title affecting current students

(unanimous consent)

VASC Standing Panel

Changes to validation and review in 2016/17

Tony TurjanskyDirector of Quality Assurance & Chair of VASC

13th September 2016

Validation

• Validation at Edge Hill has historically consisted of Institutional panel approval preceded by Faculty pre-validation scrutiny

• Faculties have developed effective mechanisms for scrutinising programme and module specifications which are then scrutinised again by the VASC Standing Panel

• W.E.F. January 2017 AQEC has delegated curriculum approval to Faculties, enabling Institutional panels to prioritise programme delivery and the quality of student learning opportunities

Validation (contd) • New standard timeline for programme development and

approval has been approved by APC (taking account of CMA)• All UG programmes to be validated before any offers are made

– in practice this means validation must be completed at least fifteen months before programme delivery, i.e.

- Stage 1 / 2 Validation: between January-April 2017- AQEC final approval: June 2017- UCAS opens: October 2017- Delivery commences: September 2018

(PGT and ‘closed’ programmes, e.g. commissioned programmes may follow a shorter timeline)

Validation (contd) Stage One Curriculum Approval (Faculty-level):- approves programme and module specifications, i.e. programme structure, content, and teaching, learning and assessment strategies. Stage Two Delivery Approval (Institution-level):– approves delivery of the curriculum, how it will be resourced, organised and managed and how students will be supported. S2 also verifies that S1 has been completed according to due process and that the programme specification is technically accurate and regulations-compliant*.

* As the definitive Programme Specification is a national requirement and is published externally, S2 affords an opportunity for a final check before sign-off.

Panels VASC Standing Panel members to be involved at either Stage:at S1:

- Chair: Associate Dean or other SP Chair from the Faculty- Up to two SP members from the Faculty plus one SP

member of another Facultyat S2:

- A SP Chair- Two SP members

(Normal rules concerning conflict of interest apply)

Panels (contd)

• Both Stages to contain appropriate ‘externality’:at S1:

- Independent academic subject expert(s)at S2:

- Individual with senior expertise in HE teaching and learning/quality assurance

• Separate panels for S1 & 2 with no commonality (ex. AQO)

• Student panel member at S2 (for piloting in 2016/17)

Process

• Validation documentation is unchanged, i.e. Parts ‘A’ Programme Specification, ‘B’ Development & Delivery document and ‘C’ Modules + appendices, e.g. staff CVs

• Each Stage has its own proforma agenda (see breakout session)

- S1 approves programme and module specifications (and critiques Part ‘B’)

- S2 approves Part ‘B’ and signs off on the programme specification (Note: S2 will not look at modules)

• Either or both panels may set conditions and recommendations and S1 conditions must have been met in order for S2 to proceed (typically six weeks later)

Periodic review

• QAA (on behalf of HEFCE) will scrutinise our periodic review process during 2017-18: “Once a provider has passed through the Gateway to enter the higher education system, its own periodic review process should be the key mechanism to improve academic outcomes and the student academic experience” (‘Revised operating model for quality assessment’, HEFCE March 2016).

• HEFCE’s specification for an effective periodic review process contains the following questions for consideration by HE providers:

1. Is there externality in any process that the provider operates to reviewthe student academic experience and student outcomes? Does itinclude employer or alumni or PSRB representation? Is it operated inpartnership with students? Does it contain experts from other UKinstitutions, or indeed from other countries if appropriate?(EXTERNALITY)

2. How does the provider identify innovations and developments that couldenhance the student academic experience and its outcomes? How doesit design such interventions and innovations? How does the providerevaluate whether improvement has occurred or not? (ENHANCEMENT)

3. How does the provider evaluate ‘what works’ and what does not?(IMPACT)

4. How does the provider identify issues or problems that need addressingin the student academic experience and its outcomes? (RISKASSESSMENT)

(‘Revised operating model for quality assessment’, HEFCE March 2016)

Periodic review (contd)

Changes in 2016/17 to include:

Module review/ re-approval synchronised with departmental periodic review of programmes

Employer focus group meeting Sample marked student work no longer required as

evidence

Evaluation form for completion by panels and departments at periodic review (and validation)

Other changes

Course development teams to: Provide explicit evidence of student and employer

consultation in programme development ‘Map’ programme learning outcomes to QAA subject

benchmarks (matrix) Distinguish between subject options and Free Electives

drawn from other programmes/ subjects, e.g. language study modules

Define a UCAS points ‘range’ (min/max) to include the standard offer and the minimum points to be accepted during Clearing – standard offer only to appear in programme specifications

Guidance and information

• Quality Management Handbook Chapter 3 ‘Annual Monitoring, Periodic Review and Internal Audit’ (2016) -available mid-October

• Quality Management Handbook Chapter 4 ‘Programme and Module Approval and Modification’ & “Preparing for Validation” (2016) - available mid-October

• “Preparing for Periodic Review” (2016) – available now• Validation and periodic review templates – available now

Website: www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqduEmail: quality@edgehill.ac.uk

Any questions?

Thanks for your continuing contribution!

Breakout sessions

Please see lists at Conference reception and in your delegate packs – the first session will begin promptly at 11.05am

In Scientia OpportunitasOpportunity from Knowledge

Professor Mark SchofieldDean of Teaching and Learning Development,National Teaching Fellow, Director of the Centre for Learning and Teaching,Academic Director, SOLSTICE Centre for Excellence in Teaching and LearningU.K Director, Confucius InstitutePrincipal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy,Visiting Professor: University of Northampton, Leeds Beckett University, Hunan First Normal University, Chongqing Normal University (China)Senior Fellow in Educational Development, University of Windsor, Canadaschom@edgehill.ac.uk

Chairing validations and periodic reviews

Chairing validations and periodic reviews

“Chairing validations and periodic reviews requires specific knowledge and understanding of University regulations and national quality expectations as well as personal skills of communication, negotiating agendas and managing meetings. This session, which is reserved for Standing Panel Chairs, provides an opportunity to discuss matters of process, evaluate the service provided by AQDU staff, and identify any issues and themes that may be addressed through specific training and support for course teams and validation panel members.”

So, we have 3 Foci.

To:

• identify any issues and themes that may be addressed through specific training and support for course teams and validation panel members

• discuss matters of process

• evaluate the service provided by AQDU staff, 

How?

Activity 1 ‐ Elicit ideas re the above by:

• each identifying three specific things that an effective chair does

• Suggesting some things that chairs should avoid doing

• Suggest any parts of the validation and periodic review processes that have potential for improvement

Collate in your group onto flip chart and share.

Activity 2: Advising on training needs

Suggest a list of ‘items’ that should/could be in a ‘training experience’ for panel members 

Activity 3: Appreciative enquiry (Post‐its exercise)

‘What do the AQDU staff do well in servicing validations and periodic reviews?’ 

‘What, if anything may be improved?’

A big thank you!

Questions?Observations?

Requests?

Validation and the Academic Regulations

Helen SmallboneAcademic Registrar 

13 September 2016

Purpose of this session

• To provide information on:

‐ The Academic Regulations 

‐ The strategic importance of complying with the Academic Regulations

‐ Achieving compliance with the Academic Regulations 

The external environment 

The Academic Regulations 

• The institutional Academic Regulations for Taught provision 

• Powers to Grant Awards ‐ Scheme Regulations – Validation & Review – Admission  ‐ Assessment  ‐ Progression & Award – Appeals –External Examiners – Honorary Awards 

• Updated Annually ‐ updates tracked

• Recommendations for any amendment to be submitted to the Academic Regulations Review Committee – to be approved by Academic Board 

Modules 

• Each module is self‐contained with defined learning outcomes• Size : ‘In the interests of transferability, the standard module size adopted by theUniversity for all taught programmes is 20 credits. Larger module sizes arepermitted in multiples of 10 credits. Module sizes that are not in multiples of 10credits, or are 10 credits or less, may exceptionally be approved by ValidationPanels where justified by a convincing academic rationale in relation to the effectivedelivery of learning’

• 1 credit = 10 notional hours of learning time – n.b. not directly teaching time• All academic modules level rated: 3/4/5/6/7• Allow the specification of pre/co‐requisites and barred combinations where it isjustified at validation

• Allow the specification of attendance requirements and core elements where it isjustified at validation

• May be defined as Core (underpinning award title or satisfying a professionalrequirement – cannot be condoned) where it is justified at validation

Programmes and Credit Requirements

• Programmes constitute named awards (eg BA English). They consistof specified combinations of modules validated for the named awardthat allow students to meet the overall award requirements in termsof credits and level

• The University operates with a clearly defined ‘Table of Requirementsfor Higher Education Awards’ that sits as C2.4 of the AcademicRegulations. This table, which is informed by nationally recognisedthreshold standards, provides a clear framework within which all newprogrammes must be developed;

Minimum at highest level

Award type Min total credit 

requirement

Stage II requirement (for 

classification) L3 L4 L5 L6 L7

University Foundation Certificate 30 30

University Certificate of Credit 10 10

University Certificate 60 40

Certificate of Higher Education 120 90

University Diploma 120 90

University Higher Certificate 60 40

University Higher Diploma 120 90

Diploma of Higher Education 240 120 90

Foundation Degree 240 120 90

Certificate of Professional Development (CPD) 30 30

University Advanced Certificate 60 40

Conversion Degree (Ordinary)^+ 60 60

Ordinary Degree 300 180 60

University Advanced Diploma 120 90

Conversion Degree (Honours)^# 120 90

Honours Degree 360 240 90

Honours Degree with placement* 480 360 90

Integrated Masters 480 360 90

Footnotes

^Progression from specified FD, HND/C or DipHE only +Condonement provisions do not apply to this award  #RPL restricted to 50%*Excludes awards with practice based placement requirements ** PGCE Secondary programmes require completion of an additional 60 ungraded placement credits***Requires completion of an additional 60 ungraded placement credits and a recommendation for QTS

• For awards noted in bold type, the minimum total credit requirement is also the maximum

• Placements or professional skills standards that do not form part of the academic diet and are not level rated may sit outside of the total credit requirement or be subsumed within the programme accordingly 

Mode of study • The terms ‘Full Time’ and ‘Part Time’ study define students’ statuses inaccordance with the University’s internal regulations and theexpectations of external regulatory bodies

• The normal requirement for achieving a full time status is to beundertaking 120 credits per year for undergraduate students and 180credits during a standard academic year for postgraduates ‐ shorter orlonger sessions are calculated pro‐rata

• There is some discretion to classify candidates as full time where thereis a minor credit deficit from the standard model however this shouldonly be designed at a programme level following consultation with theStrategic Planning and Policy Unit (SPPU) as they will provide the HESAdefined conditions for modes of study on the specific programme – anysuch activity must be endorsed by the Academic Registrar

Examples of HESES Guidelines on Mode of Study• ‘A full‐time course is studied over three years, with 120 credits taken each year. Theequivalent part‐time course lasts six years. Ninety credits are studied in each of thefirst three years and 30 credits in each of the final three. The FTE would be 0.75 ineach of the first three years and 0.25 in each of the final three’

• ‘A student starts off as full‐time but changes to part‐time in the second term of theyear of instance, studying at the same rate as a part‐time student with an FTE of 0.5per year of instance. They should be returned in the part‐time table with an FTE of0.67. This is made up of 0.33 for the first term, and 0.5 3 = 0.17 for each of thesecond and third terms, equalling 0.67 in total for the year of instance’

• ‘A student starts off as full‐time but changes to part‐time in the second term of theyear of instance, studying at the same rate as a part‐time student with an FTE of 0.5per year of instance. They should be returned in the part‐time table with an FTE of0.67. This is made up of 0.33 for the first term, and 0.5 3 = 0.17 for each of thesecond and third terms, equalling 0.67 in total for the year of instance’

Duration of Study 

• In the case of full time and part time students there is a standard duration within which study should be completed and this is outlined under C10 of the Academic Regulations; 

CreditsforAward

Standard Full‐time

Standard Max

Standard Part‐time

Standard                   Max

120 1 year 2 years 1.5 years 3 years

180 1.5 3 years 27 months 4.5 years

240 2 years 4 years 3 years 6 years

360 3 years 6 years 4.5 years 9 years

Duration of Study

• The University recognises that personal circumstances may prevent an individualfrom completing in the expected time and therefore, in order to protect thecurrency and standard of awards, within table C10 the University has a defined‘maximum’ registration which exists primarily to enable some flexibility whereindividual circumstances prevail

• Although it is expected that programmes will generally be validated under the‘standard’ duration defined in C10, it is accepted that in some instances there maybe a business case or a professional requirement to validate a programme beyondthe ‘standard’ duration. Whilst this is technically acceptable, great caution shouldbe given to undertaking this type of activity as it may mean that there is an impacton funding and it will limit the time available for the University to handleextenuating circumstances

• Initial consultation with Academic Registry and SPPU will be required where it isintended that programmes will have a duration beyond the standard period

• In all cases the maximum registration period is absolute

Target and Exit Awards• At the commencement of each academic session the University is required to submit aninitial census (HESES) to declare the award type intended to be completed by each currentstudent (e.g Honours degree, Foundation degree, Masters degree etc). Whilst there is someflexibility for students to transfer between disciplines, in order to be classified as havingsuccessfully completed students must achieve their original intended award type uponconclusion of their studies (HESA Return)

• Exit awards may be offered to students that are not eligible for their target award at thepoint that they terminate their studies providing such an award has been validated. Whilstan exit award will be recorded as an unsuccessful completion, it will provide the student withcertification of a nationally recognised qualification. Programme teams are required toconsider the range of exit awards available when preparing for validation (see table underC.4). Where exit awards have not been validated they cannot be awarded by an AwardBoard irrespective of the amount of level rated credit a student may have achieved

• It is therefore critical that programme teams are mindful that, whilst exit awards must bevalidated, these awards are designed to recognise achievement under the overall position ofstudent failure on the programme. Where programme teams wish to recognise a lower levelqualification as an intended outcome, that award type must be validated as a programme inits own right

Non‐standard components and intake points• It is acknowledged that academic staff are operating in a competitive environment whereinnovative and creative approaches to programme design may be desirable or essential forcourses to thrive. However, whilst the Academic Registry and SPPU do not aim tounnecessarily restrict innovation, academic colleagues must be mindful that in anorganisation of Edge Hill’s size that operates with heavily centralised systems, working undervery specific external reporting regulations, consideration must be given to the extent towhich new ideas can reasonably be facilitated. The very nature of an innovative offeringmeans that one cannot predict how that might look, and so this statement is simply acautionary one to highlight that the further one deviates from an established model whendesigning a programme the more one must consider the risks associated with implementingthe strategy and be mindful that consultation will be required with central service areas at atimely point to ensure that programmes continue to be administered effectively

• With regard to intake points, it is especially important to remember that the Universityoperates with an academic calendar that commences in September followed by definedperiods for scheduled activity such as timetabling, teaching, assessment, award boards,graduation and reassessment. Whilst intakes outside of the September window arecompletely acceptable, course teams must be mindful that assumptions cannot be madeabout how these programmes will be absorbed within the academic calendar andconsultation must be undertaken with Academic Registry at the point of programme design

The strategic importance of complying with the Academic Regulations  

Student Experience (CMA)  

Funding and External Regulation 

(HEFCE)

Quality Assurance and Assessment (QAA and HEFCE) 

Academic Regulations 

Activity One 

• A programme team propose that the first year of an Honours Degree is comprised of 2 x 40  2 x 15 and 1 x 10 credit modules, tables are asked to consider: 

• i) is this compliant with the academic regulations?• ii) what challenges might be presented if this model was adopted? 

Condonement Type of award Maximum condonement*

Integrated Masters/Bachelor Degree/Foundation Degree/DipHE/Cert HE

40 credits at level 4 provided the mark achieved is not below 25%

Integrated Masters/Bachelor Degree 40 credits across levels 5 and 6 provided the mark achieved is notbelow 30%

Foundation Degree/DipHE 20 credits at level 5 provided the mark achieved is not below 30%Integrated Masters 20 credits at level 7 provided the mark achieved is not below 35%Level 6 awards of less than 120 credits NoneOther undergraduate awards Up to one sixth of the total credits required as approved at

validation and provided the mark achieved is not below 30%Masters Degrees

PGDip and PGCert 

30 credits provided the mark achieved is not below 35%Pro‐rata

Progression 

• At the discretion of the Progression Board a referred non‐finalist undergraduate student may be allowed to progress with outstanding deferral or reassessment of up to 20 credits.  Exceptionally, the Board may consider allowing progression with outstanding deferral or reassessment in 40 credits.  In exercising this discretion the Board will have regard to the student’s overall ability to complete successfully.  Deferred reassessment must be completed within the maximum registration period.

Activity Two 

• Having established that this model (2 x 40  2 x 15 and 1 x 10 credits) of study per year may exceptionally be permitted what type of questions would you ask as the member of a validation panel in order to ‘justify’ this proposal? 

Activity Three 

• A programme area proposes an honours degree that consists of 370 credits so that an Employability module can be added to the diet of academic modules required for the award

i) is this compliant with the academic regulations?ii) what would your response to this proposal be?iii) what would your advice to the programme team be? 

Minimum at highest level

Award type Min total credit 

requirement

Stage II requirement (for 

classification) L3 L4 L5 L6 L7

University Foundation Certificate 30 30

University Certificate of Credit 10 10

University Certificate 60 40

Certificate of Higher Education 120 90

University Diploma 120 90

University Higher Certificate 60 40

University Higher Diploma 120 90

Diploma of Higher Education 240 120 90

Foundation Degree 240 120 90

Certificate of Professional Development (CPD) 30 30

University Advanced Certificate 60 40

Conversion Degree (Ordinary)^+ 60 60

Ordinary Degree 300 180 60

University Advanced Diploma 120 90

Conversion Degree (Honours)^# 120 90

Honours Degree 360 240 90

Honours Degree with placement* 480 360 90

Integrated Masters 480 360 90

Activity Four 

• A programme team propose to validate a masters programme (180 credits) as a full time programme over two years with teaching starting in January

i) is this compliant with the academic regulations?ii) what questions would you have of this proposal? iii) what recommendations would make to the programme team? 

Credits for Award

Standard Full‐timeStandard          Max

Standard Part‐time*Standard            Max

120180

1 year1.5 years

2 years3 Years

1.5 years27 Months

3 years4.5 years 

240 2 years 4 years 3 years 6 years

360 3 years 6 years 4.5 years 9 years

Activity Five 

• A programme area proposes a Bachelor Degree that has a Foundation Degree available as a target award within the programme for those students that may seek to transfer/step off

i) is this compliant with the academic regulations?ii) what recommendations would you make to the programme team? 

Opportunity to comment on the regulations

• What challenges are presented? 

• How can the power of pedagogic judgement be achieved within the agreed framework? 

• Do colleagues have recommendations for change? 

Questions?

Contacts for queries 

• Contacts for queries:

• Academic Registry: Sheren Hardwick sheren.hardwick@edgehill.ac.uk

• Strategic Planning and Policy Unit: Gareth Watt Wattg@edgehill.ac.uk

• Academic Regulations: Helen Smallbone helen.smallbone@edgehill.ac.uk

VASC Standing Panel

Operationalising2-Stage Validation

Tony TurjanskyDirector of Quality Assurance & Chair of VASC

13th September 2016

2-Stage Validation

Stage One Curriculum Approval (Faculty-level):- approves programme and module specifications, i.e. programme structure, content, and teaching, learning and assessment strategies.

Stage Two Delivery Approval (Institution-level):– approves delivery of the curriculum, how it will be resourced, organised and managed and how students will be supported. S2 also verifies that S1 has been completed according to due process and that the programme specification is technically accurate and regulations-compliant

Stage One Proforma agenda

• Technical information - qualification level and award title; mode of study and type of delivery; admissions criteria; planned date of implementation and any ‘phasing in’ arrangements

• Curriculum development - target audience, market research; academic benchmarking; considerations of graduate employability and alignment with any PSRB standards (for accreditation)

• Curriculum design – inclusive programme design; programme aims and learning outcomes; programme structure, levels, pathways; modules (core/ compulsory/options) and module size (credits); delivery pattern

• Learning and teaching strategy – inclusive L&T activities including Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) and, where relevant, Work-Based Learning

• Assessment - overarching strategy for formative and summative assessment and (at module level) assessment types, weightings, wordage/word equivalence and match to Intended Learning Outcomes; inclusive assessment activities

Stage Two Proforma agenda

• Technical information - qualification level and award title; mode of study and type of delivery; admissions criteria; target intake numbers; planned date of implementation and any ‘phasing in’ arrangements

• Student support - inclusive support; induction and transitions; retention strategy; personal tutoring; academic and skills development (PDP); interface between department-level support and central support services; on-campus support for international students

• Staffing - staff capacity, qualifications and expertise (CVs); staff research and scholarly activity and how they inform teaching; staff development

• Resources - central and course-specific• Programme management - roles and responsibilities• Quality management and enhancement - internal and external moderation of

assessment (external examiners); processes for student consultation and evaluation/feedback; sharing good practice for ‘enhancement’

Group discussion

Working in tables please consider the following questions:

1. How clear is the distinction between curriculum and delivery approval? Is there any potential for overlap or duplication and how might this be minimised?

2. Programme specifications will be approved at S1 but signed-off at S2 – what changes should a S2 panel (not) be allowed to make?

3. We do not envisage making module specifications available to S2 panels – what is the rationale for this, do we risk losing anything from the discussion, e.g. of learning resources and how might this be mitigated?

4. Would you anticipate any other impact of 2-Stage Validation on your activity as a Standing Panel member?