Quality Handbook Section 5 - Course Design and Approval Requirements

3.1 Business Evaluation is required for all new courses and where proposed changes to existing courses require ASQC Academic Course Approval Sub-Committee (re-)approval.

3.2 The Head of Department is responsible for determining whether proposed course changes requiring SASQC approval also necessitate the completion of a Business Case. This decision will be informed by several factors, including whether the proposed changes:

1. imply a significant addition to the resources required to teach or support the course(s), which cannot be accommodated through existing resources and workload.
2. have operational implications or introduce additional infrastructure costs which need to be considered at an institutional level.

3.3 Where a Business Case is deemed necessary, SET approval must be secured before academic approval of the course changes by SASQC.

Further information

• Further guidance and details of the Business Evaluation process can be found on the Academic Quality Hub
• Mechanisms for the business evaluation of new partnerships or new courses at existing or new partners can be found in Quality Handbook Section 10 and on the Academic Quality Hub..

4.4 Integral to these stages is the Business Evaluation process. This is completed through the curriculum management system, CourseLoop, and consists of three stages:

1. An Approval to Proceed (AtP), which begins the process
2. An Outline Summary to be completed after the Planning Meeting, before the detailed course design commences
3. The Business Case which must be completed before the School Leadership Check takes place.

4.5 Schools take the lead in designing the course, utilising the EQP resources and staff development sessions related to course design. The course team have the option of running School-led consultation activities or opting for a EQP set-up Stakeholder Consultation.

4.6 Either way, the purpose of the Stakeholder Consultation is to:

1. Establish a shared understanding of the aims of the course;
2. Consider the course coherence, which should provide a high-quality student experience enabling students to develop skills and knowledge in a systematic way, scaffolding their learning to achieve independence and preparation for success after graduation. This may be demonstrated through a course diagram;
3. Confirm that the course is at the appropriate standard for the level of the award(s) involved and takes account of subject and qualification benchmark statements;
4. Confirm that the curriculum is current and valid in the light of developing knowledge in the subject;
5. Confirm that the course prepares students for the world of work, as reflected in the Strategic Plan;
6. Identify any further refinements or adjustments before the course proceeds to approval.

Further information

• Schools must ensure that there is sufficient time allocated for the completion and approval of the Approval to Proceed, Outline Summary and the Business Case to ensure this is completed prior to ASQC Academic Course Approval Sub-Committee consideration.
• Schools must determine the appropriate timeline for (re-)approval by the ASQC Academic Course Approval Sub-Committee to meet its agreed portfolio development and marketing plans.
• Schools should allocate a minimum of five working days (equivalent) for the design of a course, or a major redesign of a current course. Additional time may be needed for more complex courses.
• Please see Supplement 5D for more information on running a Stakeholder Consultation.

4.7 Viability checks are undertaken and recorded in CourseLoop. Based on the information included in CourseLoop, these indicate whether the course meets the requirements for Student Route and student finance eligibility.

4.8 In the case of Apprenticeships, the Apprenticeship team will undertake a compliance check.

4.9 Upon completion of course information in CourseLoop, the designated EQP Senior Quality and Standards Advisor (SQSA) will review the course design to ascertain that it meets NTU expectations and requirements.

4.10 Deputy Deans will decide whether the proposal meets the expectations and requirements of the School during the School Leadership Check, including its alignment to NTU priorities and the requirement for proposed resource.

Further information

• Please see Supplement 5C for guidance on the School Leadership check.

4.11 When the Deputy Dean is satisfied that the course design has been completed, this will be confirmed in CourseLoop. The EQP SQSA will subsequently check the course information on CourseLoop and will prepare a summary report with recommendations to the ASQC Academic Course Approval Sub-Committee.

Collaborative Courses

4.12 All collaborative partnership arrangements will be approved through the Academic Partnership approval process. The ASQC Academic Course Approval Sub-Committee will consider the course only. The Academic Course Approval Sub-Committee will not approve articulation agreements which will continue to be approved through SASQC, unless the agreement requires a new course to be approved.

4.13 The partner and/or the collaborative arrangements will be approved through the process outlined in Quality Handbook Section 10: Academic Partnerships - Approval. Criteria will include responsibilities for delivery, staffing, adequate resource and agreed levels of support. This approval will take place prior to course approval.

ASQC Academic Course Approval Sub-Committee

4.14 ASQC, through the Sub-Committee, retains University oversight of course design and (re-)approval and will receive reports detailing approval outcomes.

4.15 The EQP SQSA summary report and recommendation to the ASQC Academic Course Approval Sub-Committee will identify:

1. Whether relevant course design requirements have been met;
2. The student experience has been adequately considered and articulated in the course learning and teaching strategy and the assessment strategy;
3. All course and module information has been completed;
4. Consultation has taken place with external colleagues and students;
5. Consultation has taken place with internal University colleagues;
6. Where there are implications for other courses or NTIC/KICL, this has been considered and discussed with those parties;
7. The outcomes of checks on the viability of the course.

4.16 The two possible outcomes of the Sub-Committee are:

1. Approve with implementation date and confirmed (re-)approval period;
2. Not approve (with reasons given for this decision).

4.17 Notification of the (re-)approval will be sent to key stakeholders, including the Deputy Dean, the Course Leader, Academic Registry and Finance.

4.18 Students can only be enrolled on the course after these confirmations have taken place.

Further information

• The terms of reference of the ASQC Academic Course Approval Sub-Committee are set out in Section 1: Academic Quality Governance.

5.1 Course design changes which do not require ASQC Academic Course Approval Sub-Committee approval can be considered and approved at School level by SASQCs. The types and volume of course change which can be approved through the SASQC Course Design and Approval route, and the deadlines by which these must be approved each year, are included in Appendix 2. Certain types of course design change are subject to the lead times outlined in QH Supplement 5K. This allows for appropriate marketing and recruitment of the new or revised course and mitigates challenges related to course set up, estate allocation and other resources.

5.2 There may be circumstances where exceptions to these deadlines are necessary. These will be rare. Requests for exceptions must follow the process outlined in QH Supplement 5K.

5.3 Whilst the University reserves the right to make reasonable changes to its courses where that will enable the University to deliver a better quality of educational experience to students as set out in clauses 8.5 and 8.6 of the Student Contract, it is expected that proposed changes will be discussed with staff, affected students and external examiners (and NTIC/KICL and other collaborative partners if applicable) in advance of SASQC consideration. Particular thought should be given to the timescale for enacting changes and the effect on current cohorts of students – those affected must be provided with the details and, where possible, given an opportunity to comment on the changes before they are approved.

5.4 Consultation requirements for course changes considered through SASQC are determined by the academic quality, CMA and operational implications of the proposed changes. All course changes are subject to the same minimum consultation requirements and there are additional consultation requirements or agreements required for specific course and module changes – see Appendix 3.

5.5 When considering changes, Schools should be aware of possible operational or funding implications or additional support needs from relevant Professional Services teams and must consult them appropriately, e.g. a change of mode, introducing online learning or adding a Sandwich or in curriculum placement.

5.6 Details of the consultation undertaken prior to academic approval must be recorded in CourseLoop using the Outline Summary form. Feedback from and action undertaken following consultation must be evidenced in the Outline Summary form and further information or evidence can be uploaded to the Proposal in CourseLoop as an attachment(s).

5.7 Where consultation with identified stakeholders is undertaken through their attendance at the relevant SASQC where the course changes are being considered, this should be clearly recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

Further information

• All information on the role and responsibilities of SASQCs can be found in Section 1 of the Quality Handbook.
• Guidance for Schools on managing course and module changes subject to SASQC consideration in CourseLoop can be found on the Academic Quality Hub

6.1 The Course Leader is responsible for ensuring that the definitive course information in CourseLoop is up to date. This information constitutes a definitive description of the course for staff, students (potential and existing), parents, external examiners, employers and for internal and external quality assurance purposes. All other staff and student documentation should correspond with the components of the definitive course information in CourseLoop.

6.2 The Module Leader is responsible for ensuring that the definitive module information in CourseLoop is up to date. All other module documentation provided to staff and students should correspond with the definitive module information in CourseLoop.

6.3 Where course or module information in CourseLoop is not accurate or requires updating, the Course or Module Leader must notify the School Standards and Quality Manager who will determine if the proposed changes require academic approval or whether these can be treated as routine updating via an Editorial update in CourseLoop.

6.4 Appendix 4 includes a list of routine course and module information changes and updates which do not require academic approval.

Further information

• Guidance for Schools on updating course and module information via an Editorial update in CourseLoop can be found on the Academic Quality Hub.

7.1 ASQC ratifies the academic (re-)approval decisions from the ASQC Academic Course Approval Sub-Committee.

7.2 ASQC may withdraw academic approval from a course at any time if it has evidence that the course is no longer meeting the minimum acceptable standards for that award.

7.3 EQP will periodically review the course design and (re-)approval process to ensure that it remains efficient, fit-for-purpose and rigorous.