Foreword
1 This document is the second edition of a code of practice for programme design, approval, monitoring and review in UK higher education institutions. It is one of a suite of inter-related documents which forms an overall Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (the Code of practice) for the guidance of higher education institutions subscribing to the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA).
2 The overall Code of practice and its 10 constituent sections were originally prepared by QAA between 1998 and 2001 in response to the reports of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education and its Scottish Committee (the Dearing and Garrick Reports). The Code of practice supports the national arrangements within the UK for quality assurance in higher education. The Code of practice identifies a comprehensive series of system-wide principles (precepts) covering matters relating to the management of academic quality and standards in higher education. It provides an authoritative reference point for institutions as they consciously, actively and systematically assure the academic quality and standards of their programmes, awards and qualifications.
3 The Code of practice assumes that, taking into account principles and practices agreed UK-wide; each institution has its own systems for independent verification both of its quality and standards and of the effectiveness of its quality assurance systems. In developing the Code of practice, extensive advice has been sought from a range of knowledgeable practitioners.
4 The Code of practice does not incorporate statutory requirements relating to relevant legislation, for example, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. It assumes that institutions have an overriding obligation in all such cases to ensure that they meet the requirements of legislation. However, where a section of the Code of practice is related to legislative or similar obligations, efforts have been made to ensure compatibility between them.
5 Since 2001 a number of developments in UK higher education have encouraged QAA to begin a revision of individual sections of the Code of practice. In undertaking this task QAA has also decided to review the structure of the sections and, in particular, to replace the original 'precepts and guidance' format with a 'precepts and explanation' approach, using the explanations to make clear why the precepts are considered important and reducing opportunities for a 'checklist' approach to the Code of practice. In doing so QAA has sought to meet Recommendation 4 (part 4) of the Better Regulation Task Force in its report Higher Education: Easing the Burden, July 2002.
6 Revised sections of the Code of practice are therefore now structured into a series
of precepts and accompanying explanations. The precepts express key matters of principle that the higher education community has identified as important for the assurance of quality and academic standards. Individual institutions should be able to demonstrate they are addressing the matters tackled by the precepts effectively, through their own management and organisational processes, taking account of institutional needs, traditions, culture and decision-making. The accompanying explanations show why the precepts are important.
7 The Code of practice is a statement of good practice that has been endorsed by
the higher education community. As such it is useful in QAA's audit and review processes that consider the extent to which an institution, in developing and implementing its own policies, has taken account of the Code of practice and its precepts.
8 Institutions may find the explanations useful for developing their own policy and for allowing some flexibility of practice at subject level, depending on local needs. It is important to emphasise that the explanations do not form part of QAA's expectations of institutional practice when QAA teams are conducting audits and reviews.
9 Academic staff in departments and schools do not necessarily need to be aware of the detail of the various sections of the Code of practice, although they might well be expected to be familiar with the institutional policies it informs and any parts which are particularly relevant to their own responsibilities.
10 To assist users, the precepts are listed, without the accompanying explanations, in Appendix 1 of this section of the Code of practice.
11 The first version of this section of the Code of practice was published in May 2000. The publication of this second version follows consultation with staff in institutions, who have helped to update the Code of practice to take account of institutions' practical experience of using the guidance contained in its predecessor.
Introduction
12 The second version of this section of the Code of practice takes as its starting point the statement that formal and effective procedures should exist in all institutions for the design, approval and evaluation of programmes of study. It takes into account various changes in context since 2000, including changes in QAA’s external review and audit processes, and the subsequent emphasis on institutions’ own responsibilities to assure the standards of their awards and quality of the students’ learning experiences. It is also mindful of the continuing work in the UK on the development of a credit framework, including consideration of the European Credit and Transfer System, the existing Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework and the Credit and Qualifications Framework for Wales; the progress of the Bologna Process, including the recent publication of the European Standards and Guidelines and continuing work to develop an overarching qualifications framework for Europe.
13 This section of the Code of practice provides a set of precepts, with accompanying explanation, on the arrangements for programme design, approval, monitoring and review that institutions should consider when developing and reviewing their procedures. For the purpose of this section of the Code of practice 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 multidisciplinary, 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.
14 Programme design is a creative, and often, innovative activity. The processes used by institutions to approve, monitor and review academic programmes should foster creativity, and encourage a culture of continuous enhancement of provision.
15 At the end of this section of the Code of practice are five appendices. Appendices two and three are intended to provide institutions with a framework of the kinds of questions that might be considered by, on the one hand, programme designers and, on the other, approval and evaluation panels. Institutions will also want to cross-refer to other, relevant sections of the Code of practice.
Precepts and explanations
General precepts
1
Institutions 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.
The monitoring and review of programmes are central to an institution’s assurance of the quality and standards of its provision. When evaluating policies and practices for programme design, approval and review against this precept, it is therefore important 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, statutory and regulatory bodies, employers and any relevant national/European Union legislation
- the compatibility of programme proposals and developments with institutional goals and mission
- strategic academic and resource planning
- existing provision within the institution, including any awards that may be offered jointly with other UK or overseas institutions
- the level of risk involved in each approval/review process and the optimal level of resource necessary to ensure that the required outcomes of the process are achieved.
2
Institutions 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.
It is important that the respective roles, responsibilities and authority of different bodies involved in programme approval, monitoring and review are clearly defined in order that staff and students involved in such processes are clear about the hierarchy of procedures and about which body will take final responsibility. The evaluation of any delegated power is important in allowing the institution to ensure that it is continuing to operate its processes in an effective manner.
3
Institutions make use of external participation at key stages for the approval and review of programmes. This independence and objectivity is essential to provide confidence that the standards and quality of the programmes are appropriate.
External participation is important for ensuring that programmes are designed, developed, approved and reviewed in the light of independent advice and for ensuring both transparency of process and confirmation of standards. This provides assurance
at various levels: to the team delivering the programme and to the institution itself in monitoring the independence and objectivity of decisions taken under its procedures, to its students and to any reviewers who may carry out reviews/audits that are external to the institution’s own processes.
It is important that institutions ensure they make use of external contributions of an appropriate kind when developing, approving and evaluating programmes. External examiners may provide useful contributions at various stages of approval and review processes but, for the purpose of objectivity, they are unlikely to be appropriate members of formal approval and review panels. It is also important that this external participation is proportionate to the level, importance and complexity of the process being followed. Useful contributions could be made in different ways by, for example:
- external advisers who provide relevant information and guidance on current developments in the discipline(s)
- academic peers from other disciplines within the institution
- any programme partners, for example, institutions with which there are collaborative arrangements
- students, either studying on the programme or with an appropriate representative role
- graduates from the programme
- appropriate professional, statutory or regulatory bodies
external advisers who provide relevant information and guidance on current developments in the work place, including employers. (For further information on the role of employers in Foundation Degrees, please refer to appendix 4.)
In considering the guidance provided by academic peers from other institutions, the Higher Education Academy may be a useful resource, particularly through its Subject Centres, in providing access to staff working in specific subject areas. The use of appropriate externality in processes for programme design, approval and review may allow an institution to avail itself of opportunities for enhancement, as well as for assurance.
4
Approval, monitoring and review processes are clearly described and communicated to those who are involved in them.
It is important that processes for approval and review of programmes are understood by all those who are involved or who are have an interest in them. The following may help institutions as they consider the clarity and accessibility of their processes.
- The publication of 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, including the institution’s own processes for deciding whether to group programmes together for review purposes or to scrutinise them in a more detailed, individual way.
- The clear statement of the different stages of approval and review and the clear definition of the roles and responsibilities of participants (see precept 2).
- The clear definition of 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, monitoring and review.
Programme design
The rationale underlying this section of the Code of practice is that programme design, approval, monitoring 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 facilitate the delivery of the intended learning outcomes and required standards, and should be a fundamental consideration when institutions approve new programmes or evaluate the effectiveness of existing provision. Where practices for the initial design and approval of programmes are rigorous and effective, subsequent evaluation is likely to be relatively straightforward. Duplication of effort and documentation can be reduced if the requirements of external bodies, such as professional, statutory and regulatory bodies and QAA, are taken into account when programmes are designed, approved and reviewed.
5
Institutions publish, or make available, the principles to be considered when programmes are designed and developed, the fulfilment of which will be tested at approval stage.
The design and development of a programme is crucial for ensuring that it is relevant and sustainable. It is also important for its successful delivery. If the design processes are well thought through and operate effectively, they can assist in the successful operation of later approval and evaluation procedures. There are many principles and reference points that may be considered when designing and developing a new programme. These include:
- the institution's goals and mission
- the intended aims of the programme
- the level of the programme - its intellectual challenge and value - and its place in a national and/or European qualifications framework
- external reference points, including any relevant subject benchmark statements, any European reference points such as the European Standards and Guidelines, national qualifications frameworks for higher education and, where appropriate, the requirements of professional, statutory and regulatory bodies and employers
- the role of students in the design and development of programmes
- the concept of progression so that the curriculum imposes an increasing level of demand on the learner during the course of the programme (see Appendix 2 for an explanation of 'level')
- opportunities which might be 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 (see Appendix 2)
- 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 necessary resources are 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 presented as a series of questions that those designing and developing programmes may wish to ask themselves as they go through the process. It is relevant to all programmes but may be of particular help to demonstrate that standards are appropriately established for interdisciplinary and innovative programmes for which there are no directly relevant subject-specific external reference points. It may also be useful for those staff working in collaborative partnerships with other institutions.
Programme approval
6
Institutions ensure that programme approval decisions are informed by full consideration of academic standards and of the appropriateness of the learning experiences which will be offered to students. The final decision to approve a programme is taken by the academic authority, or a body acting on its behalf. The body is independent of the academic department, or other unit that offers the programme, and has access to any necessary specialist advice. There is also in place a 'signing off' process, which confirms that a programme has fulfilled any conditions set out during the approval process and has given due recognition to any recommendations.
In the light of the responsibility of the individual institution for the assurance of the quality and standards of its awards, and in the interests of transparency, it is important that there is a clear designation of the body responsible for approving a programme and for ensuring that all conditions have been met before the programme begins.
During the period of design, approval and commencement of a new programme, the following may be considered (some institutions have a two-stage approval process and will want to consider which of the following are appropriate to which stage):
- the design principles underpinning the programme
- the definition and appropriateness of standards in accordance with the level and title of the award
- the necessary resources 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
- the nature of the student experience offered by the programme
- the development of the programme between its approval and start
- the relationship between the programme’s curriculum and current research in the same area.
Programme monitoring and review
Institutions should consider the appropriate balance between regular and periodic review of programmes so that there is a continuous cycle.
7
Institutions routinely monitor (in an agreed cycle) 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 recommendations for appropriate actions are followed up to remedy any identified shortcomings.
Routine monitoring of programmes is important in allowing providers to consider the effectiveness of the programme in achieving its stated aims, and the success of students in attaining the intended learning outcomes. It is a process to which an element of proportionality and risk analysis may be applied, with institutions making informed decisions as to the kind of process that will be appropriate. Routine monitoring activity, which will often be driven by those responsible appraising their 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 and other relevant data
- material available to students such as programme specifications, student handbooks and websites.
Effective and prompt follow-up of any recommendations made will protect the interests of current students and should also allow any staff and resource development needs to be addressed.
In general, routine monitoring is an activity likely to be undertaken within the providing department. Periodic review will normally be an institutional process, involving external participants of high calibre and academic/professional credibility. In developing and evaluating such processes, institutions will want to be assured that they are monitoring the cumulative impact of small/incremental changes.
8
Institutions periodically undertake a broader review of the continuing validity and relevance of programmes offered.
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. It is important to remember the concept of continuous evaluation; evaluation processes are not carried out in isolation from one another or from other institutional priorities.
When evaluating the extent to which the original programme aims and intended learning 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. These might include the continuing availability of staff and physical resources
- 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
- data relating to student progression and achievement, including that available on the Teaching Quality Information website
- student feedback, including the National Student Survey.
Programme withdrawal
9
In the event of a decision to change significantly or discontinue a programme, measures are taken to notify and protect the interests of students registered for, or accepted for admission to, the programme.
It is important that the process for the orderly withdrawal of programmes is as well embedded, articulated and understood as those for design, approval and review.
Institutions are responsible for managing their portfolio of provision, including any awards that are offered jointly with another UK or overseas institution. This may involve the withdrawal of existing programmes as well as the design and development of new ones.
Evaluation of processes
10
Institutions have a means of assessing the effectiveness of their programme design, approval and evaluation practices.
Evaluation of processes will provide a focus for enhancement and will allow institutions to consider:
- the benefits gained by the institution, staff, students and other stakeholders from the approval, monitoring and review activities undertaken
- how the outcomes of processes promote enhancement of students’ learning experiences
- the identification and dissemination of effective practice, both internally and externally
- opportunities to make approval and review practices more effective and efficient
- whether the institution, through its processes, is managing risk appropriately and proportionally for its portfolio of programmes.
Appendix 1: the precepts
General precepts
1
Institutions 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 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 make use of external participation at key stages for the approval and review of programmes. This independence and objectivity is essential to provide confidence that the standards and quality of the programmes are appropriate.
Approval, monitoring and review processes are clearly described and communicated to those who are involved with them.
Programme design
5
Institutions publish, or make available, the principles to be considered when programmes are designed and developed, the fulfilment of which will be tested at approval stage.
Programme approval
6
Institutions ensure that programme approval decisions are informed by full consideration of academic tandards and of the appropriateness of the learning experiences which will be offered to students. The final decision to approve a programme is taken by the academic authority, or a body acting on its behalf. The body is independent of the academic department, or other unit that offers the programme, and has access to any necessary specialist advice. There is also a 'signing off' process, which confirms that a programme has fulfilled any conditions set out during the approval process and has given due recognition to any recommendations.
Programme monitoring and review
7
Institutions routinely monitor (in an agreed cycle) 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 recommendations for appropriate actions are followed up to remedy any identified shortcomings.
8
Institutions periodically undertake a broader review of the continuing validity and relevance of programmes offered.
Programme withdrawal
9
In the event of a decision to change significantly or discontinue a programme, measures are taken to notify and protect the interests of students registered for, or accepted for admission to, the programme.
Evaluation of processes
10
Institutions have a means of assessing the effectiveness of programme design, approval and evaluation practices
Appendix 2
This appendix does not form part of the Code of practice, Section 7: programme design, approval, monitoring and review. It is included to provide a series of prompts for institutions to consider when determining their own guidance on programme design and for providers to use when working with institutional processes in this area. It may prove useful for staff development purposes and as guidelines for any participants in the design, development and approval process(es) who are external to the institution.
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.
Academic programmes fulfil a range of purposes including the provision of personal academic development, 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 opportunities 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 the requirements of the student target group and the goals and strategic plans of the institution.
Design criteria
- Do the institutional guidelines for the design of programmes allow for the promotion of good practice in programme design?
- Do they provide the assurance that standards are set appropriately and intended learning outcomes specified accordingly?
Level
- At what level is the programme being designed/evaluated?
- What is the level of the intended learning outcomes for the programme for 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.
- What is the location of the programme on The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Are there any European or other reference points that should be considered with regard to level?
Progression
- Does the curriculum promote progression so that the demands on the learner in intellectual challenge, skills, knowledge, conceptualisation and learning autonomy increase?
Flexibility
- Has the range of requirements of learners likely to enter the programme been considered?
Coherence
- Has the overall coherence and intellectual integrity of the programme been considered?
- Has the programme been 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?
- Have the academic and practical elements and opportunities for personal development and the academic outcomes been considered?
- Have the breadth and depth of the subject material to be included in the programme been determined?
Integrity
- Are the expectations given to students and others about the intended learning outcomes of the programme realistic and deliverable?
- Has the feasibility of attainment of the outcomes been considered?
Reference points
- Have internal and external points of reference been 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, statutory and 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 institutional review panels. While the Code of practice does not require that institutions use these questions, they may be useful as a framework for internal routine monitoring and periodic review panels. Institutions will wish to determine their own approaches but might find it helpful to consider the questions as they reflect on their practices. They may prove useful for staff development purposes and as guidelines for any participants in the routine monitoring and periodic review process(es).
How do the intended learning outcomes relate 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, the European Standards and Guidelines 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?
How are the curricula design principles used to permit achievement of the intended learning outcomes?
5 How does the provider ensure that curriculum content enables 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?
How are the intended learning outcomes 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?
How does the subject provider create 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?
How does the assessment process work?
11 Does the assessment process enable learners to demonstrate achievement of all the intended learning 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?
How does the institution review and improve the quality of the student learning experience?
16 How does the institution review and seek to enhance the quality of the student learning experience? Does it have strategies for building upon its quality assurance processes to enhance the quality of its provision?
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?
How is students’ learning supported?
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 support clear and generally understood by staff and students?
27 Are students offered careers guidance?
How satisfactory are learning resources and how are they deployed?
28 Is the collective expertise of the 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?
29 Are appropriate staff development opportunities available?
30 Is appropriate technical and administrative support available?
31 Is there an overall strategy for the deployment of learning resources?
32 How effectively is learning facilitated in terms of the provision of resources?
33 Is suitable teaching and learning accommodation available?
34 Are the subject book and periodical stocks appropriate and accessible?
35 Are suitable equipment and appropriate information technology facilities available to learners?
Appendix 4: sources of further information
Sources of further information
The following websites may provide further sources of information.
- The Higher Education Academy (www.heacademy.ac.uk)
- Foundation Degree Forward (www.fdf.ac.uk)
- Information on external review processes operated by QAA (www.qaa.ac.uk)
- Teaching Quality Information (www.tqi.ac.uk)
- The European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (www.enqa.net)
Appendix 5: membership of the advisory group
|
Mrs Janet Alleyne |
Head of Quality Management and Audit Unit, University of Ulster |
|
Mr Keith Bartlett |
Deputy Principal, Norwich School of Art & Design |
|
Ms Helen Bowles |
Policy Adviser, Standing Conference of Principals |
|
Dr Richard Brown |
Project Officer, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education |
|
Ms Fiona Crozier |
Assistant Director, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education |
|
Mr Damian Day |
Head of Accreditation, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain |
|
Mr Richard Hughes |
Head of Academic Policy Support Unit, University of Oxford |
|
Mr David McParlin |
Academic Secretary, University of Wales, Aberystwyth |
|
Professor Robert Mears |
Head of School of Social Sciences, Bath Spa University |
|
Mr Paul Mitchell |
Higher Education Consultant |
|
Dr Larry Roberts |
Director of Academic Development, Kingston University |
|
Mr Clive Robertson |
Director, Higher Education Academy Subject Network for Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism |
|
Professor Jenny Saint |
Academic Team Leader for Food and Nutrition, The Nottingham Trent University |
|
Dr Frank Quinault |
Director of Learning and Teaching Quality, University of St Andrews |
|
Mr Greg Wade |
Policy Adviser, Universities UK |
The design criteria set out in Appendix 2 were drafted by a sector-wide Advisory Group on Multidisciplinary and Modular Provision which reported to QAA in November 1999.
Top