Programme development, monitoring and review - non-standard events

10.1     Distance learning is defined as a method of providing Higher Education that involves the transmission to the student’s location of the materials that form the main basis of study, rather than the student moving to the location of the resources or provider.

10.2     Queen Margaret University is responsible for managing the delivery of each distance learning programme in a manner that safeguards the academic standards of the award.

10.3     The University is responsible for ensuring that the distance learning award is consistent with other relevant University awards and any relevant benchmark information within the UK.

10.4     The University shall ensure that each distance learning programme is delivered in a manner that provides, in practice, a learning opportunity that gives students a fair and reasonable chance of achieving the academic standards required for successful completion.

10.5     This means that all distance learning programmes must be validated and reviewed according to University procedures. If a distance learning programme is evolving from an existing programme, a validation event will be required for the distance learning element. However, this may be conducted as a major change, as explained in paragraphs 5.2 to 5.10 above.

10.6     The development, validation and review of a distance learning programme follows the procedures detailed earlier in this Section.

10.7     Those distance learning programmes involving the appointment of a Local Support Centre or a partner institution will be subject to the provisions of the University’s regulations and procedures for Partnership Development.

10.8     Where distance learning is to be made available to students in other countries, the University, through the Programme Leader, must ensure that all legal requirements concerning approval for programmes in that country are met, including any requirements under local law which might affect the programme such as consumer protection, copyright, employment, packaging and postal dispatch.

10.9     When providing distance learning programmes to students whose first language is not English, the Programme Team must ensure that the academic terminology used to describe the programme is readily accessible.

10.10   All students on distance learning programmes must be provided with clear information about the expectations of them in their programme of study. They must also be clear on the relationship between achievement and assessment, and between academic progress and accumulation of credit. The students should also be aware of the system of learning and how they can interact with it as well as the means of student representation at the University.

10.11    The University will, through its validation and review processes, monitor the effectiveness of the information provided to students.

11.1     A Graduate Certificate is defined as a programme incorporating a minimum of 60 credits at SCQF Level 9 or above.

 11.2     The validation process for a new Graduate Certificates broadly follows the process outlined above in paragraph 3. However, given the small scale of provision, events may be conducted by correspondence instead of face-to-face.

11.3     Criteria to be applied in determining the conduct of the event are as set out below: 

A face-to-face validation event will be held where one or more of the following criteria apply:

• The proposed award is delivered by a new collaborative partner of the University.
• The proposed award is not aligned with an existing suite of awards (such as a Graduate Certificate Framework).
• The proposed award is aligned with an existing suite of related awards but has a very specialist curriculum not currently delivered within that suite. Under these circumstances a face-to-face event will allow for appropriate scrutiny with specialist external input.
• The proposed award is aligned with an existing suite of related awards, but key staff members (e.g. Programme Leader and module co-ordinators) do not have previous experience of delivery within that suite.
• The proposed award is aligned with an existing suite of related awards, but would deliver a markedly different student experience, because of major changes to common approaches across that suite. Such changes might be in respect of the overall programme structure; placement learning; delivery mode; learning, teaching and assessment strategy; or programme management.
• There is a PSRB requirement for a face-to-face event.

A validation by correspondence will be held where all of the following criteria apply:

• The proposed award is aligned with an existing suite of related awards and has a curriculum which is broadly aligned with that suite. Typically some of the modules will be shared with existing validated awards.
• Key staff members (e.g. Programme Leader and module co-ordinators) have previous experience of delivery within that suite.
• The proposed award is aligned with an existing suite of related awards, and would deliver an equivalent student experience, because of an approach consistent with that suite. This would be in respect of aspects such as the overall programme structure; placement learning; delivery mode; learning, teaching and assessment strategy; and programme management.

11.4     The Panel for the validation of a Graduate Certificate will be determined on a case-by case basis. As a minimum it will include a Convener (not recruited from the host School), one internal and one external Panel member.

12.1     The validation process for a new pathway within an existing Framework is determined on an individual basis, taking account of a number of factors. The Assistant Secretary, Governance and Quality Enhancement will provide advice to Heads of Division.

12.2     In most cases, a modified validation process will be implemented. Changes from the standard process will include the following:

• Panels will receive detailed information on those elements of the Framework, which are common to all pathways, as well as information on those elements which are unique to the new pathway. Panels will be expected to have an understanding of the common elements, and to focus their discussion on those elements which are specific to the pathway under consideration.
• There will be a shorter agenda, in recognition that the wider Framework has been validated separately and the Panel has a particular remit to focus on the new elements presented for validation, in particular any new modules.
• A smaller Panel will be appointed than for a full validation. As a minimum, there will be two internal academic staff panellists, one external panellist and one student reviewer.

12.3     In exceptional cases, it can be appropriate to manage the addition a new pathway under the minor change process and through the School Academic Board. This applies only where the following criteria are met:           

• No significant changes are required to the overall aims, objectives and management of the Framework;
• The new pathway involves no more than one additional module (equivalent to 20 credits);
• The pathway will be taught entirely (or mostly) by the same staff Team;
• The pathway does not lead to PSRB approval / recognition.

12.4     The aggregation of pathways within a Framework for review will be considered on a case by case basis. Key considerations include:

• The approach needs to be resource efficient to avoid duplication of effort;
• Panels should not be overburdened with excessive documentation;
• The review process needs to be structured in such a way that it is possible to come to an informed decision on each of the pathways, and to meet with all key stakeholders, within the agreed agenda format and time available ;
• Pathways which share modules can be more readily aggregated for review;
• Pathways delivered by the same core staff team can be more readily aggregated for review;
• Pathways requiring PSRB input to the review process are more likely to require a separate event.

13.1     A Short Programme (or microcredential) is defined as a module, or group of modules, that may be taken separately without leading towards an award of the University. Short Programmes typically comprise one or more modules at SCQF level seven or above, usually up to a maximum of 60 credits. Although in some cases credit from Short Programmes may be used towards another QMU award, these programmes normally stand outside validated programmes and are taken by students as a self-contained package of learning for their own personal or professional development.

13.2     Short Programmes are validated for a maximum period of five years, whereupon they are subject to review. Short Programmes are approved by the School Academic Board, or a sub-group thereof. Exceptionally, where a large number of Short Programmes are presented together, for example a number of modules offered by the same partner organisation, a separate event may be arranged. Guidance will be provided by the Division of Governance and Quality Enhancement.

13.3     The documentation required for Short Programme approval mirrors that for full programme developments, but the abbreviated form for Short Programmes should be used. In all cases a costing should be undertaken and information about the costs and likely income must be included in the paperwork. Note that proposals for Short Programmes to be delivered by a new collaborative partner must be considered by the Academic Planning Board before coming to the School Academic Board. The Academic Planning Board is responsible for approving the partner organisation, assessing institutional risk and receiving a site visit report if appropriate.

For individual modules:

• Short Programme approval form
• Module descriptor

For groups of modules:

• Short Programme approval form
• Programme Specification, where appropriate – guidance is available from the Division of Governance and Quality Enhancement
• Module descriptors

For collaborative individual modules

• Short Programme approval form
• Risk assessment
• Statement on arrangements for the management of the collaboration
• CVs of teaching staff
• Module descriptor

For collaborative groups of modules:

• Short Programme approval form
• Risk assessment
• Statement on arrangements for the management of the collaboration
• CVs of teaching staff
• Programme Specification, where appropriate – guidance is available from the Division of Governance and Quality Enhancement
• Module descriptors

In all cases the School Academic Board may request additional supporting materials for students or staff (including placement providers), as appropriate to the type of provision.

For Short Programmes that require PSRB approval it may be necessary to hold an approval event. Where a joint approval event is to be conducted, at least two QMU panellists will participate in any such event to undertake the approval process on behalf of the University. In such cases, no further scrutiny of the Short Programme will be necessary by the School Academic Board.

13.4     Staff of the Division of Governance and Quality Enhancement are responsible for maintaining a record of Short Programmes and review dates. Details of Short Programmes due for review will be communicated to academic staff and the Secretaries to the School Academic Boards in good time at the beginning of the academic session.

Short Programme Review 

13.5     Short Programmes are typically reviewed by the School Academic Board, or a sub-group thereof, three to four months prior to the end of the approved validation period, allowing time for the review process and for the Programme Team to meet conditions if necessary. In some cases, where a Short Programme is linked to another full programme, it may be appropriate to review the programmes together through the University’s review process (section 8 above). Staff of the Governance and Quality Enhancement Unit will advise.

13.6     The purpose of the review is to re-evaluate the validity of the aims and learning outcomes and to ascertain:

• How the Short Programme has been operated and managed;
• How standards have been attained and how this has been recognised;
• The ways in which the Short Programme has met the needs of the community;
• The extent to which all the previously expressed aspirations and ambitions have been fulfilled;
• That the curriculum is properly aligned with external points of reference including the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework;
• The extent to which the institution has been able to provide an environment in which the Short Programme can flourish.

13.7     The review focuses on the academic health of the Short Programme, its relationship with the community and planned future developments. The School Academic Board will carry out a critical appraisal of the Short Programme and consider how it might develop in the future in order to meet its aims, learning outcomes, benchmark statements and the demands of the community more fully and to ensure the ongoing maintenance of its standards.

13.8     Typically the Programme Leader or Collaborative Academic Lead will be invited to the meeting where the Short Programme is considered. The School Academic Board may also wish to consult with the Programme Team, students, and other stakeholders as deemed necessary.

13.9     The School Academic Board will focus on evaluating:

• The academic health and standard of the Short Programme;
• Progress and changes in the Short Programme since its validation or last review;
• The continuing need for the Short Programme, including the scale of student intake, and its effectiveness and efficiency in staff and resource terms;
• The academic validity of proposed changes in the Short Programme, and an assessment of the associated resource requirements.

13.10   The School Academic Board will make comments and recommendations to the Programme Team and, if necessary, conditions to be met for the continued approval of the Short Programme. The School Academic Board will normally recommend the continuation of approval, unless there are good grounds to recommend that the student intake be modified, or that the Short Programme no longer be offered. The School Academic Board shall additionally specify the date of the next Short Programme review and may identify particular issues to be addressed by that review or in the annual monitoring reports.

13.11   The outcome of the review will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting at which the review documentation was considered. The minutes will detail any conditions, recommendations and commendations, and the date by which conditions are to be met.

13.12   The documentary requirements for a Short Programme review are submission of a concise Review Document (four to five pages excluding appendices), including as a minimum:

• A short statement on conditions and recommendations from the previous validation or review event and the Team’s response;
• A statement on the overall operation of the Short Programme during the most recent period of validation, including the extent to which it has met its aims and objectives;
• Annual monitoring reports for the previous two academic sessions;
• External Examiners’ reports and the Programme Team’s response for the previous two academic sessions;
• A statement on feedback from staff, employers, service users and other stakeholders and the Programme Team’s response;
• A statement on mechanisms for gathering student feedback, any issues raised by students during the previous two years and the Programme Team’s response;
• A clear statement of proposed changes to the Short Programme.

Whilst these requirements are similar to those for a full programme review, the level of detail required will typically be far less. For example, it is expected that there will be some consultation with stakeholders, but the full extent of this will be determined individually depending on the type of Short Programme and volume of credit. It is not expected in all cases that student feedback will be gathered through a formal Student-Staff Consultative Committee. However, the Programme Team should be able to provide evidence of consultation with students and their response to student feedback.

Additionally, the Programme Team should supply:

• Updated module descriptor(s);
• Any materials provided to students (a full student handbook will not normally be required);
• If appropriate, materials provided for placement providers.

The process described above may also be seen in the form of a flow diagram.