Foreword
1 This document is a code of practice for programme approval, monitoring and review in UK higher education institutions. It is one of a suite of inter-related documents which, taken together, will form an overall Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education for the guidance of higher education institutions subscribing to the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the QAA).
2 The overall Code and its constituent sections are being prepared by the QAA in response both to the Reports of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education and its Scottish Committee (the 'Dearing' and 'Garrick' Reports) and the consequent remodelling of the national arrangements for quality assurance in higher education. The completed Code will identify a comprehensive series of system-wide expectations covering matters relating to the management of academic quality and standards in higher education. In so doing, it will provide an authoritative reference point for institutions as they consciously, actively and systematically assure the academic quality and standards of their programmes, awards and qualifications. The Code will assume that, taking into account nationally agreed principles and practices, each institution has its own systems for independent verification both of its quality and standards and also of the effectiveness of its quality assurance systems. In developing the Code, extensive advice is being sought from a range of knowledgeable practitioners.
3 Each section of the Code is structured into a series of precepts and accompanying outline guidance. The precepts identify those key matters which the QAA expects an institution to be able to demonstrate it is addressing effectively through its own quality assurance mechanisms. The accompanying outline guidance is provided to assist institutions in maintaining and enhancing the quality of provision for students and other stakeholders. The guidance is not intended to be either prescriptive or exhaustive: its purpose is to offer a framework for quality assurance and control which institutions may wish to use, elaborate and adapt according to their own needs, traditions, cultures and decision-making processes. Nonetheless, in many institutions the guidance will constitute appropriate good practice.
4 To assist users, the precepts are listed, without the associated guidance, in Appendix 1 to the code.
5 During the course of its quality assurance reviews, the QAA will consider the extent to which individual institutions are meeting the expectations of the precepts in the available sections of the Code of practice. The QAA will report on how effectively higher education institutions individually are meeting these expectations and are discharging their responsibilities for the academic standards and quality of their programmes and awards. In doing so it will focus on the precepts themselves, and not on the associated guidance: the latter may, however, provide a helpful starting point for discussion. The QAA expects that by autumn 2001 all institutions will be able to demonstrate that they are adhering to the precepts contained in this section of the Code.
Introduction
6 Formal and effective procedures should exist in all institutions for:
- the approval of programmes of study;
- the subsequent monitoring of their effectiveness in achieving stated aims and the success of students in attaining the stated, intended learning outcomes;
- the review of the continuing validity of those aims and outcomes.
7 This section of the Code of practice provides a set of precepts, with accompanying guidance, on the arrangements for programme approval, monitoring and review that institutions should consider when developing and reviewing their procedures. For the purpose of this code a programme is defined as an approved curriculum followed by a registered student. This will normally be a named award route that leads to the intended learning outcomes in the relevant programme specification. Programmes may be offered at different levels within a single subject. A programme may be multi-disciplinary, for example a joint honours degree or a combined honours degree. The term programme may also refer to the main pathways through a modular scheme, which may itself include several subjects.
8 In many institutions programmes are constructed from individual units, or modules, which have their own outcomes. The principles of design, approval, monitoring and review that are set out in this section of the Code of practice may, where appropriate, be applied equally to such units or modules. In those cases where a modular programme may be negotiated by an individual student, with guidance and agreement from the institution, the design principles in particular should inform the policies and procedures within which such negotiation takes place.
9 Academic programmes fulfil a range of purposes including the provision of a general academic experience, preparation for knowledge creation and research, preparation for specific (often professional) employment or for general employment, or as preparation for lifelong learning. Understanding and defining the balance of purposes is important in order to design a curriculum and to provide the related learning experiences that will enable the stated intended learning outcomes to be achieved. Institutions should aim to design and deliver programmes that reflect current knowledge and best practice and meet with the requirements of the student target group and the goals and strategic plans of the institution.
10 The rationale underlying this code is that programme design, approval and review are linked, and that the processes involved need to be seen in a holistic and integrated manner. Good programme design creates programmes that deliver the intended learning outcomes and required standards and should be a fundamental consideration when institutions approve new programmes or review the effectiveness of existing provision. Where practices for the initial approval of programmes are rigorous and effective, subsequent monitoring and review is likely to be relatively straightforward. Duplication of effort and documentation can be reduced if the requirements of external bodies, such as professional and statutory bodies and the QAA, are taken into account when programmes are approved, monitored and reviewed.
11 Also underpinning this code is the notion that standards, quality and the means for quality enhancement need to be 'designed in' to programmes from the outset. If this is done properly the tasks facing review bodies in terms of evaluating the extent to which intended learning outcomes are being met, and standards attained, are that much clearer and easier.
12 Course design is a creative, and often innovative activity. The processes used by institutions to approve and review academic programmes should foster creativity, and encourage a culture of continuous enhancement of provision.
13 An institution seeking to align its own monitoring and reviews with those undertaken by the QAA might wish to consider the extent to which it is addressing for itself the questions which academic reviewers will be asking. These questions are listed in Appendix 3. The Handbook for academic review includes these questions together with commentary and full information about the review method.
14 An institution might wish to consider whether reports produced as a result of monitoring and/or review activities should be presented in a way that would facilitate the production of a self-evaluation document of the type that will inform the academic review process. Institutions should refer to the 'Guidelines for producing self-evaluation documents for subject review' which are Annex C of the Handbook for academic review.
General precepts
1
Institutions should ensure that their responsibilities for standards and quality
are discharged effectively through their procedures for:
- the design of programmes;
- the approval of programmes;
- the monitoring and review of programmes.
In evaluating the effectiveness of their policies and practices for programme design, approval and review against this precept institutions will need to consider whether due account is taken of:
- external reference points, including any relevant subject benchmark statements, national qualifications frameworks for higher education and, where appropriate, the requirements of professional and statutory bodies and employers;
- the compatibility of programme proposals and developments with institutional goals and mission;
- strategic academic and resource planning;
- existing provision within the institution.
2
Institutions should ensure that the overriding responsibility of the academic
authority (eg senate or academic board) to set, maintain and assure standards
is respected and that any delegation of power by the academic authority to
approve or review programmes is properly defined and exercised.
Institutions should ensure that:
- the respective roles, responsibilities and authority of different bodies involved in programme approval and review are clearly defined;
- the operation of any delegated power is monitored and reviewed.
3
Institutions should ensure that the approval and review of programmes involves
appropriate persons who are external to the design and delivery of the programme.
Such contributions should be sought in a way that will promote confidence
that the standards and quality of the programmes are appropriate.
Institutions should consider the contributions that could be made by, for example:
- academic peers from other disciplines within the institution;
- external advisers who provide relevant information and guidance on current developments in the work place and/or in the discipline(s);
- any programme partners, for example institutions with which there are collaborative arrangements;
- appropriate professional or statutory bodies.
4
Approval and review processes should be clearly described and communicated
to those who are involved with them.
Institutions will wish to consider:
- publishing clear principles and procedures for the approval and review of programmes that are available to all staff and students in the institution and to external participants in the processes;
- how the different stages of approval and review are clearly stated and the roles and responsibilities of participants clearly defined;
- defining clearly the responsibility for initiating the process of primary consideration, monitoring and review of programmes;
- how staff development strategies and activities may include the dissemination of good practice in relation to programme design, approval and review.
Programme design
5
Institutions should publish guidance, for use within the institution, on principles
to be considered when programmes are designed.
Institutions might include in such guidance the need for the programme design process to consider:
- the institution's goal and mission;
- the intended aims of the programme;
- the level of the programme - its intellectual challenge and value - and its place in a national qualifications framework;
- external reference points, including any relevant subject benchmark statements, national qualifications frameworks for higher education and, where appropriate, the requirements of professional and statutory bodies and employers;
- the concept of progression so that the curriculum imposes an increasing level of demand on the learner during the course of the programme1;
- opportunities potentially available to students on completion of a programme;
- the balance of the programme, for example in relation to academic and practical elements, personal development and academic outcomes, breadth and depth in the curriculum;
- the coherence of the programme to ensure that the overall experience of a student has a logic and an intellectual integrity that are related to clearly defined purposes;
- the award title to ensure it reflects the intended learning outcomes of the programme;
- how the intended learning outcomes of the programme will be promoted, demonstrated and assessed;
- the resources necessary and available to support the programme.
Where a programme is individually negotiated, the guidance given to the student by the institution to support the process should be consistent with that used for institution-designed programmes.
A set of criteria for programme design, which institutions might find helpful to consider when determining their own guidance, is described briefly in Appendix 2. It is relevant to all programmes but may be of particular help to demonstrate that standards are appropriately established for inter-disciplinary and innovative programmes for which there are not directly relevant subject specific external reference points.
1See Appendix 2 for an explanation of 'level'.
Programme approval
6
Institutions should ensure that programme approval decisions are informed
by full consideration of academic standards and the quality of the learning
opportunities. The final decision to approve a programme should be taken by
the academic authority, or a body acting on its behalf. The body should be
independent of the academic department, or other unit that will offer the
programme, and have access to any necessary specialist advice.
In the course of the approval process consideration should be given to:
- the design principles underpinning the programme being considered;
- the definition and appropriateness of standards in accordance with the level and title of the award;
- the resources needed and available to support the programme;
- anticipated demand for the programme;
- monitoring and review arrangements for the programme;
- the length of time for which approval is granted;
- the contents of the programme specification.
Programme monitoring and review
Institutions should consider the appropriate balance between regular monitoring and periodic review of programmes. Monitoring should consider the effectiveness of the programme in achieving its stated aims, and the success of students in attaining the intended learning outcomes. Periodically, the continuing validity of those aims and outcomes themselves should be reviewed. In general, monitoring is an activity likely to be undertaken within the providing department. Review will normally be an institutional process, often involving external participants of high calibre and academic/professional credibility.
7
Institutions should monitor the effectiveness of their programmes:
- to ensure that programmes remain current and valid in the light of developing knowledge in the discipline, and practice in its application;
- to evaluate the extent to which the intended learning outcomes are being attained by students;
- to evaluate the continuing effectiveness of the curriculum and of assessment in relation to the intended learning outcomes;
- to ensure that appropriate actions are taken to remedy any identified shortcomings.
8
Institutions should periodically review the continuing validity and relevance
of programme aims and intended learning outcomes.
Monitoring activity, which will often be driven by the programme team appraising its own performance at the end of each academic year, may consider, for example:
- external examiners' reports;
- any reports from accrediting or other external bodies;
- staff and student feedback;
- feedback from former students and their employers;
- student progress information.
Any identified need for change should be recorded and responsibilities for implementing the changes identified. The interests of current students should be protected by acting promptly to remedy any deficiencies. Any staff development needs should be addressed.
The timing and nature of reviews of overall aims and outcomes will depend on a number of factors, including the rate of development of knowledge and practice in the discipline, the extent to which wider questions of overall aims are dealt with in regular monitoring, and overall institutional policy on such reviews.
When reviewing the extent to which the original programme aims and intended outcomes remain appropriate, consideration might include, for example:
- the cumulative effect of changes made over time, as a result of regular monitoring, to the design and operation of the programme;
- current research and practice in the application of knowledge in the relevant discipline(s), technological advances, and developments in teaching and learning;
- changes to external points of reference, such as subject benchmark statements, relevant professional or statutory body requirements;
- changes in student demand, employer expectations and employment opportunities;
- the achievements of student cohorts.
In the event of a decision to significantly change or discontinue a programme, consideration must be given to the measures that should be taken to notify and protect the interests of students registered for, or accepted for admission to, the programme.
9
Institutions should evaluate the effectiveness of programme approval, monitoring
and review practices.
Institutions will wish to consider:
- the benefits gained by the institution, staff, students and other stakeholders from approval, monitoring and review activities undertaken;
- how the processes promote enhancement and disseminate good practice;
- opportunities to make approval and review practices more effective and efficient.
Appendix 1
The precepts
General precepts
1
Institutions should ensure that their responsibilities for standards and quality
are discharged effectively through their procedures for:
- the design of programmes;
- the approval of programmes;
- the monitoring and review of programmes.
2
Institutions should ensure that the overriding responsibility of the academic
authority (eg senate or academic board) to set, maintain and assure standards
is respected and that any delegation of power by the academic authority to
approve or review programmes is properly defined and exercised.
3
Institutions should ensure that the approval and review of programmes involves
appropriate persons who are external to the design and delivery of the programme.
Such contributions should be sought in a way that will promote confidence
that the standards and quality of the programmes are appropriate.
4
Approval and review processes should be clearly described and communicated
to those who are involved with them.
Programme design
5
Institutions should publish guidance, for use within the institution, on principles
to be considered when programmes are designed.
Programme approval
6
Institutions should ensure that programme approval decisions are informed
by full consideration of academic standards and the quality of the learning
opportunities. The final decision to approve a programme should be taken by
the academic authority, or a body acting on its behalf. The body should be
independent of the academic department, or other unit, that will offer the
programme and have access to any necessary specialist advice.
Programme monitoring and review
7
Institutions should monitor the effectiveness of their programmes:
- to ensure that programmes remain current and valid in the light of developing knowledge in the discipline, and practice in its application;
- to evaluate the extent to which the intended learning outcomes are being attained by students;
- to evaluate the continuing effectiveness of the curriculum and of assessment in relation to the intended learning outcomes;
- to ensure that appropriate actions are taken to remedy any identified shortcomings.
8
Institutions should periodically review the continuing validity and relevance
of programme aims and intended learning outcomes.
9
Institutions should evaluate the effectiveness of programme approval, monitoring
and review practices.
Appendix 2
This appendix does not form part of the Code of practice: programme approval, monitoring and review. It is included to assist institutions determining their own guidance on programme design.
Design criteria
The following items may be regarded as a starting point for reflection on approaches to programme design. They are intended to assist institutions develop their own guidance which will promote good practice in the design of programmes to ensure that standards are set appropriately and intended learning outcomes specified accordingly.
Level
Consideration should be given to the level of a programme and to the level of the stated intended learning outcomes at any named stages in the programme. A level is an indicator of the relative demand, complexity, depth of study and learner autonomy involved in a programme. Various systems are currently in use to identify levels, including descriptors indicating the intellectual and skill attainment expected of students. The introduction of the national qualifications frameworks will assist institutions to define the level of their programmes.
Progression
Consideration should be given to the way in which the curriculum promotes an organised progression so that the demands on the learner in intellectual challenge, skills, knowledge, conceptualisation and learning autonomy increase.
Balance
Consideration should be given to the balance within the programme of a number of elements, typically academic and practical elements, a concern for personal development and academic outcomes and a determination of breadth and depth of the subject material to be included in the programme.
Flexibility
The range of requirements of learners likely to enter the programme should be considered.
Coherence
Consideration should be given to the overall coherence and intellectual integrity of the programme. The programme should be designed in a way that will ensure the student's experience has a logic and integrity that are clearly linked to the purpose of the programme.
Integrity
The expectations given to student and others about the intended learning outcomes of the programme should be honest and deliverable. Consideration should be given to the feasibility of attainment of the outcomes.
Reference points
Internal and external points of reference should be used to inform the design of the programme. External reference points might be provided by a subject benchmark statement, information about similar or parallel programmes elsewhere or expectations of professional or statutory regulatory bodies, or employer expectations (for example, as set out in occupational standards). In a student negotiated programme, an inherent part of the negotiation process will involve the student and tutor in designing the programme, taking into consideration the intended level of the award and jointly agreeing the relevant sources of reference.
Appendix 3
This appendix is not part of the Code of practice. It is included to assist institutions that wish to align internal reviews with external reviews.
Academic review
The key questions that will be considered by academic reviewers when reviewing subjects as part of the QAA's academic review activities are listed below. The questions have been included as an appendix to this code to assist institutions who seek to align their internal monitoring and review activities with those undertaken by the QAA. The code does not require that institutions use the questions as a framework for internal reviews - institutions will wish to determine their own approaches - but institutions might find it helpful to consider the questions as they reflect on their practices.
Evaluation of the intended learning outcomes in relation to external reference points and to the broad aims of the provision
1 What are the intended learning outcomes for a programme?
2 How do they relate to external reference points including relevant subject benchmark statements, the qualifications framework and any professional body requirements?
3 How do they relate to the overall aims of the provision as stated by the subject provider?
4 Are they appropriate to the aims?
The means by which the subject provider designs curricula that permit achievement of the intended outcomes
5 How does the provider ensure that curriculum content enable students to achieve the intended learning outcomes?
6 How does the provider ensure that the design and organisation of the curriculum is effective in promoting student learning and achievement of the intended learning outcomes?
The means by which the intended outcomes are communicated to students, staff and external examiners
7 How are the intended outcomes of a programme and its constituent parts communicated to staff, students and external examiners?
8 Do the students know what is expected of them?
Evaluation of the means by which the subject provider creates the conditions for achievement of the intended learning outcomes
9 Do the design and content of the curricula encourage achievement of the intended learning outcomes in terms of knowledge and understanding, cognitive skills, subject specific skills (including practical/professional skills), transferable skills, progression to employment and/or further study, and personal development?
10 Is there evidence that curricular content and design is informed by recent developments in techniques of teaching and learning, by current research and scholarship, and by any changes in relevant occupational or professional requirements?
Evaluation of the assessment process and the standard it demonstrates
11 Does the assessment process enable learners to demonstrate achievement of the intended outcomes?
12 Are there criteria that enable internal and external examiners to distinguish between different categories of achievement?
13 Can there be full confidence in the security and integrity of assessment procedures?
14 Does the assessment strategy have an adequate formative function in developing student abilities?
15 What evidence is there that the standards achieved by learners meet the minimum expectations for the award, as measured against relevant subject benchmarks and the qualifications framework?
Evaluation of the institution's approaches to reviewing and improving the standards achieved
16 How does the subject provider review and seek to enhance standards?
Evaluation of the quality of the learning opportunities offered by the subject provider: the teaching delivered by staff and how it leads to learning by students
17 How effective is teaching in relation to curriculum content and programme aims?
18 How effectively do staff draw upon their research, scholarship or professional activity to inform their teaching?
19 How good are the materials provided to support learning?
20 Is there effective engagement with and participation by students?
21 Is the quality of teaching maintained and enhanced through effective staff development, peer review of teaching, integration of part-time and visiting staff, effective team teaching and induction and mentoring of new staff?
22 How effectively is learning facilitated in terms of student workloads?
Student progression and academic support
23 Is there an appropriate overall strategy for academic support, including written guidance, which is consistent with the student profile and the overall aims of the provision?
24 Are there effective arrangements for admission and induction which are generally understood by staff and applicants?
25 How effectively is learning facilitated by academic guidance, feedback and supervisory arrangements?
26 Are the arrangements for academic tutorial support clear and generally understood by staff and students?
Learning resources and their deployment
27 Is the collective expertise of the academic staff suitable and available for effective delivery of the curricula, for the overall teaching, learning and assessment strategy and for the achievement of the intended learning outcomes?
28 Are appropriate staff development opportunities available?
29 Is appropriate technical and administrative support available?
30 Is there an overall strategy for the deployment of learning resources?
31 How effectively is learning facilitated in terms of the provision of resources?
32 Is suitable teaching and learning accommodation available?
33 Are the subject book and periodical stocks appropriate and accessible?
34 Are suitable equipment and appropriate IT facilities available to learners?
Appendix 4
This code of practice on programme approval, monitoring and review was drafted with the direct assistance of a number of individuals from a range of higher education institutions. The design criteria set out in Appendix 2 were developed by a sector-wide Advisory Group on Multidisciplinary and Modular Provision which reported to the QAA in November 1999.
Top