1

DESIGN AND APPROVAL OF

NEW PROGRAMMES

2020/21

AU-PASC-20-2944-A

Version Control

Ref No Version Responsible Officer

Approved by Approval Date

Effective Date

AU-PASC-19-2456 AProgramme Approval and Modification

PASC 11/12/2019 Sep 2019

AU-PASC-20-2944 AProgramme Approval and Modification

PASC 8/09/2020 Sep 2020

2

1. SCOPE OF THE PROCEDURES

1.1 Purpose of the Procedures

It is an ongoing condition of the University’s registration with the national Office for Students (OfS) and an Expectation of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education that the programmes the University offers are:

‘…well-designed, provide a high-quality academic experience for all students and enable a student’s achievement to be reliably assessed.’1

In order to fulfil these conditions/expectations, this document sets out the processes and perimeters for the design and approval of new taught programmes; the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) defines a programme as ‘an approved course of study that provides a coherent learning experience and normally leads to a qualification’.2

Any programme leading to awards which fall within the UK Quality Code for Higher Education: The Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree-Awarding Bodies should be approved according to the procedures set out in this document.3

1.2 What is covered by the Procedures

The following areas of activity are covered by this document:

Registering the intention to develop a new Programme of Study; Programme Design; Programme Approval; Deadlines.

1.3 Who is covered by the Procedures

The following must be aware of and/or comply with the procedures set out within this document:

College Senior Management Teams; Programme Directors; Programme Design Teams/Proposers; College Quality Managers or equivalent; Programme Approval Steering Committee (PASC) members; Other internal/external stakeholders e.g. External Advisors, Students, Employers,

Professional and Statutory Bodies (PRSB)

Failure to follow the procedures set out within this document could potentially lead to loss of OfS registration and the inability to meet QAA Expectations as set out in the UK Quality Code.

1 Office for Students, OfS 2018.01, Condition B12 See Appendix 2 ‘Definitions’3 Research programmes and programmes leading to awards outside of the FHEQ are subject to different procedures and are set out in separate documents. Awards outside the FHEQ include Aston Credits and Continuous Professional Development (CPD) activity.

3

2. PROCEDURES

2.1 Registering the intention to develop a new Programme of Study

As soon as it is known that a new programme is to be developed, Programme proposers are required to register their proposal in My Aston Portal (MAP). The task to register the new programme can be found on the Staff Home page:

As part of the task, proposers will be asked to enter basic information in relation to the proposal e.g. proposed title, intended start date, whether it is collaborative4, whether it uses existing modules or new, if there is any deviation from general regulations etc. Once submitted the initial alert is automatically sent to a number of people, including staff in the Quality Team (Education Team). The alert notification is subsequently forwarded onto a wider audience by the PASC Secretary; an email outlining the checklist of documentation required at each stage of the design and approval process is also sent at the same time to the proposer and Quality Manager.

The MAP alert is useful in triggering advice that can assist the Programme Design Team and for signalling to other Committees or professional services e.g. Collaborative Provision Strategy Group (CPSG), Regulations Sub-Committee, Academic Services, IT etc.5 areas for possible further discussion prior to or as part of the approval process. In some cases, where it is felt that particular design experience or expertise would be valuable, the PASC Chair and Secretary may allocate a Design Navigator from industry or the professions for example.

The relevant Quality Manager within the School will use the MAP alert to discuss the proposal with the proposer and help plan design and approval timelines. The MAP alert also allows PASC to identify at an early stage the most appropriate approval method for the proposal based on the ‘risk’ involved:

substantially new taught programmes will be considered by a Programme Specific Approval Panel (PSAP);

new programmes which are largely a variation on existing approved programmes will be considered by PASC or ‘light touch’6 PSAP;

Degree Apprenticeships will be considered by a Degree Apprenticeship Standing Panel which comprises expertise knowledge in the development/approval of Degree Apprenticeships.

2.2 First Filter Approval

Prior to designing the new programme, the Programme Design Team should seek First Filter Approval from the relevant College Senior Management Team (SMT). The aim of the ‘First Filter’ approval stage is to ensure that that there is in-principle management backing for the development of the programme and demonstrates to PASC and the PSAP that the School has

4 See Appendix 2 ‘Definitions’.5 For example, Academic Services and IT Services may need to look at tailoring the Student Information System (SITS) for programmes that do not fit with standard entry points or term structures.6 ‘Light touch’ PSAPs have a reduced membership and do not require the attendance of the External Advisor, instead a report is submitted in their absence.

4

taken into account financial viability, strategic rationale, academic rationale, market research, IT requirements, space requirements and cost effectiveness. By signing the First Filter Form, the Executive Dean, or nominee, confirms that the College will underwrite the resources needed and that the risk assessment (if applicable) is acceptable.

The following papers should be submitted to the College Senior Management Team (SMT) for consideration:

First Filter Form; Proforma for Calculating Costs and Income; ‘Graduate Prospects’ report. Programme proposers should compile the report in liaison

with Careers+Placements and should allow 2-4 weeks for completion7; Risk Assessment (for collaborative programmes)

Papers for Joint Honours programmes or other cross-College programmes should be submitted to each College’s SMT for approval.

If there is an imperative for the programme to be advertised before it has been fully approved, First Filter Approval may be obtained from PASC, however collaborative programmes are the exception to this and cannot be advertised prior to full approval.

To obtain First Filter approval only, the signed First Filter Form and accompanying documentation should be submitted to the PASC Secretary. In addition, for collaborative programmes Collaborative Provision Strategy Group (CPSG) approval of the First Filter Form will be required. Please note that students will not be able to apply for the programme until it has been fully approved by PASC or a PSAP, the complete paperwork has been sent to Student and Academic Services and the programme set up. Therefore, in cases where advertising is allowed, the full approval process should be completed soon afterwards. Full approval will need to be sought in good time so that prospective students are not kept waiting and the reputation of the University is not compromised.

2.3 Programme Design

Once First Filter Approval has been granted, the Programme Design stage can commence. Proposals for new programmes should normally be designed by the prospective Programme Delivery Team. It is especially important that there is representation from all Colleges and subject groups contributing to the delivery. Student representatives and employer/practitioners should also be involved. It is considered best practice to actively involve students and employers/practitioners in the design of the curriculum from its inception; this could either be through setting up a separate ‘design group’ or incorporated into the work of the staff/student committee.

The various tasks of curriculum design, financial planning, liaison with Marketing etc. may be spread amongst a number of staff, but the outcomes of the consultations should be considered by the group as a whole. A prospective Programme Director should be identified at the beginning of the process to represent the Programme Design Team at the PSAP. The aims of the programme must be realistic and deliverable when measured against resources, including staff time.

Programme Design should take into account the following factors:

2.3.1 Strategic Criteria

7 Proposals for Degree Apprenticeships or other programmes with a similar level of work-based learning do not require a Graduate Prospects report. In case of doubt about whether this report is needed or not, consult the Careers+Placements Team / PASC Secretary.

5

College and University StrategyProposals should be developed in conjunction with both College and University Strategy: Forward 2020: A Strategy for Aston University and consider the following internal/external factors/reference points:

building on new or existing areas of strength in teaching, research or professional expertise within the lead College and other College’s;

fit with any related portfolio of activities; progression routes; other areas of staff expertise; the views of students; Partner organisations where appropriate; Ordinances and Regulations of the University.

opportunities arising from regional, national or international developments; response to Employer demand; statutory requirements, such as those relating to special educational needs, disability,

equal opportunities and diversity, health and safety; UK Quality Code: Framework for Higher Education Qualifications and subject benchmark

statements where available; UK Quality Code for Higher Education ; Where appropriate, Degree Apprenticeship Standards (including UK Quality Code:

Quality Assuring Higher Education in Apprenticeships: Current Approaches) and PSRB requirements.

Proposers should also assess the risks of offering programmes: both ethical and reputational and the programme viability. The following factors need to be considered:

sufficient students can be attracted to the programme; what is the optimal level of resource necessary; is there evidence of a market e.g. information on trends in applications for similar

programmes, analysis of the needs of employers, of the number and quality of potential applicants, of competitors; the possibilities of shared or complementary provision with other programmes at Aston;

are there good employment opportunities for graduates; is there sufficient administrative and technical support; is there appropriate accommodation for teaching and learning to take place; is there adequate library, computer and other educational technology and up-to-date

specialist equipment to support students’ learning needs.

2.3.2 Academic Criteria

ProgressionDo the demands on the learner in terms of intellectual challenge, skills, knowledge, conceptualisation and learning autonomy increase as they progress through the programme and between levels?

FlexibilityIs there equity of opportunity for all students irrespective of the mode of delivery or when they start the programme?

6

CoherenceAre there clearly articulated Aims and Learning Outcomes which meet the needs of students and is it clear how the intended Learning Outcomes will be promoted, demonstrated and assessed.

2.3.3 External Advice

At an early stage in the design process, the College making the proposal should approach and appoint an External Advisor. The External Advisor is an important point of guidance and should act as a “critical friend” to inform the programme design from the outset. They will provide the Programme Design Team and University with independent insight on a range of issues and are likely to be particularly interested in the proposed content and structure, assessment and pedagogic choices. They will be expected to pay due attention to relevant sector-wide expectations e.g. requirements of relevant national qualifications frameworks, Characteristic Statements and Subject Benchmark Statements’ to ensure that these are reflected in the programme title, outcomes, design and documentation. Where appropriate, this may also include PSRB and funding body requirements.

The External Advisor will usually hold an academic post in another institution, although other appropriate external experts, such as members of relevant professional and regulatory bodies or employer organisations may also be proposed. The External Advisor must have no existing formal relationship with the programme or College but will have expertise in the specific disciplinary8.

Where a proposal is to be considered and approved by a PSAP, the External Advisor will be a panel member and, at the meeting, will be able to discuss with the Programme Design Team how they have responded to any issues that might have been raised through the design process. For programmes considered by PASC or ‘light touch’ PSAPs, the External Advisor will be asked to complete a feedback report, using the standard University template9, which must be submitted along with other relevant documentation.

College’s owning the proposed programme will pay External Advisors a fee of £200 plus expenses.

Design Principles

There are two distinct types of ‘Design Principle’

2.3.4 Design Process Principles

These refer to the process of designing an academic programme. Programme Design Teams will be required to evidence how they have:

ensured all stakeholders10 have contributed to the design of the programme; taken into account factors such as employability, information literacy, sustainability and

inclusive teaching practice;

In addition, Programme Design Teams should note that not all books and journals are available in e format or to students in partner institutions. For on campus students print versions are an

8 See Appendix 7 Criteria for Appointing External Advisors9 See Appendix 9 External Advisor Report form10 Stakeholders include all members of the proposed Programme Delivery Team, colleagues from central services, employers and in some cases professional bodies/service users (such as patient groups).

7

acceptable option but for the following types of programmes it is essential that teams contact their Information Specialist for advice on potential problems and to identify suitable options. ‘High risk’ courses are:

Online with remote learners including Aston Online and Degree Apprenticeships; Programmes with cohorts studying in a partner institution; any other programmes following non-traditional modes or patterns of delivery.

2.3.5 Design Product Principles

These relate to the products of programme design activity, namely the programme itself and the documents that describe it e.g. Programme and Module Specifications. It is the expectation that normally:

modules will not have more than four learning outcomes; modules will not have more than two items of assessment (independent of the size of

the module)11; assessment load per module will not exceed 3000 words per 15cr (or equivalent – e.g.

1hour of short-answer examination; 2hr of long-answer examination) independent of the academic level of the module;

Programme Design Teams will evidence a programme-level approach to assessment design and assessment staging at the points of programme approval and review;

the inclusion of small (below 15cr) modules within a programme will need to be specifically justified as a programme-level design decision at the point of approval;

for standard Undergraduate Programmes, different degree titles awards should be differentiated by at least 30 credits of unique12 content at Stage F, excluding any project module;

for standard Postgraduate Programmes, different degree title awards should be differentiated by at least 30 credits of the taught elements, excluding any project module13;

Specialist (bracketed) pathways or routes14 should be differentiated by at least 15 credits of unique content at Stage F, excluding any project module;

Named awards with ‘with’ in the title should be 75/25 split in Stage 2 and Stage F to reflect the major/minor15 nature of the programme;

Named awards with ‘and’16 in the titles should be 50/50 split across all years

Programme Design Teams should also note the following:

Student Attendance

PASC would not normally support either formative or summative assessment of student engagement, participation or, particularly, attendance, within modules (key reasons for this decision are outlined in the paper “Considering formative and/or summative

11 An ‘item’ of assessment may have more than one ‘element’ (such as might be the case with a portfolio) but the overall item will always return a single mark.12 Unique content refers to a credit combination that is different to that offered in other similar programmes: e.g. when a suite of similar programmes are compared there should be 30 credits that are different in stage F between each discreet programmes. It does not mean that the content has to be unique to an individual programme, but that it is different to other programmes within the discipline.13 Unless there is a case whereby the topic of the dissertation provides clear differentiation.14 Specialist pathways – routes through a named programme which result in specialist knowledge not present in other routes through that programme.

15 “With” means that there is a “major” and “minor” component to the programme such that one subject is dominant in content over the other.16 “And” means that there is an equal representation of each subject within a programme.

8

assessment of engagement and participation” (available from the Programme Approval, Update and Withdrawal webpage). Exceptions are the mandatory attendance requirements of some professional accreditation bodies.

Group Work Assessed summative group work should only be included in the curriculum if there is a

specific purpose for it and is linked to a specific learning objective.

The table below shows recommended assessment loads where judgement of this by word count is not applicable. It is recognised that this is not an exact science and that this list is not exhaustive so a common sense approach should be adopted that takes into account the student experience and the burden of the proposed assessment. Module convenors should be mindful of the overall assessment load and ensure that it does not exceed the workload anticipated for 3000 words per 15 credits. The following are presented as ‘common practice’ guidelines to aid consistency and parity in the design of modules.

Assessment Type Equivalent to 1000 essay wordsExamination or timed class test 1 hourEssay in foreign language 300 wordsGroup report 750 words per memberReflective journal or learning log 2000 – 2500 wordsOral presentation 20 minutesGroup presentation 10 minutes per memberClinical assessment 10 minutesCoursework including substantial use of equations, tables, diagrams or similar elements

3-4 pages

In addition it is expected that:

the threshold competencies required for admission to the programmes are clearly specified and justified;

the award title reflects the intended outcomes; the content of the programme is consistent with its aims; the specialist content of the programme is up-to-date, comparable in its standards to

similar programmes elsewhere and reflects professional and statutory body requirements where appropriate;

the structure is clearly defined and reflects the learning and development needs of students;

Learning Outcomes are specified for each module and these are consistent with the Learning Outcomes for the programme as a whole;

Any progression requirements are clearly outlined; Interim awards are meaningful in their own right; The sandwich or language placement (where relevant) is represented in the programme

learning outcomes; Every undergraduate degree programme offers students a placement year opportunity

(or equivalent); Learning and teaching methods are consistent with the Aims and Learning Outcomes of

the programme and meet the needs of the students; A range of learning and teaching methods is used to provide students with a variety of

learning opportunities and experiences, as appropriate to help all students to meet the learning outcomes;

Students are encouraged to be active in the learning process and to take responsibility for their learning;

9

Assessment methods allow timely feedback of an appropriate quality to students, including formative feedback;

There is academic guidance in place to support students in their learning; Support is available to help students acquire key transferable skills.

2.4 Programme Approval

This section should be considered in conjunction with the ‘Step by Step Guide to Programme Approval’ process map (Appendix 4) and the documentation requirements for programme approval (Appendix 5). Depending on the questions answered at the MAP alert stage and subsequent discussions by the Quality Manager and PASC with the Programme Design Team will determine whether the proposal is considered by a full PSAP or PSAP ‘light’/PASC method.

2.4.1 College Final Endorsement

The aim of the College ‘Final Endorsement’ is to ensure that as the programme has evolved it has kept within the requirements of the First Filter stage and can still underwrite the resources required for launching the programme. If any changes to the financial model have taken place, the Final Endorsement form should include a commentary on the financial model from the College Accountant and updated versions re-submitted to SMT. In addition, SMT should also receive a brief outline of arrangements for pastoral and academic student support; these should have been considered as part of the design process17.

Prior to submitting the College Final Endorsement paperwork to SMT, the full proposal should have been considered and endorsed by the College LTC.

The following papers should be submitted to SMT for consideration:

First Filter Form; Updated Proforma for Calculating Costs and Income/Financial Model, including

commentary/signature from College Accountant; Final version of Risk Assessment (for collaborative programmes); Programme Specifications; Curriculum Map; Module Specifications; Assessment Strategy/Map; Any other documents to support the final programme proposal and endorsement (see

Appendix 5 for additional documents required for collaborative programmes and Degree Apprenticeships)

There should not be a need for endorsement at any other committee within the College at this stage unless the College chooses to do so. If however, the proposal involves one or more modules from other Colleges, the submission must either be considered by the SMT and LTC for each relevant College or, if agreed by both Colleges as appropriate (for example in the case of a Joint Honours programme), considered at a committee Chaired by the lead College with representation from the other College(s).

Once the SMT has approved the papers and the Final Endorsement Form signed, the papers are ready for submission to the Secretary of the PSAP for dissemination to the panel members.

17 A PSAP may require more detail of pastoral and academic student support arrangements for collaborative, cross-College and distance learning programmes.

10

2.4.2 Programme Specific Approval Panel (PSAP)

PSAPs have delegated authority from PASC to approve new programme proposals. Each panel is normally organised by the College (or lead College if more than one) submitting the proposed programme for approval.18

The Panel:

verifies delivery viability, including evidence of market and beneficiary demand; considers the Team’s engagement in the design process and that of students, employers

and other relevant stakeholders; verifies that Design Process Principles have been followed and that Design Product

Principles are reflected in the programme and module documentation; provides external peer review through the use of subject-specialist external members; considers the appropriateness of content, structure and outcomes, assessment and

learning and teaching methodologies; explores issues related to student support and guidance; ensures arrangements for any collaborative delivery are appropriate, in particular

appropriate resources are in place to support the proposal and the environment within which a programme will be offered is satisfactory; academic standards and the quality of teaching achieved at the University can be maintained at the partner organisation19;

identifies areas of good and innovative practice.

The Panel can decide to:

approve the programme; approve the programme subject to the specified conditions being met, with deadlines for

completion provide additional recommendations and suggestions for the programme team to

consider; not approve the programme.

Where approval is subject to conditions being met, usually, by providing revised or missing documents or other appropriate written responses, the proposals may, at the Chair’s discretion, be looked at again at a re-convened meeting or considered by PSAP Chair’s Action.

Membership

The PSAP membership normally comprises:

Chair; Secretary; University representative; PASC representative; College representative; Student representative; External Advisor; Professional Body representative (as appropriate); Employer representative (as appropriate); CPSG representative (as appropriate)

18 The Degree Apprenticeship Standing Panel will follow the same principles as that for a PSAP, but will have ‘standing’ expertise membership in the Design/Development of Degree Apprenticeships. The panel will be organised by the central Quality Team in conjunction with the College/lead College (if more than one). 19 Refer to Collaborative Guidelines for further guidance, see Appendix 3 ‘Related Regulations, Statutes and Related Policies’.

11

Where a PSAP ‘light touch’ is used, the above membership may be reduced i.e. the University and PASC representative roles will be conflated into one, the College representative included as part of the presenting team and external representation e.g. External Advisors asked to undertake scrutiny of documentation at a distance.

The Degree Apprenticeship Standing Panel membership has ‘fixed’ representation. The Secretary will be the PASC Secretary and the Chair, the PASC Chair. Further details of the Degree Apprenticeship Standing Panel should be confirmed with the PASC Secretary.

A summary of the respective roles is detailed in Appendix 1

PSAP Arrangements

PSAP events will normally be a half-day in length although at the Chair’s discretion, complex and multi-programme approvals may take longer. See Appendix 6 for a suggested Agenda and indicative timings.

On the day, each PSAP will determine the issues it wishes to explore with the Programme Design Team, but topics likely to be covered include the following:

rationale for the programme proposal; how the programme design has been informed by students, other stakeholders and key

external reference points e.g. Subject Benchmarks, Characteristic Statements etc; the appropriateness of the programme title, content and Learning Outcomes; programme design and structure; progression and development within the programme; module issues; the range and balance of learning and teaching and assessment methods and their

appropriateness to the learning outcomes of the programme and the needs of the student;

coverage of key material, knowledge and skills within the programme; the clarity and quality of the programme documentation; student support and engagement issues; features of good and innovative practice; matters related to the operation and delivery of the programme.

Where a proposal for a collaborative programme is under consideration, the panel will also need to assure itself that the:

appropriate resources are in place to support the proposal and that the environment within which a programme will be offered is satisfactory;

academic standards and the quality of teaching achieved at the University can be maintained at the partner organisation;

arrangements for managing the collaborative programme are appropriate and clearly set out in a Collaborative Agreement.

Outcome of the PSAP

Following the meeting, the PSAP Secretary will prepare a draft report using the University standard template (Appendix 8). This will be circulated to the Panel for comment and once confirmed by the Chair, will be sent to the Programme Design Team. If approval is subject to conditions these will need to be met by the agreed deadline set out in the report.

Once PSAP approval for the programme has been gained , the PSAP Secretary will notify the PASC Secretary and provide them with a copy of the Panel report and final approved

12

documentation, including the Programme Specification and Academic Services Information Form.

The PASC Secretary will report the outcome of all PSAPs to PASC and confirm the approval of the programme by email to the Programme Team and various other key contacts including Admissions and Academic Services that the programme may be entered on the Student Information Management System (SITS) and that recruitment may commence.

What to do after approval

1. The Programme Team should write a Student Handbook.20

2. The Quality Manager for the College should liaise with Marketing and the Programme Team to ensure that content on University web pages/prospectus information is written or updated.

3. Admissions will create the MCR code (and if applicable, IPP/IPO records) at which point students can then apply. The Student Records Officer will create the award routes.21

4. The appropriate College Quality contact should allocate a document file name to the Programme Specification. A naming convention should be used for the file e.g. MSc Engineering Management (followed by the academic year that this specification relates to).pdf.

5. The appropriate College Quality contact should upload a pdf of the Programme Specification to SITS, using the task available in MAP.

6. The Programme Team should identify a possible External Examiner (if not already in place) and work with the relevant College Quality Manager to obtain their approval.22

7. Module data for new modules should be transferred to the University Module Directory (UMD), accessible via MAP. The Quality Manager within each College should be able to advise on the process/timeframe for completion of new modules within the UMD. Guidelines on how to complete a module in the UMD are available within MAP and from the UMD web page.

If a programme does not recruit within two years of approval then it must be re-submitted for approval. This will involve a new PSAP and re-submission of the documents, amended where necessary to enhance the prospects of recruitment.

2.5 Deadlines

Timeline for Approval

When considering timelines for approval, it is essential that Programme Design Teams allow adequate and realistic time for the various stages in the process:

production and approval of the First Filter Form, business case and market evidence; completion of all programme and module documentation;

20 Refer to the Student Handbook Guidelines, see Appendix 3 ‘Related Regulations, Statutes and Related Policies’21 Refer to Appendix 2 ‘Definitions’22 Refer to the External Examiner Guidance Notes available from the Quality webpages, see Appendix 3, ‘Related Regulations, Statutes and Related Policies’

13

approval by the College, PSAP or PASC plus CPSG (where required); meeting conditions of approval.

The University’s Admissions Steering and Strategy Committee has agreed that new programme approval, for both undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, should be completed a year in advance of the expected delivery date to allow adequate time for effective marketing and recruitment.

An indicative timeline for the approval process is as follows:

Task Who Complete by when

Register on MAP College -52 weeksFirst Filter Form College -52 weeksSend checklist and appoint Design Navigator (if required)

Quality Team -52 weeks

Appoint External Advisor College -52 weeksSchool Final Endorsement College -49 weeksPSAP Arrangements College -48 weeksPSAP Approval College -37 weeksRecord at PASC Quality Team -37 weeksRequest to Academic Services to Set Up Programme

Quality Team -37 weeks

Upload Programme Specification to SITS via MAP

College -26 weeks

Degree Apprenticeships and other programmes that are closed, or are delivered in response to specific business needs, will continue to be approved as quickly as possible and to a more flexible timeframe.

Deadlines for the following can be found on the Programme Approval web page:

UCAS23 Applications;

Undergraduate and Postgraduate prospectus;

Key Information Sets (KIS) 24

Appendix 1: Roles and Responsibilities

PSAP Roles

ChairThe Chair is appointed by the Quality Team in the Education Team and will be a member of staff from another College or department. Chair’s should have experience of new programme design, approval and implementation. They should also have experience of Chairing previous approval events (or similar) or Chairing a relevant College or University Level Committee (e.g. Learning and Teaching Committee).

23 See Appendix 2 ‘Definitions’24 See Appendix 2 ‘Definitions’

14

The Chair ensures that the panel event runs to time and that the panel members, and members of the Programme Design Team, participate in an equitable and precise manner; their role is to ensure that input from all members of the panel is considered to ensure that the proposal aligns with University strategy and that risks of proposal are identified and mitigated against. The Chair also has a legitimate academic interest in the approval process and may themselves contribute to the discussion and questioning of the Programme Design Team. At the end of the panel meeting, the Chair will orally present the findings of the panel to the Programme Design Team and outline deadlines for any actions/recommendations where necessary.

Additionally, with the Secretary, the Chair has responsibility for the production of the panel report to be submitted to PASC. The Chair will liaise with the Secretary to ensure any requirements of the PSAP are fulfilled.

SecretaryThe Secretary will normally be the Quality Manager for the College proposing the programme. The Secretary organises the Panel meeting and drafts the Panel report. The Secretary has a particular interest in matters of academic quality and may themselves contribute to the discussion and questioning of the Programme Design Team. They will be a full panel member with the same responsibilities as other members of the Panel25.

University RepresentativeThe University representative is a member of staff from another College or department. They have no involvement with the programme under consideration nor necessarily will they have a related disciplinary expertise. However, they offer a generic perspective and have a particular interest in learning and teaching in higher education, including students’ experiences and the working experiences of staff and in curriculum design as a process. Their role is to bring in expertise from outside of the programme team, to share best practice in learning and teaching and to consider the proposal in relation to the wider University portfolio. University representatives should have experience of being involved as a panel member on a PSAP or similar approval event at least once.

PASC RepresentativeThe PASC representative is appointed by the Quality Team in the Education Team and has specific knowledge of University programme design requirements and expectations including where appropriate those that relate to collaborative provision. The PASC representative along with the Chair, helps to ensure consistency of PSAP scrutiny across the Institution and ensures that the proposal meets the current University Design Principles. The PASC representative is a current and active member of PASC.

College RepresentativeThe College representative has specific knowledge of the context within which the programme will operate and a particular interest in programme resource and delivery. The College representative would normally be from another subject group or area in the College from that in which the programme is to be located.

The College representative should be an experienced member of staff particularly in the areas of curriculum development and learning and teaching pedagogies in the relevant subject area in order to provide context to support the proposal.

If an additional College representative is considered appropriate (for example in the case of joint subject programmes) they may be added at the discretion of the lead College/Chair.

25 Read the documentation provided for the programme approval in advance of the meeting, attend the PSAP meeting and participate in the Panel’s discussions and final decision.

15

Student Representative (normally from a related subject)The Student representative considers the proposals from the student perspective, focusing on the student experience and how students have been involved in the programme design process. Students acting as a student representative on PSAP Panels is a verifiable activity for inclusion on the students’ HEAR. They will be a full panel member with the same responsibilities as other members of the Panel16

Student representatives should normally have experience of studying the type and level of the proposed programme.

External AdvisorThe External Advisor has expertise in the specific disciplinary are of the programme being proposed and will need to satisfy themselves that the Programme Team has produced a rationale and coherent response to the curriculum design challenge. They will provide the Programme Team and PSAP with an informed insight on a range of issues and are likely to be particularly interested in the proposed structure, assessment and pedagogic choices. They will be expected to pay due attention to relevant sector-wide expectations e.g. requirements of relevant national qualifications frameworks, Characteristic Statements and Subject Benchmark Statements’ to ensure that these are reflected in the programme title, outcomes, design and documentation. Where appropriate, this may also include PSRB and funding body requirements. Professional Body (PSRB) representative (as appropriate) The Programme Design Team and the PSAP Chair may decide that it would be useful to have a representative of a PSRB or PSRBs at the PSAP meeting. The representative will pursue an agenda that meets the needs of the Professional Body they represent.

Employer representative (as appropriate)The Programme Design Team and the PSAP Chair may decide that it would be useful to have a representative from the employers likely to recruit from the new programme. Employer representatives are expected to focus on graduate characteristics and attributes, the needs of the employers and the degree to which employer perspectives have influenced the curriculum design.

CPSG representative (as appropriate)If the programme is collaborative, the panel membership should include a representative from CPSG to look at the partnership arrangements and the level of risk involved.

Other Roles

Collaborative Provision Strategy Group (CPSG)CPSG focusses on collaborations that lead or contribute to academic criteria or a qualification. Separate governance arrangements exist for research or commercial collaboration.

CPSG is responsible, with PASC, for approval of complex proposals, especially proposals which involve new types of activity and new methods of delivery and which indicate a high level of risk and commitment of resource. The CPSG role is to assess the strategic merits of the proposal; compliance with the University Guidelines for Collaborative Activity; the assessment of risk; the consideration of any ethical issues and to determine the level of scrutiny required.

16

Programme Approval Steering Committee (PASC)On behalf of the Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC), PASC considers and makes recommendations to LTC on all matters concerning the quality assurance and enhancement of programme approval.

PASC is responsible for: ensuring programmes are aligned with the Aston Strategy, Learning and Teaching

Strategy, and Digital Aston project; taking a balanced approach to risk management to assure responsible development and,

where possible, to mitigate against risk to reputation or academic standards, whilst supporting innovation and progressive design;

adopting a holistic approach to curriculum developments to ensure quality and equity of student experience;

setting programme-specific design requirements including those that relate to collaborative provision;

the approval and monitoring of proposals for major curricular revisions to existing programmes, including resource issues where they impinge on the quality of the programmes;

confirming and ratifying the timeline for the completion of the design process, referring any apparent delayed progress to College management;

recording all programmes approved by Programme Specific Approval Panels (PSAPs); maintaining a record of programmes approved for withdrawal or suspension;

PASC LeadA member of PASC nominated to lead the scrutiny of a particular programme proposal from the outset and be a representative on a PSAP. The PASC lead can also provide another source of advice and guidance to the Programme Team in addition to the Quality Manager and other Design Navigator (where appropriate).

Programme Delivery TeamThe Programme Director, and all teaching staff involved in the delivery of the programme.

Programme Design TeamThe Programme Design Team includes the Programme Director and all staff contributing to the design of the programme. This would normally include all staff involved in the delivery of the programme.

Appendix 2: Definitions

Office for Students (OfS): Independent regulator of Higher Education in England

Qualification: “A degree, diploma or certificate awarded by a competent authority (in this context a degree-awarding body) in recognition that particular programme or qualification outcomes have been achieved following the successful completion of a recognised higher education programme of study.” (defined by the QAA in the ‘The Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree-Awarding Bodies’)

Aston Credits: an Aston Award given to students who successfully complete any taught course that does not give sufficient credit to lead to a qualification under the Aston

17

University Credit and Qualification Framework. This may comprise a single module, a pre-defined suite of modules or a flexible credit accumulation framework.

Continuous Professional Development (CPD): a short period of teaching and learning which has no formal (summative) assessment and carries no award of credit. CPD events may require students to attend sessions on campus, at an external venue or be comprised of on-line learning activities.

Collaborative: Collaborative provision encompasses all learning opportunities which lead or contribute to the award of academic credit or a qualification that are delivered, assessed or supported through an arrangement with one or more organisations other than the degree-awarding body.

Formative Assessment: “Assessment that is part of the learning process that provides constructive feedback to the learner; which allows students to improve their quality of work” (Higher Education Academy definition)

Summative Assessment: “The process of evaluating learning at the conclusion of a programme of study. Summative assessments include standardised tests delivered by examination.” (Higher Education Academy definition)

Degree Apprenticeships: Similar to higher apprenticeships, Degree Apprenticeships are available at levels 6 and 7 (full bachelor’s and Master’s).

Student Information System (SITS): Students records management system.

MCR code: Admissions Course code on SITS

IPP: Institution Published Programme record on SITS. This is set up when the MCR code is completed (if applicable)

IPO: Institution Published Programme Occurrence on SITS. This is set up when the MCR code is completed (if applicable)

UCAS: “…independent charity providing information, advice, and admissions services to inspire and facilitate educational progression.” (UCAS web page, ‘Who We Are’)

Key Information Sets (KIS): data publishable through Unistats (the UK HE comparison website). This is comparable sets of standardised information that allows prospective Undergraduate students and other interested audiences to compare programmes and institutions. This data contains 18 items of information that students have identified as useful e.g. student satisfaction, graduate outcomes, learning and teaching activities, assessment methods, tuition fees and student finance, accommodation, professional accreditation etc.

Programme Specification: Significant element of the proposal documentation and is particularly important in relation to the requirements of consumer law as advised by the Competitions and Markets Authority (CMA) because it contains much of the ‘material information’ that students use to choose their degrees. Consequently, the CMA will regard the Programme Specification as information that underpins a potential students’ ‘purchasing decision’ and the expectation is that it is always an accurate description of the degree.

Module Specifications: Significant element of the proposal documentation and can either be new modules or existing ones which have been modified/adapted for the new

18

programme. Modules should be written to show how they support the students’ achievement of the intended Learning Outcomes at the programme level.

Assessment Strategy/Map: significant element of the proposal documentation which provides an overview of the assessment strategy for the entire programme.

Academic Services Form: This records information about the new programme which is required by Academic Services for set up on SITS.

Curriculum Map: Demonstrates the links between the modules and the Stage level Learning Outcomes, showing how each outcome will be achieved. It should be completed as part of developing a programme specification.

College LTC: read ‘College LTC’ as College LTC or any other body to whom LTC has delegated responsibility of considering Programme Approval documentation to.

Quality Manager: this could be the Quality Officer, Programme Manager etc. who has involvement with the Programme Approval process within the College.

Appendix 3: Related Regulations, Statutes and Related Policies

UK Quality Code: Framework for Higher Education Qualifications

subject benchmark statements;

UK Quality Code for Higher Education ;

19

Degree Apprenticeship Standards (including UK Quality Code: Quality Assuring Higher Education in Apprenticeships: Current Approaches

Forward 2020: A Strategy for Aston University

Legislation.gov.uk for statutory requirements, such as those relating to special educational needs, disability, equal opportunities and diversity, health and safety

Ordinances and Regulations of the University

Student Handbook Guidelines

External Examiner Guidance Notes

Collaborative Guidelines

Aston Credits and non-credit bearing Continuous Professional Development (CPD) events guidelines

Appendix 4: Step by Step Guide to Programme Approval Process

20

STEP 1Proposer registers intention to develop

new programme on MAP

STEP 2Programme Design Team produces First

Filter including business case and supporting documents. Submits to SMT.

Initial discussions undertaken between Quality Manager and Proposer in relation to the programme and reports to PASC. PASC decision as to best approval method i.e. PSAP, PSAP ‘light’ touch/PASC, Degree Apprenticeship Standing Panel or consideration by CPSG if collaborative.

21

STEP 3Programme Design Team designs the

programme following the University Design Criteria and Principles and sends

to College LTC for consideration

STEP 4Programme Design Team seeks College Final Endorsement from College SMT to

forward onto final approval process

STEP 5New programme considered by relevant

Programme Approval Process

STEP 6Stakeholders notified of approval.

After approval notification, Academic Services set up programme on SITS andCollege Uploads Programme Specification on MAP. New modules entered into UMD

Not Approved

Return to team to reconsider or resubmit

Approved

Permission to advertise can be sought at this

stage from PASC, except for collaborative

programmes

Approved Not Approved

College appoints an External

Advisor

Return to team to reconsider and resubmit

Approved

Approved

Programme can be advertised, but

students will not be able to apply for the programme until it

has been fully approved by PASC

or a PSAP. Steps 3-6

Not Approved

Approved Approved with conditionsNot Approved

Return to team to address comments and

re-submit

Final report written and submitted to

PASC for information

Proposal does not progress further

Appendix 5: Documentation requirements for Programme Approval

Templates for each of the *documents below can be found on the Programme Approval, Update and Approval or Collaborative Provision web page. If you experience any difficulty accessing any of these documents, please contact the Quality Team at clipp_quality@aston.ac.uk

1. First Filter Form (signed copy)*2. Proforma for Calculating Costs and Income*3. ‘Graduate Prospects’ report (Undergraduate, Postgraduate and non-apprenticeship

programmes only)*4. Programme Specification*5. Module Specifications (for all modules)26*6. Curriculum Map27*7. Assessment Strategy/Map8. Market Research Reports (from Market Research)9. Minutes of design meetings (to evidence stakeholder involvement)10. College Final Endorsement Form (signed copy) with narrative signed by College Accountant

(required if any changes or delays between First Filter Approval and College Final Endorsement)*

In addition to the documents listed above, the following will be required for:

Collaborative Programmes

1. Risk Assessment Proforma*2. Draft Partnership Agreement and Financial Agreement*3. Information on the IT, Library and other learning resources available to support the

programme4. CVs of all staff at partner organisations with teaching responsibilities5. First Filter, including evidence that due diligence has been carried out on the proposed

partner*

Degree Apprenticeships

1. Degree Apprenticeship Standard2. Degree Apprenticeship End Point Assessment Plan (as appropriate to the DA)3. Degree Apprenticeship Standard mapped against Programme Specification4. 20% off the job training plan*5. Evidence of support from interested employers6. Evidence (for example a Gantt chart) of when students would be taking which modules,

whether they would be on campus or distance learning and when the assessment would take place.

26 Any modules created or adapted for the new programme must be approved by the LTC of the programmes ‘home’ College, and also if different, the College owning the module.27 If all Learning Outcomes are delivered through core modules, then optional modules do not need to be shown. If this is not the case, optional modules should be included.

22

Appendix 6: Specimen PSAP Agenda with indicative timings

Private meeting of the Panel to identify key areas of interest and potential questions for the Programme Design Team. Time Guide: 30 minutes

Presentation by the Programme Design Team outlining the rationale and philosophy of the programme, the design process and engagement with stakeholders. Time Guide: 20 minutes

Meeting between the Panel and the Programme Design Team to explore the design choices they have made. Time Guide: 90 minutes

Private meeting of the Panel to decide on the outcome of the process and to draft interim feedback for the Programme Team. Time Guide: 45 minutes

Programme Team joins the Panel to receive outcome and feedback. Time Guide: 15 minutes

23

Appendix 7: Criteria for appointing an External Advisor

External Advisors should:

normally hold an academic post in an appropriate discipline, although non-academic specialists may also be proposed. Where the latter is the case, it should be demonstrated by the programme team how the proposed external’s knowledge and experience is appropriate;

normally have experience appropriate to the mode of delivery and level of qualification being proposed. If a proposal includes collaborative activity, ideally the external advisor should have experience of either designing, developing and/or delivering collaborative programmes as well as subject expertise;

not normally have been employed, either as a member of staff or an external examiner, at the University within the last five years;

not normally have been contracted by the University as an External Advisor previously on more than two separate occasions.

Appointment

Proposing teams should obtain a copy of a CV or web profile. This should be forwarded to the Quality Manager within the College who will make a preliminary check against the criteria above. Signing off the appointment will rest with the Associate Dean for Learning and Teaching or nominated person within the College. Queries on appointments should be referred to the Director of Quality Assurance and Enhancement.

In certain cases, it may be appropriate to appoint more than one External Advisor i.e. for Degree Apprenticeships a relevant employer or professional organisation may also be expected.

24

Appendix 8: PSAP Report

ASTON UNIVERSITY

LEARNING AND TEACHING COMMITTEE

Report of a Programme Specific Approval Panel held on << date >> in relation to the following programme(s) in the << add School/CLIPP as appropriate>> :

1. Brief background summary of the proposal (a paragraph summarising the rationale for and description of the programme):

2. Outcome and summary conclusions:

3. Conditions for approval (where relevant):

4. Recommendations (where relevant):

5. Features of effective practice:

6. Commentary on the Programme Team’s ability to demonstrate due diligence in the design process of their programme and in relation to the pragmatics of running the programme:

7. Commentary on the quality of the programme as represented in the submitted documentation:

25

8. Interim observations in relation to the effectiveness of the panel to make informed conclusions in relation to the above:

Panel decision:

1. Approved without conditions.

2. Provisional approval subject to conditions being met prior to the start of the programme.

3. Not approved

[Delete as applicable][Note conditions/provisos where applicable][State reasons for non-approval where applicable]

Update to Panel decision (applicable where 2. is selected):

Conditions met and Chair’s Action taken on: Insert date

Appendix 1:

Panel members:

Appendix 2:

Attendees from the Programme Team/School/Department

26

Appendix 9: External Advisor Report

APPROVAL OF NEW PROGRAMMES

EXTERNAL ADVISOR’S FEEDBACK FORM

Please use this form to comment on the proposal. It has been designed to gain comments from External Advisors and other stakeholders on new programmes of study proposed by Aston University. The focus should be on whether the proposal is credible and appropriate within the subject discipline and validity as an academic programme. We would very much value your comments on the issues set out below. Particular weight will be attached to the external advisor’s comments on the specialist subject elements of the programme.

Please return this form to:

Name of external advisor:

Current Institution/post:

Contact details:

Please give your views on:

The validity and academic/educational rationale for the programme.

The appropriateness of the programme and module Learning Outcomes and the relationship of the programme to the relevant Subject Benchmarking statements and other external reference points.

Whether the programme is at the appropriate Level taking into account benchmarks such as the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications descriptors and guidance and advice from professional bodies.

27

The relationship of the individual programme Stages and modules to the proposed attainment of the programme learning outcomes e.g. is progression appropriately designed in the programme? Do the module learning outcomes ‘add-up to’ the programme learning outcomes?

Overall design and structure of the programme and your involvement with the design process as a whole

Any specific issues/recommendations that you feel should be discussed at the Programme Specific Approval Panel (PSAP)

Features of best practice

On the process of approval (e.g. the guidance you were given before assuming this role or the quality of the documentation provided).

Thank you for your help on behalf of the Programme Approval Steering Committee

28