Quality Manual 2016 2017

RAIUL Quality Manual V3
2016-2017
Last updated August2016
Richmond, the American International University

in London
Quality Manual
__________________________________________________________
1
2016-2017
Contents
A Introduction .................................................................................................. 6
A1 Quality Manual Aims and Objectives .............................................................. 6
A2 QA Principles Underlying the Quality Manual ................................................ 7
A3 The Relationship of the Quality Manual to other University Regulations ...... 8
B Academic Governance and Quality Mechanisms ............................................ 9
B1 Academic Governance and QA/QE Mechanisms Objectives and Principles... 9
B2 Academic Governance and QA/QE Mechanisms: External Reference Points 9
B3 Academic Governance and Quality Mechanisms Internal Reference Points 10
B4 University Management of Standards and Quality ....................................... 10
B5 The Academic Board and its sub-committees .............................................. 13
B6 Management of US and UK Quality Expectations......................................... 15
B7 The MSCHE Accreditation Cycle .................................................................... 15
B8 The QAA Review Cycle .................................................................................. 17
C New Programme Design ...............................................................................19
C1 Programme Design Objectives and Principles .............................................. 19
C2 Programme Design External Reference Points ............................................. 20
C3 Programme Design Internal Reference Points .............................................. 21
C4 Programme Design Expectations – Undergraduate Degrees ....................... 21
C5 Programme Design Expectations – Masters Degrees ................................... 23
C6 Programme Design Expectations – Minors and US Certificates ................... 23
C7 Exit Awards .................................................................................................... 24
C7.2.1Associate of Arts Degree in General Studies ............................................. 24
C7.2.2Certificate of Higher Education (UK) ......................................................... 24
C7.2.3Diploma of Higher Education (UK) ............................................................. 25
C7.2.4Postgraduate Certificate (US) / Postgraduate Diploma (UK) .................... 25
C8 Associated Forms and Templates Relating to Programme Design ............... 25
D New Programme Approval and Validation ....................................................26
D1 Programme Approval and Validation Objectives and Principles .................. 26
D2 Programme Approval and Validation External Reference Points ................. 26
D3 Programme Approval and Validation Internal Reference Points.................. 27
D4 Non-Degree Programmes – Main Stages of Approval .................................. 27
D5 Non-Degree Programmes – Flow Approval .................................................. 27
D6 New Degree Programmes – Main Stages of Approval and Validation ......... 28
D7 New Degree Programmes – Programme Team ............................................ 29
D8 New Degree Programmes – Flow of Approval and Validation Processes..... 30
D9 New Degree Programmes – Flow of Post-Validation Procedures ................ 31
D10 New Degree Programme Approval – Detailed Procedures: The Planning
Meeting .................................................................................................................... 33
D11 Validation – Detailed Procedures: Validation Panel Composition and
Nominations ............................................................................................................. 34
D12 Validation – Detailed Procedures: Preliminary validation meeting (PVM) .. 35
D13 Validation – Detailed Procedures: Final Validation Meeting ....................... 37
D14 Validation – Detailed Procedures: The Final Validation Report ................... 38
2
2016-2017
D15 Validation – Detailed Procedures: Possible Validation meeting outcomes . 39

D16 Validation – Follow-up .................................................................................. 40
D17 Associated Forms and Templates Relating to New Degree Programme
Approval and Validation ........................................................................................... 40
E Degree Formal Programme Review ...............................................................41
E1 Formal Programme Review (FPR) Objectives and Principles ........................ 41
E2 Formal Programme Review External Reference Points ................................ 41
E3 Formal Programme Review Internal Reference Points................................. 42
E4 Key Issues for Evaluation in Formal Programme Review .............................. 42
E5 Formal Programme Review Processes .......................................................... 43
E6 Flow of Formal Programme Review Process................................................. 44
E7 Flow of Post-Formal Programme Review Procedures .................................. 45
E8 Formal Programme Review – Detailed Procedures: Planning Meeting....... 48
E9 Formal Programme Review – Detailed Procedures: Panel Composition and
Nominations ............................................................................................................. 49
E10 Formal Programme Review – Detailed Procedures: Formal Programme
Review Meeting........................................................................................................ 49
E11 Formal Programme Review – Detailed Procedures: The Review Report .... 51
E12 Formal Programme Review – Detailed Procedures: Possible Formal
Programme Review meeting outcomes ................................................................... 52
E13 Associated Forms and Templates Relating to Formal Programme Review .. 53
F Curricular Changes........................................................................................54
F1 Curricular Changes – Objectives and Principles ............................................ 54
F2 Curricular Changes External Reference Points.............................................. 55
F3 Curricular Changes Internal Contexts ........................................................... 55
F4 New Courses – Design Principles .................................................................. 56
F5 New Courses – Approval Process .................................................................. 57
F5.1.New Courses Associated with New Degree Programmes ........................... 57
F5.2.Individual New Courses58
F6 New Course Approval – Possible Judgements .............................................. 58
F7 Timing of Requests for New Course Approval .............................................. 59
F8 Minor Course Changes .................................................................................. 59
F9 Major Course Changes .................................................................................. 60
F10 Discontinuing a Course.................................................................................. 60
F11 Changes to the structure of a degree programme ....................................... 61
F12 Minor Changes to Degree Programme ......................................................... 62
F13 Major Changes in a Degree Programme ....................................................... 62
F14 Timing of Requests for Degree, Minor and/or General Education
Programme Changes ................................................................................................ 63
F15 Curricular Changes and Updating of Documentation ................................... 65
F16 Associated Forms and Templates Relating to Curricular Changes ............... 66
G Discontinuation of a Programme ..................................................................67
G1 Objectives and Principles .............................................................................. 67
G2 External Reference Points ............................................................................. 67
3
2016-2017
G3 Discontinuation of a Programme Internal Reference Points ........................ 67

G4 Determination and Decision Process ............................................................ 67
G5 Responsibilities of the Academic School ....................................................... 68
G6 Communication ............................................................................................. 69
G7 Special Considerations Regarding the Programme Teaching-Out Plan ........ 70
G8 Associated Forms and Templates Relating to Discontinuation of a Degree
Programme ............................................................................................................... 71
H Annual Monitoring .......................................................................................72
H1 Annual Monitoring Objectives and Principles ............................................... 72
H2 Annual Monitoring External Reference Points ............................................. 73
H3 Annual Monitoring Internal References ....................................................... 73
H4 Annual Programme Monitoring and Assessment (APMA)............................ 73
H5 Annual Institutional Assessment ................................................................... 75
H6 Associated Forms and Templates Relating to Annual Monitoring ............... 77
I Assessment and Internal Moderation ...........................................................78
I1 Principles and Objectives .................................................................................. 78
I2 External Reference Points ................................................................................. 78
I3 Internal Reference Points ................................................................................. 79
I4 Timing of Internal Moderation ......................................................................... 79
I5 Sampling ............................................................................................................ 80
I5.1 Sampling at FHEQ Level 7 (Graduate-level courses).................................... 80
I5.2 Sampling at FHEQ Levels 6 and 5 (“upper-division courses”)...................... 80
I5.3 Sampling at FHEQ Level 4 ............................................................................ 81
I5.4 Sampling at FHEQ Level 3 ............................................................................ 81
I5.5 Sampling: Additional Cases ......................................................................... 81
I6 Internal Moderation Processes ......................................................................... 82
I7 Associated Forms and Templates Relating to Internal Moderation ................. 82
J External Examination....................................................................................83
J1 Principles and Objectives .................................................................................. 83
J2 External Reference Points ................................................................................. 83
J3 Internal Reference Points ................................................................................. 83
J4 Selection, Nomination and Appointment ......................................................... 83
J5 The External Examiner’s Role ........................................................................... 85
J6 The External Examiner’s Report........................................................................ 86
J7 University Review and Overview of External Examiners’ Reports ................... 87
J8 Associated Forms and Templates Relating to External Examining ................... 88
K Other Regulatory Issues: Admissions ............................................................89
K1 Principles and Objectives .............................................................................. 89
K2 External Reference Points ............................................................................. 89
K3 Internal Reference Points .............................................................................. 90
L Other Regulatory Issues: Equality and Diversity ...........................................91
L1 Principles and Objectives .............................................................................. 91
L2 External Reference Points ............................................................................. 91
L3 Internal Reference Points .............................................................................. 92
4
2016-2017
M Other Regulatory Issues: Student Complaints and Appeals ...........................94

M1 Principles and Objectives .............................................................................. 94
M2 External Reference Points ............................................................................. 94
M3 Internal Reference Points .............................................................................. 95
N Appendix 1: Glossary of Terms .....................................................................96
O Appendix 2: Standard University Abbreviations ...........................................99
Figure 1: University Committees................................................................................. 12

Figure 2: Typical Decennial Evaluation Structure ....................................................... 16
Figure 3: Expectations as to a Richmond Undergraduate Degree Structure.............. 22
Figure 4: Timeline from Proposal to Validation .......................................................... 32
Figure 5: Suggested Agenda -- Preliminary Validation Meeting ................................. 36
Figure 6: Standard Agenda – Final Validation Meeting .............................................. 37
Figure 7: Formal Programme Review Timeline ........................................................... 47
Figure 8: Standard Agenda – Formal Programme Review Meeting ........................... 50
Figure 9: Curricular Changes: Snapshot of Forms and Processes .............................. 64
Figure 10: Typical AMR Timeline................................................................................. 76
Version Date Published

1 April 2014
2 June 2015
3 August 2016
5
2016-2017
A Introduction
A1 Quality Manual Aims and Objectives
A1.1. Richmond’s QM provides guidance and outlines policies and procedures

which support the university in assuring and enhancing the quality of its learning,
teaching and provision. As a result, the QM is relevant to both staff and
students. It works in tandem with the policies and procedures outlined in the
Academic Regulations/University Catalogue to provide mechanisms for the
university to assure itself that its provision is quality assured, and quality
enhanced.
A1.2. The aim of the QM is to provide policies and procedures encompassing all
aspects of University quality assurance and enhancement, covering both
Academic and Professional Service Departments. It is intended to:
a. describe the University’s strategic approach to quality management, setting

out its key features;
b. set out the procedures within the quality system for planning, quality
assurance and enhancement of taught and research degree provision, quality
audit and enhancement, collaborative provision;
c. provide the additional information required to support the above
procedures, including forms, templates and necessary appendices.
A1.3. The provisions of the Quality Manual and any other University regulations
regarding the quality management of learning and teaching apply equally to the
University’s additional instructional locations in Leeds and Italy. Where there is a
need to set out separate procedures or requirements for an individual campus,
this has been done in the body of the Quality Manual.
A1.4. The Quality Manual is maintained by the Department of Academic Affairs and
Quality Assurance (DAAQA), and is approved by the University Board (UB)
annually, with academic sections subject to prior scrutiny and approval by the
Academic Board, see Figure 1: University Committees. It is designed and is
revised in consultation with colleagues and, in order to continue to meet the
changing needs and requirements of the University and of external bodies,
feedback and comment from all users are welcomed by DAAQA. It is designed
with specific attention to the QAA Quality Code MSCHE’s Characteristics of
Excellence in Higher Education, and seeks to take account of existing good
practice within both the University and other US and UK Higher Education
institutions.
A1.5. The Quality Manual is a key reference for staff, faculty, and students, and the
level of detail provided within is deliberate – the manual is just that, a manual or
handbook for implementation of policy as well as a statement of essential
6
2016-2017
principles underlying such implementation. As such, it is both a regulatory and

an advisory document.
A1.6. The Quality Manual acts in concert with the University’s regulations, and
replaces the regulatory structures found in The OU Handbook for Validated
Awards. It has been designed and drafted for post-TDAP purposes, to replace
the quality assurance and enhancement processes formerly conducted by or
delegated to Richmond by The Open University.
A2 QA Principles Underlying the Quality Manual
A2.1. The following main principles form the basis for the University's academic
quality assurance procedures:
a. Quality Assurance is a shared activity, owned and carried out by all academic
faculty and administrative staff. It is a professional exercise rather than a
management function. All academic faculty are involved in the achievement
and maintenance of academic standards and the enhancement of quality of
provision.
b. Quality Assurance should be regarded as an integrated process of planning,
review, evaluation/assessment and reconsideration and re-approval of goals.
It is a dynamic cycle generating continuous enhancement in the design and
delivery of the University’s provision.
c. The University's internal quality assurance mechanisms operate in
conjunction with the expectations of external quality and accreditation
agencies, such as QAA, MSCHE and relevant PRSBs.
d. Effective action rests on sound planning where the setting of goals and
resource planning are closely aligned to ensure the quality of the learning
experience.
A2.2. The University has a number of key mechanisms for the institutional
management of standards in all its awards. These include:
a. Programme Specifications that detail intended learning outcomes, learning
and teaching strategies, and assessment strategies to be clearly aligned with
the UK Quality Code for Higher Education;
b. the use of subject benchmark statements;
c. the identification of independent external examiners of appropriate status to
verify programme standards against national benchmarks, and attention to
external examiners’ reports;
d. comprehensive arrangements for the approval, validation, Formal Programme
Review and modification of programmes, which involve independent external
scrutiny;
e. a cycle of annual and periodic review;
f. effective delivery of learning, teaching and assessment.
7
2016-2017
A2.3. The procedures set out in this manual are those necessary to enable
Academic and University Board to demonstrate confidence that academic
standards are being maintained, and that the University’s enhancement strategy
is being pursued appropriately.
A3 The Relationship of the Quality Manual to other University Regulations
A3.1. Richmond’s Quality Manual addresses the following chief areas:

 Academic Governance and Administration
 New Programme Design
 New Programme Approval and Validation
 Formal Programme Review
 Changes to Programmes (including course approval)
 Discontinuation of a Programme
 Annual monitoring and assessment
 Assessment and Internal Moderation
 External Examination
 Other regulatory issues:
o Admissions
o Equality and Diversity
o Student Appeals and Complaints
A3.2. Richmond’s Academic Regulations address the following areas of policy and
associated procedures:
 Admissions
 Course and Programme Structures
 Academic Advising
 Student Status/Academic Standing
 Attendance Policy
 Student Grading
o US/UK alignment
o Transfer credit
o Assessment norms
o Feedback norms
o Examination policy
o Conduct of moderation and exam boards
 Registration
o Add/Drop
o Withdrawal from Courses
o Attendance
 Academic Honesty
 Graduation Requirements
o Grade and transcript processing
o Diploma and diploma supplements
 Student Appeals and Complaints
8
2016-2017
B Academic Governance and Quality Mechanisms

B1 Academic Governance and QA/QE Mechanisms Objectives and Principles
B1.1. This section of the Quality Manual outlines the main ways in which the
University works to assure and enhance the quality of its services and provision.
It also details the various US and UK expectations that the University must meet,
and the accreditation arrangements to which it is subject.
B2 Academic Governance and QA/QE Mechanisms: External Reference Points
B2.1. The main US quality framework to which the University must demonstrate
compliance is: The Middle States Commission on Higher Education’s
Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education: Requirements of Affiliation and
Standards for Accreditation
B2.2. The University must also meet the quality expectations outlined in the QAA’s
UK Quality Code for Higher Education.
B2.3. Additional guidance from both the QAA and MSCHE on particular aspects of
quality assurance and enhancement is detailed in the appropriate sections
below. Of particular relevance to academic governance, quality, and
accreditation are the following:
QAA
Higher Education Review: A Handbook for Providers
Supplementary Guidance on Writing the Self-Evaluation Document for Higher
Education Review
MSCHE
Governing Boards: Understanding MSCHE Expectations
Handbook for Periodic Review Reports
Self-Study: Creating a Useful Process & Report
Team Visits: Conducting and Hosting An Evaluation Visit
Verification of Compliance with Accreditation-Relevant Federal Regulations
B2.4. Other useful references on UK expectations with regard to academic

governance are as follows:
Committee of University Chairs Higher Education Code of Governance (2014-
Present) (2014)
---. Handbook for Members of Audit Committees in UK Higher Education
Institutions. (2008).
HEFCE. Financial Memorandum. Esp. Annex I: “Summary of Responsibilities of
Members of Governing Bodies”.
Leadership Foundation on Higher Education. Governance.
9
2016-2017
B3 Academic Governance and Quality Mechanisms Internal Reference Points
B3.1. University Governance Documents (including the University Bylaws)
B3.2. Terms of Reference of University Committees
B3.3. University Committees Organizational Charts
B3.4. Student Government Constitution
B3.5. University Academic Regulations / University Catalogue and Catalogue

Archive
B3.6. Richmond Quality Code Mapping Chart (updated annually)
B3.7. Learning and Teaching Strategy and related strategies
B4 University Management of Standards and Quality
B4.1. The University’s approach to managing academic standards and quality is

articulated in the Quality Manual and through both the executive and
deliberative structures of the University. It operates through the framework set
out in the internal reference points listed above.
B4.2. The bylaws of the University entrust the governance of the institution to the
Board of Trustees. The Board comprises a minimum of twelve and a maximum of
twenty members elected through the governance process and led by the
Chairman. The Board of Trustees has primary and final responsibility for defining
and ensuring compliance with the mission, values and objectives of the
University and for its institutional policies, financial oversight and planning. It
has several subcommittees that report regularly to the Trustees: Governance
Committee, Academic Committee, Finance Committee, Development
Committee, Audit Committee and Emergency Committee.
B4.3. The main governance responsibilities of the Board of Trustees include the
selection and annual assessment of the President (Vice-Chancellor) of the
University, and the final approval of the appointment of the Provost (Deputy
Vice-Chancellor Academic). It approves a rolling five-year Strategic Plan for the
University, and has several key fiscal oversight responsibilities. The Board of
Trustees also monitors relations with outside authorities, in particular
accreditation bodies and US and UK governmental regulatory bodies.
B4.4. The Board of Trustees appoints the Chairman of the Academic Committee
and, in consultation with the Chairman, the committee’s members. The purpose
10
2016-2017
of the Academic Committee is to provide academic oversight of the University,

by keeping under review and evaluating the extent to which the University is
achieving its education mission and academic objectives. In conjunction with the
Academic Committee, the Board of Trustees conducts periodic monitoring of
academic standards and the performance of faculty, students and academic
administrators with respect to those standards. It also approves the granting of
all degrees, including honorary degrees at Commencement.
B4.5. The University is led by the President (Vice-Chancellor). The President is the
University’s Chief Executive Officer. His authority is vested through the Board of
Trustees and includes responsibilities for all University educational and
managerial matters. The President oversees the academic activities of the
University through the Provost who as the Chief Academic Officer reports to him.
The President (Vice-Chancellor) serves as an ex-officio member of all Board
Committees except the Audit Committee.
B4.6. The management of the University is conducted by the Executive Committee,

the University Board, and various professional and academic committees and
subcommittees (see Chart of Committees and Schools and the University
Organisational Chart).
11
2016-2017
Figure 1: University Committees

(see also Chart of Committees and Schools)
12
2016-2017
B4.7. The Provost (Deputy Vice-Chancellor Academic) is the Chief Academic Officer
of the University. He reports to the President and provides leadership in all
aspects of teaching, research, scholarship and service in line with the University’s
mission. The Provost is responsible for the appointment, management, and
development of academic staff, the delivery and quality assurance of academic
programmes, the formulation and implementation of academic policies, and the
maintenance and development of academic-related institutional relationships.
B4.8. The Provost chairs the Academic Board, which is the chief academic decision-
making body of the University.
B4.9. The University is divided into three academic schools (Business and
Economics; Communications, Arts and Social Sciences; and General Education).
Each school is led by an Academic Dean, who is supported by Associate Deans for
graduate and undergraduate provision (see Chart of Committees and Schools).
B4.10. The Academic Deans are responsible for the overall management of the
School including recruitment, induction, performance management, retention,
and succession planning. They are responsible for the drafting and
implementation of the schools’ operational plans, which interface with the
University’s integrated strategies. The Deans report directly to the Provost, and
are key members of University Board, Provost’s Council and Academic Board (the
associate deans also serve on Academic Board). An additional Dean of
International Programmes has special responsibility for oversight of Richmond’s
study abroad students, and relationships with partner institutions outside of the
UK.
B4.11. The Dean of Academic Affairs and Accreditation is supported by the Associate
Dean for Quality and Accreditation. They comprise the Department of Academic
Affairs and Quality Assurance (DAAQA), and have chief responsibility for the
management of the University’s quality assurance and enhancement activities.
They support faculty and staff in validation/Formal Programme Review and
monitoring and review activities, coordinate accreditation requirements, and
represent specific quality issues on Academic Board and University Board. They
are responsible for training and development on quality and accreditation issues
and maintain a set of resources held in the Quality and Accreditation section of
the university portal.
B5 The Academic Board and its sub-committees
B5.1. Deliberative consideration of quality in relation to professional and

administrative activities is undertaken at the University level at University Board
and its sub-committees.
13
2016-2017
B5.2. Deliberative consideration of quality in relation to academic standards is

undertaken at the University level at the Learning and Teaching Policy
Committee, the consultative bodies which support it, and its sub-committees
which report to University Board, and which:
 provide direction for quality assurance and enhancement, curriculum
development, and the enhancement of pedagogical practice;
 develop and approve changes to relevant policies and strategies;
 approve amendments to the academic regulations, academic quality
procedures, accreditation handbook and related documentation
 receive and consider reports on outcomes from, and the effectiveness of,
quality assurance and enhancement and curriculum development
B5.3. The key consultative bodies that support Academic Board in matters of
academic quality management are:
 The Academic Committee of the Board of Trustees
 Provost’s Council
 Faculty Senate
 Academic School Meetings
B5.4. The key University level sub-committees of Academic Board with roles in
academic quality management include the following:
 Academic Appeals Committee
 General Education Committee
 Academic Progress Committee
 Curriculum Development Committee
 Research Policy Committee
B5.5. A full Chart of Committees and Schools and the University Organisational
Chart can be accessed via the University Organization page of the Portal. Fuller
details of these committees, including terms of reference and copies of past
papers, can also be accessed via this page.
B5.6. The following meetings and boards also report into Academic Board:
 Academic School Meetings
 Internal Moderation Boards
 Final Assessment Boards
 The University Exam Board
B5.7. Revisions to the quality and regulatory framework The Quality Manual and
University regulations are determined centrally in consultation with the
Academic Schools and relevant administrative departments, and are revised on a
regular basis (annually in the case of the procedures and regulations) to reflect
changing demands and in order to improve efficacy. Any such changes are
approved at Academic Board and/or University Board. Changes to the Quality
14
2016-2017
Manual are approved by UB. Academic regulations are approved by Academic

Board.
B5.8. Academic Board considers matters in relation to learning and teaching to

ensure that full synergy is achieved between quality assurance and enhancement
activities. Responsibility for fulfilling procedural requirements is devolved to the
Academic Schools. This devolution is coupled with associated central monitoring
and evaluation by the University’s deliberative structure.
B6 Management of US and UK Quality Expectations
B6.1. Richmond is a much-examined institution, as a result of its dual identity as

both a US university granting US degrees, and an institution based in the UK. As
a result, it must demonstrate that it meets both US and UK quality expectations.
B6.2. Richmond is accredited in the United States by the Middle States Commission
on Higher Education (MSCHE), a regional accrediting organization recognized by
the US federal Department of Education. Richmond has held accreditation since
1981. MSCHE accreditation requires that an institution demonstrate compliance
with MSCHE’s Characteristics of Excellence.
B6.3. Richmond became a voluntary subscriber to the QAA in August 2009. The
University has mapped, and continues to map, all of its policies and procedures
onto the UK Quality Code and its US degrees onto the FHEQ. This is conducted
via DAAQA’s annual updating of the Richmond Quality Code Mapping Chart, and
subsequent editing to the Quality Manual if required. Subject benchmark
revisions are communicated to the Schools by DAAQA, and annual monitoring
and Formal Programme Review ensures that academic standards in the degrees
are maintained in line with the Code’s and MSCHE requirements. In April 2013
Richmond underwent a successful full IRENI process conducted by the QAA.
B6.4. Richmond is also currently approved by The Open University (Centre for
Inclusion and Collaborative Partnerships) as an appropriate organisation to offer
higher education programmes leading to Open University validated awards. The
University has held institutional approval from The OU since 1996. It is a
“partner institution”, and its last Institutional Review was held in 2012.
B6.5. Open University procedures are not detailed below as the University will
phase out the Open University regulations following a successful TDAP
application. For details of OU validation procedures, please consult the
Handbook for Validated Awards.
B7 The MSCHE Accreditation Cycle
15
2016-2017
B7.1. Decennial Evaluation: This involves a significant institutional self-study

process which includes the production of a Self-Study Report outlining the
institution’s compliance with the Characteristics of Excellence, and a visit from a
team of external peer evaluators. DAAQA coordinates this full evaluation, which
occurs immediately before a candidate institution is granted initial accreditation,
five years after this first accreditation, and every ten years thereafter.
Figure 2: Typical Decennial Evaluation Structure
B7.2. Periodic Review Report: At the five-year point between decennial reviews,
the institution provides to peer reviewers a report on the current state of the
institution. The PRR is coordinated by DAAQA, and includes a review of the
Institution’s responses to any outstanding recommendations from its decennial
self-study and evaluation, a description of major challenges and current
opportunities, financial projections, and documentation of institutional planning
and assessment.
B7.3. Institutional Profile: In addition to these two main types of review activity,
each spring DAAQA submits to MSCHE current data on its key contact,
enrolment, faculty, finances, and other activities, as well as information about
any significant changes.
B7.4. DAAQA is responsible for the coordination of MSCHE review processes, in

particular the Decennial review. The Dean of Academic Affairs and Accreditation
16
2016-2017
normally acts as the Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO) for this review. The
Academic Support Team acts as an executive committee within the Steering
Group. Faculty and staff from across the university are invited to serve on
working groups, as are students, in order to ensure that as wide a variety of
perspectives as possible are represented in the final report. Working groups
address specific standards, and draft a chapter that demonstrates the
University’s compliance with those standards. DAAQA weaves the various
reports into the overall Self-Study Report. Further guidance and examples of
previous reports can be found in the Quality and Accreditation section of the
university portal.
B8 The QAA Review Cycle
B8.1. Richmond’s first QAA review was conducted under the IRENI (Institutional
Review of England and Northern Ireland) process in May 2013. In that review,
the University was found to have met expectations in all four main areas. Future
reviews will be held under the new system of HER (Higher Education Review).
B8.2. Under HER, the QAA judges whether the University meets expectations in
four key areas: the setting and/or maintenance of academic standards, the
provision of learning opportunities, the provision of information, and the
enhancement of the quality of students' learning opportunities.
B8.3. The interval between reviews is six years for institutions who have had two or
more successful reviews by QAA and whose last review was successful.
Institutions who have not had two or more successful reviews by QAA and/or
whose last review by QAA was unsuccessful are reviewed four years after their
last engagement with QAA. (Richmond’s next HER review will be in 2017. If in
that review the University is judged to have met expectations, the HER review
following that will be in 2023).
B8.4. QAA annual monitoring requirements are in place between reviews. Annual
monitoring involves the submission of a standard QAA return and a brief review
visit (see H). QAA annual monitoring is coordinated and managed by DAAQA.
B8.5. Full HER review is carried out by peer reviewers - staff and students from
other Universities. The reviewers are guided in their judgements by the
expectations delineated in the Quality Code.
B8.6. The two stages of HER consist of a desk-based analysis which examines a
variety of material submitted by the university, and a team visit. A full account of
the HER process can be found in the QAA’s publication: Higher Education Review:
A Handbook for Providers.
17
2016-2017
B8.7. DAAQA coordinates all preparation for HER review. It prepares the Self-
Evaluation Document and evidence, assists the Lead Student Representative, and
works with colleagues to prepare for the review visit.
B8.8. DAAQA is also responsible for coordinating any follow-up from HER. It
manages and monitors the Institutional Action Plan, ensuring that conditions and
recommendations are addressed and that the Action Plan is publicly available on
the website and on the portal. In the event of a negative judgement, DAAQA will
work with the relevant Academic School(s) and/or Administrative Department(s)
to rectify the issue and to demonstrate future compliance.
18
2016-2017
C New Programme Design

C1 Programme Design Objectives and Principles
C1.1 All Richmond programmes are subject to basic design principles that help to
ensure that programmes reflect the overall mission, strategic direction and
academic goals of the university. Richmond programmes must stimulate an
enquiring, analytical and creative approach, encouraging independent judgement
and critical self-awareness. University programme design principles have as their
objective that the structure and aims of a Richmond degree programme will be
appropriate to the award to which they lead.
C1.2 Learning Outcomes: The intended learning outcomes for the programme will
be clearly identified and appropriate to the aims of the programme. Intended
learning outcomes will include the development, to the level required for the
award, of a body of knowledge and understanding appropriate to the field of
study and reflecting academic, professional and occupational standards in that
field.
C1.3 Curriculum Design and Content: The curriculum design and content of
Richmond programmes will enable students to achieve the intended learning
outcomes in terms of knowledge and understanding, cognitive skills, practical
and professional skills, and key transferable skills.
C1.4 Curriculum design will also take account of graduate employability.
C1.5 The curriculum design and content will be 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.
C1.6 A programme must demonstrate balance in relation to academic and

practical elements and to breadth and depth in the curriculum. It must also
demonstrate coherence to ensure that the overall experience of a student has
logic and an intellectual integrity.
C1.7 Programme Teams must note the overall expectations as to degree

structures outlined below under “Programme Design Expectations”.
C1.8 Learning and Teaching: The teaching and learning strategies for programmes
will be appropriate to the overall University Learning and Teaching Strategy.
C1.9 There must be adequate levels of staffing to support the proposed

programme, and the faculty must be properly and appropriately qualified and
experienced.
19
2016-2017
C1.10 There must be effective engagement with and participation by students, and
mechanisms will be in place for collecting student feedback, implementing
changes and communicating them to students.
C1.11 There must be an appropriate overall strategy for academic support,

including written guidance, which is consistent with the student profile and the
overall aims of the provision.
C1.12 Where common teaching with other programmes is proposed, there will be a
suitable arrangement for the programme under consideration.
C1.13 Resources: All programme proposals must take into account market
demand, and be accompanied by a business plan. The physical resources needed
to sustain the programme will be adequate. These will include accommodation,
relevant library and computer provision, media resources, specialist laboratory or
studio facilities and specialist equipment, and facilities for students with
disabilities.
C1.14 If not all resources are required at the start of the programme, there will be
appropriate plans for their implementation later.
C2 Programme Design External Reference Points
C2.1. The main section of the QAA Quality Code relating to Programme Design is:
B1 Programme Design, Development and Approval
C2.2. Designers should also consult the Quality Code’s Section A: Setting and
Maintaining Academic Standards, which outlines expectations regarding degree
characteristics, levels, and credit frameworks.
C2.3. Learning outcomes for degree programmes in particular will also relate to
relevant external reference points, including the FHEQ, QAA Subject Benchmark
Statements, and SEEC Credit Level Descriptors. Learning outcomes will relate,
where appropriate to the requirements of any professional or statutory body
requirements.
C2.4. The sections of the MSCHE Characteristics of Excellence relating to

Programme Design are:
Standard 11: Educational Offerings
Standard 12: General Education
Standard 13: Related Educational Activities
C2.5. Other key pieces of MSCHE guidance related to Programme Design are:
Degree and Credit Guidelines
Credit Hour Policy
20
2016-2017
C3 Programme Design Internal Reference Points
C3.1. Curriculum Development Committee Terms of Reference
C3.2. Learning and Teaching Strategy
C3.3. Academic Board Terms of Reference
C3.4. University Assessment Norms
C3.5. University Feedback Norms
C3.6. University Academic Regulations / University Catalogue and Catalogue

Archive
C3.7. Credit Hour Policy
C4 Programme Design Expectations – Undergraduate Degrees
C4.1 As a university awarding US degrees that are also articulated in UK terms, and
structured in accordance with both US and UK quality expectations, Richmond
has a set of overall expectations as to the structure of undergraduate degree
requirements. These expectations were formally agreed during the 2012 “credit
mapping” process, and accommodate the liberal arts element of the US degree,
its 4-year structure, US credit, and its traditional flexibility of curriculum, whilst
also adhering to UK expectations regarding the amount of UK credit required at
each defined FHEQ level.
C4.2 Credit Definitions: At the undergraduate level, one US credit is equivalent to

two ECTS credits, and to four UK credits. This reflects the alignment between US
and UK expectations as to notional hours of learning – although US quality
expectations indicate two additional hours of study per classroom contact hour,
US credit is nonetheless specifically articulated in terms of classroom contact
hours, and thus the variation in the amount of credit normally awarded in an
academic year – 30 US credits vs. 120 UK credits.
C4.3 A Richmond undergraduate degree consists of a minimum of 120 US / 480 UK

credits. A minimum of 30 US/ 120 UK credits is required at each level, though
some majors may require slightly more depending on the nature of the degree.
The following chart outlines detailed expectations as to credits to be completed
at each FHEQ level, and how these will align with the US degree structures and
the expectations of our US accreditors. The parameters of this chart must be
followed when designing a new undergraduate degree programme:
21
2016-2017
Figure 3: Expectations as to a Richmond Undergraduate Degree Structure
Additional Credits
Total number of credits Mandatory Credits in
Credits in Major (Gen Ed Options/Minor
at each Level Gen Ed
Requirements/Pure Electives)
LEVEL 120 UK / 30 US CREDITS 100% -- 120 UK Credits / 30 US Credits None None
6
(normally 10 Richmond Note: All L6 courses must be completed at
Courses) Richmond’s London campus. No transfer is
permitted at L6.
LEVEL 120 UK / 30 US CREDITS 60% -- 72 UK / 18 US credits None 48 UK / 12 US credits

5 (normally 6 courses) (normally 4 courses)
(normally 10 Richmond
Courses) Note: Max of 60 UK/15 US credits may be
transferred in at L5 (allows for one semester
abroad to be built into programme structure if
desired)
LEVEL 120 UK / 30 US CREDITS 50% -- 60 UK / 15 US credits 12 UK / 3 US credits 48 UK / 12 US credits

4 (normally 5 courses) (GEP 4180) (normally 4 courses)
(normally 10 Richmond
Courses) Note: 120 UK / 30 US credits may be transferred
in at L4.
LEVEL 120 UK / 30 US CREDITS 20% -30% -- 24 UK/ 6 US credits – 36 UK / 72 UK / 18 US credits (6 courses) 36 UK / 9 US credits
3 9 US credits OR OR
(normally 10 Richmond (normally 2-3 courses) 60 UK / 15 US credits (5 courses) 24 UK / 6 US credits
courses -- these are not used ‘(if major has math requirement) (normally 3 or 2 courses, depending
towards the min 360 UK Note: 120 UK / 30 US credits may be transferred on the number of courses required in
credits req’d for UK degree) in at L3. Gen Ed – see column to the left)
22
2016-2017
C4.4 The General Education Programme Specification gives further details as to

the three Gen Education Options to be completed in addition to mandatory Gen
Ed requirements and major requirements. These consist of Options I & II and the
Humanities/Social Science Option. Degree designers must leave sufficient room
for Gen Ed options -- the guidelines in the chart above as to major requirements
have been designed to allow for sufficient choice. It must be very clear for
students that there is no “double-dipping” permitted between courses that fulfil
major requirements and courses that fulfil Gen Ed requirements, and that in
choosing Gen Ed options, careful attention must be paid to the requirement of a
minimum of 30 US/120 UK credits at each FHEQ level.
C4.5 The University Programme Specification Template gives further details as to

the expected structuring of Richmond undergraduate degrees. The Programme
Specification is a document that sets out the required elements of a programme
– mission and goals, programme learning outcomes, assessment strategy, degree
structure, curriculum map, etc. See also the University Regulations/University
Catalogue.
C5 Programme Design Expectations – Masters Degrees
C5.1 As a university awarding US degrees that are also articulated in UK terms, and
structured in accordance with both US and UK quality expectations, Richmond
has a set of overall expectations as to the structure of Masters degree
requirements. These expectations were formally agreed during the “credit
mapping” process, and accommodate US credit, whilst also adhering to UK
expectations regarding the amount of UK credit required at FHEQ Level 7.
C5.2 The credit equivalency for US and UK credits at the Masters level differs from
that at the undergraduate level, as additional independent study hours are
required at the Masters level. This is reflected in the notional hours of learning
calculated for credit in the UK, but the US credit calculation remains rooted in
classroom hours. Thus at the Masters level, one US credit is equivalent to 2.5
ECTS credits, and to 5 UK CATS credits.
C5.3 Richmond Masters degree consists of a minimum of 36 US / 180 UK credits.

As all credits completed are at Level 7, there is no need for an additional chart
detailing this expected structure.
C5.4 The University Programme Specification Template gives further details as to

the expected structuring of Richmond Masters degrees.
C6 Programme Design Expectations – Minors and US Certificates
23
2016-2017
C6.1 A minor is an optional subject of specialisation outside of the major,

consisting of 18 US /72 UK credits (normally 6 courses). No more than three
courses may overlap within a degree between a student’s major and any minor.
A minor may not be completed independent of a degree. Minors require internal
university approval but are not normally externally validated.
C6.2 A US certificate is a formal award certifying the satisfactory completion of an

organized programme at the postsecondary level (below the AA degree). A
certificate consists of 15 US/60 UK credits (normally 5 courses. A certificate may
be completed independent of a degree (eg. by a study abroad student). US
certificates require internal university approval but are not normally externally
validated.
C7 Exit Awards
C7.1 An exit award is defined as a lower award than one for which the student is
registered. Such an award may be conferred if a student completes part of, but
not all, of the requirements of the programme for which he or she is registered.
Students may not enter the university registered for an exit award.
C7.2 All Richmond degree programmes have a standard set of Exit Awards design
principles as follows:
C7.2.1 Associate of Arts Degree in General Studies
The US Associate of Arts (AA) degree can be awarded as an exit degree for
those students completing 30 US / 120 UK credits at QCF Level 3 and
30 US / 120 UK credits at FHEQ Level 4. The specific requirements for the AA
degree are outlined in section 5 of the programme specifications of each
individual degree.
C7.2.2 Certificate of Higher Education (UK)
The UK Certificate of Higher Education (CertHE) can be broadly aligned with

the US Associate of Arts Degree, but the CertHE does not require the
completion of 30 US/120 credits at QCF Level 3. Students who qualify for the
AA degree will automatically qualify for the CertHE. But students may qualify
for a CertHE without fulfilling the requirements for a US AA degree if they
have not completed all of the QCF Level 3 requirements necessary to obtain
the AA.
The UK CertHE can be awarded as an exit award for those students

completing 120 credits at FHEQ Level 4. The specific requirements for the
CertHE are outlined in section 5 of the programme specifications of each
individual degree.
24
2016-2017
C7.2.3 Diploma of Higher Education (UK)
The UK Diploma of Higher Education (DipHE) has no US equivalent. The UK

DipHE can be awarded as an exit award for those students completing 120
credits at FHEQ Level 4 and 120 credits at FHEQ Level 5
The specific requirements for the DipHE are outlined in section 5 of the
programme specifications of each individual degree.
C7.2.4 Postgraduate Certificate (US) / Postgraduate Diploma (UK)
The US Postgraduate Certificate is equivalent to the UK Postgraduate

Diploma. Both require a minimum of 24 US / 120 UK coursework credits. The
postgraduate certificate/diploma is conferred as an exit award in recognition
of successful completion of MA coursework. The specific requirements are
outlined in section 5 of the relevant MA programme specification.
C8 Associated Forms and Templates Relating to Programme Design
Programme Specification Template
25
2016-2017
D New Programme Approval and Validation

D1 Programme Approval and Validation Objectives and Principles
D1.1 All Richmond academic programmes are subject to an approval process, and
degree programmes are subject to an additional validation process. These
processes ensure that programmes reflect the University Learning and Teaching
Strategy, and the overall mission, strategic direction and academic goals of the
University.
D1.2 Validation is the process whereby a judgement is reached about whether or

not a programme of study designed to lead to a degree meets the principles of
and requirements for that award. Validation verifies that the aims of a Richmond
degree programme will be appropriate to the award to which they lead.
D1.3 Degree Programmes must be equivalent in standard to comparable awards

throughout higher education in the United Kingdom and the United States.
D1.4 Validation confirms that the structure of the degree, its programme
outcomes, its learning objectives, its curriculum design and content, and its
learning and teaching and resources have been designed in accordance with the
principles laid out in the Introduction to this manual.
D2 Programme Approval and Validation External Reference Points
D2.1. The section of the QAA Quality Code relating to Programme Approval and
Validation is:
D2.2. Other relevant sections of the QAA Quality Code are:

B3 Learning and Teaching
B4 Enabling Student Development and Achievement
B5 Student Engagement
D2.3. The sections of the MSCHE Characteristics of Excellence relating to

Programme Approval and Validation are:
D2.4. Other key pieces of MSCHE guidance related to Programme Design are:
Degree and Credit Guidelines
Credit Hour Policy
26
2016-2017
D3 Programme Approval and Validation Internal Reference Points
D3.1. Guide for Validation Panels
D3.2. Academic Board Terms of Reference / CDC ToR
D3.3. Validation and Formal Programme Review Tracker
D4 Non-Degree Programmes – Main Stages of Approval
D4.1 Non-degree programmes can form part of a degree, or are stand-alone

qualifications below the level of a degree. These include US minors and
certificates, as well as the General Education programme and exit awards.
D4.2 New non-degree programmes go through the same basic stages prior to
validation as new degree programmes outlined below, although these are
somewhat streamlined
D4.3 Proposed: broad ideas for discussion and exploration at all levels of the
University. Proposed programmes may NOT be marketed.
D4.4 Agreed: proposals which have been discussed at the level of the
School/Department and Provost’s Council, and have agreement to be developed
into formal non-degree programmes. Agreed non-degree programmes may NOT
be marketed.
D4.5 Approval: the internal quality assurance process for non-degree programme
approval. All new non-degree programmes (including Course Specification
Documents, which set the basic required elements of a course, for every new
course contributing to the programme) must be approved by the Academic
School, the Academic Board and University Board (UB). Academic Board is the
key strategic committee of the University for all aspects of learning and teaching
and academic development. It is UB’s responsibility to ensure that new proposals
are coherent and consistent with the University Strategic Plan, that they make
business sense in terms of student demand, and that the resources required to
deliver the proposed course are in place or planned.
D5 Non-Degree Programmes – Flow Approval
D5.1. What follows is a step-by-step outline of the main processes leading up to

approval and validation of a non-degree programme at Richmond.
D5.2. Proposed
27
2016-2017
a. initial discussions, informal consultations begin

b. proposed non-degree programme taken to Provost Council to check for
general response and coherence within the University community
D5.3. Agreed
c. Deans take proposals to School Meeting and Provost’s Council for agreement
D5.4. Approval (note that all stages of approval must be completed by the March
meeting of AB in order to proceed in the following academic year. See F7 F14 .
d. new non-degree programme proposal form, including business plan and
resource audit
e. programme specification (if applicable, eg. General Education, minors
included on existing PS)
f. CSDs for any new courses plus summary form for CSDs associated with new
programme
g. minuted school approval
h. programme proposal with business plan, PS, and CSDs to Academic Board for
consideration and approval, Clerk confirmed
i. consideration and approval at University Board
j. permission to advertise – added to curricular changes log for adoption in the
following academic year
D6 New Degree Programmes – Main Stages of Approval and Validation
D6.1 The University has a four step approach to full degree programme validation.
D6.2 Proposed: broad ideas for discussion and exploration at all levels of the
University. Proposed programmes may NOT be marketed.
D6.3 Agreed: proposals which have been discussed at the level of the
School/Department, Provost’s Council, University Board and the Executive and
have agreement to be developed into full degree programmes. Agreed
programmes may be marketed, subject to revision and validation/accreditation.
D6.4 Approval: the internal quality assurance process for degree programme
approval. This must be conducted prior to validation, and while is an internal
process, external guidance should be involved at an early point in development
to ensure that the wider HE context and employer input is considered.
D6.5 All new degree programmes (including Course Specification Documents,

which set the basic required elements of a course, for every new course
contributing to the programme) must be approved by the Academic School, the
Academic Board and University Board (UB) via the Planning and Resource
Committee (PRC). Academic Board is the key strategic committee of the
University for all aspects of learning and teaching and academic development. It
28
2016-2017
is UB’s responsibility to ensure that new proposals are coherent and consistent
with the University Strategic Plan, that they make business sense in terms of
student demand, and that the resources required to deliver the proposed course
are in place or planned.
D6.6 Once proposals have been approved by UB, programme teams will begin to
prepare for the validation process. They will be permitted to advertise their
programmes as ‘subject to validation’, including a full list of courses with course
codes and live on-line course descriptions.
D6.7 Validation: a panel with external members will consider the internally-
approved degree programme for final validation in accordance with the
principles outlined above. Programmes may not commence until AB and UB are
satisfied that appropriate responses have been made to conditions and
recommendations set by validation panels (see sections D15 and D16).
D6.8 It is possible to validate more than one degree programme at the same
validation meeting if the programmes are cognate subjects and share benchmark
statements. This should be considered during the agreed stage.
D6.9 Note that it is unlikely that all four stages of approval and validation can be
encompassed in a single academic year. Full validation must be achieved by the
March meeting of AB if a new degree programme is to run in the following
academic year. Academic Schools are encouraged to plan accordingly. See
Figure 4: Timeline from Proposal to Validation.
D7 New Degree Programmes – Programme Team
D7.1. The programme team for validation purposes is the body primarily
responsible for the design, examination, and delivery of the degree programme.
It comprises both faculty members who have been involved in the development
of the degree as well as other university representatives. It is responsible for
final examination of the programme documentation, and internal representation
of the programme at the Preliminary Validation and Validation meetings. The
programme team addresses queries at these validation meetings, and addresses
any recommendations made or conditions imposed by the validation panel.
D7.2. The programme team will normally consist of the following members:
 Dean of School
 Associate Dean of School and/or Head of Department
 Administrator
 Faculty members with primary teaching responsibility for the programme
courses
29
2016-2017
 Another faculty member from a different area, but can be from the same
school
 Learning resource representative
D8 New Degree Programmes – Flow of Approval and Validation Processes
D8.1. What follows is a step-by-step outline of the main processes leading up to

approval and validation of a degree programme at Richmond. Detailed approval
procedures are found in section D10. Detailed validation procedures are found
in sections D11 to D15.
D8.2. Proposed
a. initial discussions, informal consultations begin
b. Department of Academic Affairs and Quality Assurance (DAAQA) emails
Deans for list of any proposed degrees to start validation planning
c. proposed degrees taken to Provost Council to check for general response and
coherence within the University community
D8.3. Agreed
d. Deans take draft New Programme Proposal form, including draft business
plan proposals and operating plans to coincide with the budgeting process, to
University Board for agreement
e. permission to advertise ‘subject to validation’
D8.4. Approval
f. further discussions, including with students, reflected in school or
departmental meeting minutes
g. planning meeting, including panel member nominations
h. panel member nominations taken to Academic Board for approval
i. external/employer consultation
j. new programme proposal form, including business plan and resource audit
k. programme specification
l. CSDs for any new courses plus summary form for CSDs associated with new
programme
m. minuted school approval
n. quality team check of documentation
o. consultation with Academic Committee of the Board of Trustees
p. provost’s council for consultation
q. programme proposal with business plan, PS, and CSDs to Academic Board for
consideration and approval, Clerk confirmed
r. consideration and approval at PRC
s. permission to advertise ‘subject to validation’ including a full list of courses
with course codes and live on-line course descriptions.
D8.5. Validation
30
2016-2017
t. documentation sent to Preliminary Validation Panel members

u. Preliminary validation meeting
v. background document created (including response to PVM)
w. background document sent to school for approval
x. background document sent to Academic Board
y. documents sent to final validation meeting panel members
z. final validation meeting, including consideration of the final validation criteria
checklist
D8.6. It is expected that the dates for preliminary and final validation meetings will
be separated by sufficient time to allow a response to issues identified at the
preliminary stage and any major changes to be approved at Academic Board.
Normally a period of six weeks between these two events is required.
D9 New Degree Programmes – Flow of Post-Validation Procedures
D9.1. What follows is a step-by-step outline of the main processes following

validation, encompassing the several potential outcomes of the validation
meeting.
D9.2. Submission of Paperwork

a. submission and consideration of Final Validation Report by the Validation
Panel
b. response on matters of factual accuracy by Programme Team
D9.3. Validation with Conditions/Recommendations

c. any conditions and recommendations are addressed and met by the
Academic School, and approved at the school meeting
d. Academic School reports to Academic Board for approval, noting specifically
any resultant changes to documentation
e. University Board gives final validation of degree programme
f. School asks for “subject to validation” to be removed from website
g. School submits final PS, CSDs approved at Academic Board to Academic
Registry for archiving
D9.4. Validation without Conditions/Recommendations

h. In this case there should be no changes to documentation (PS or CSDs)
i. University Board gives final validation of degree programme
j. School asks for “subject to validation” to be removed
k. School presents PS, CSDs approved by Academic Board prior to the validation
meeting to the Academic Registry
31
2016-2017
Figure
Figure4:
4: Timeline
Timeline from
from Proposal
Proposal to
to Validation
Validation
32
2016-2017
D10 New Degree Programme Approval – Detailed Procedures: The Planning

Meeting
D10.1. At the planning meeting, in addition to the provisional programme title and
structure, several fundamental items will be agreed as outlined below.
D10.2. Key Dates: proposed start date and dates for preliminary validation and the
final validation meeting. Please see D6.9 and the timeline above.
D10.3. Key Personnel: including the composition of the preliminary and final
validation panels; most important to this process are consideration of the
Process Panel Member and External Panel Members.
D10.4. Externality: The Dean of the programme team is responsible for ensuring
that external consultation with appropriate subject specialists takes place at
relevant times in the programme development process, taking due account of
external reference points. Therefore, at the planning meeting, the nature and
extent of external subject involvement during the programme development and
validation process must be agreed, and any specific issues on which external
comment is required must be identified;
D10.5. PSRBs: involvement of professional, statutory and regulatory bodies, as

needed or required;
D10.6. Timetables: dates for the following should be agreed: meetings of the
programme development team; deadline for circulation of papers to external
panel members;
D10.7. Resources: As part of the process, a review of resources including library, IT,
staffing will be required and considered at Academic Board and approved at PRC.
Therefore, responsibility and timescale for a resource audit must take place at
the planning meeting. In addition, any data needed for analysis needs to be
requested from the appropriate office (Planning, Academic Registry, Library, IT).
D10.8. Documentation: Following the planning meeting, the programme team will
work on the following documentation:
 new programme form
 business plan
 programme specification
 new CSDs
 plan for presence on website and Academic School’s portal page
 background document
33
2016-2017
D11 Validation – Detailed Procedures: Validation Panel Composition and

Nominations
D11.1. Validation panels should comprise sufficient breadth of experience to cover

all parts of the provision under consideration. Validation panels will normally be
constituted as follows:
a. Chair: The chair will normally be the Dean of the School of General
Education. If the Dean is not available, a Dean from another school or senior
faculty member from the School of General Education may be nominated.
b. Clerk: The clerk of the event will be an administrator with quality assurance
experience, normally DAAQA’s administrative assistant. The clerk will take
notes of all the meetings, guide the panel in reaching their consensus and
provide technical guidance as necessary
c. Process Panel Member (PPM – see D11.4 below)
d. External Panel Member with professional/employer expertise relating to the
field
e. External Panel Member with relevant academic expertise
f. Faculty Panel Member from a school unrelated to the provision under
consideration
g. additional faculty or staff panel member from the University, if required (to
address resource implications or special features)
h. additional external panel member may be required if validating more than
one programme.
D11.2. Validation panel nominations are discussed during the programme approval
process, and programme teams will seek formal approval of the panel at
Academic Board by submitting CVs and completing the panel member
nomination form.
D11.3. The Chair will:

 request comments from the panel members on the documentation at least a
week before the meeting
 guide the panel members to consider items on the checklist
 allocate who will ask what questions from the comments, this will be
reviewed in person before the meeting
 forward questions to programme teams to either answer in advance if they
are straight forward, or more likely, for the programme teams to prepare for
the meeting day
 answer questions of clarity regarding institutional information on behalf of
the programme team
 discourage aggressive questioning styles that put the team on the defensive
 not ask their own questions unless clarity is needed or the answer given
needs to be elaborated
 encourage everyone to participate, but keep the panel members to the
agenda and discourage any tangential discussion
34
2016-2017
 guide the panel members to the outcome options

 ensure that a consensus is reached among the panel members on
recommendations and conditions
D11.4. During internal approval, the programme team will normally nominate a
Process Panel Member (PPM) external to the University who has specialist
expertise in the area. The PPM will attend both the preliminary and final
validation meeting and acts as co-chair for the preliminary validation meeting.
The PPM’s CV and a panel member nomination form must be approved at
Academic Board. The following criteria will also be taken into account:
a. expertise relevant to the proposal
b. where appropriate, professional expertise from a relevant professional
background
c. prior experience of teaching on programmes at the same level or above
d. impartiality, i.e. the nominee will not have had formal links with the
institution in the last five years as an external examiner or a former member
of staff, individuals who have been engaged by the institution as external
consultants for the proposal should not be nominated as process panel
members.
D12 Validation – Detailed Procedures: Preliminary validation meeting (PVM)
D12.1. On the date agreed during the planning meeting, a preliminary validation
meeting will be held with the Chair, Clerk, PPM (as co-chair), and key members of
the Programme Team. The purpose of the preliminary validation meeting is to
confirm that the programme proposal is fit for purpose and may proceed to final
stage validation.
D12.2. Documents for this meeting (new programme form; programme

specification; and CSDs) will be circulated by the Programme Team administrator
two weeks in advance.
D12.3. It may be possible to proceed from approval to validation without a

preliminary validation meeting. The right to proceed without a preliminary
validation meeting should be requested by the School Dean at Academic Board
during the approval stage. Typically, this exception would be granted for the
following reasons:
a. the programme has received extensive external consultation during the
agreed stage
b. the programme is derived from a pre-existing programme
c. the University has extensive specialists in the area
D12.4. If the exception is granted, a process panel member would not be necessary.
D12.5. The suggested agenda structure for the PVM is outlined below:
35
2016-2017
Figure 5: Suggested Agenda -- Preliminary Validation Meeting
This can change according to the needs of the programme

9.00 Welcome and introductions.
9.30 Academic Content and Curriculum
Programme Documentation
a. Does the programme documentation contain the
specified requirements including a complete and
accurate programme specification?
b. Are the CSDs full and complete?
Alignment with QAA and other UK regulatory requirements
c. Subject benchmark statements
d. FHEQ levels
e. UK Quality Code
f. The requirements of relevant professional, statutory or
regulatory bodies where appropriate
Learning Resources
g. Have appropriate learning resources (eg. Library
resources, IT/computing requirements, academic
staffing, specialist space resources eg. Studio space etc.)
to support the programme been properly evaluated?
h. Is a strategy and plan to meet the needs of the
programme in place and does it have full institutional
support?
11.30 Recommendations
D12.6. The notes of the preliminary validation meeting taken by the clerk will
highlight any issues of concern raised at the meeting. All issues raised must be
addressed in the background document, where the programme team will explain
any actions taken in response or any reasons for inaction on an issue raised.
D12.7. The preliminary validation meeting notes (and the corresponding section
addressing them in the background document) are part of the required
documentation for the final validation meeting.
D12.8. If the preliminary validation meeting determines that the programme

requires further work before it can proceed to the final stage, concerns can be
taken by either co-chair to the Chair of Academic Board, and a decision will be
taken by the University on whether the final validation meeting should proceed
as scheduled, be deferred, or be cancelled. This decision is made in the light of
the likely time needed to undertake the developments required.
36
2016-2017
D13 Validation – Detailed Procedures: Final Validation Meeting
D13.1. The Final Validation Meeting should include the entire panel list detailed in
D11.1, plus the full programme team (D7.2), members from University Board,
and any additional members from the University as requested by the Chair.
D13.2. The Programme Team administrator must provide documentation for

consideration by panel members at least three weeks in advance of the final
validation meeting. This documentation comprises:
a. list of panel members including their positions and home institutions
b. introductory notes, including information on the university as an institution
c. preliminary validation report
d. programme specification
e. CSDs for required courses (providing a link to digital copies when possible)
f. syllabi for pre-existing courses and any new core courses running in first year
g. background documentation
h. any other documents agreed via Academic Board ‘s Chair’s action
D13.3. The standard agenda structure for the Final Validation Meeting is outlined in
Figure 6 below:
Figure 6: Standard Agenda – Final Validation Meeting
This can change according to the needs of the programme and panel members.
9.00 Arrival and coffee
9.15 Private meeting of the validation panel, including internal panel

member and chair
10.30 Meeting with members from the Senior Management

 Introduction to Richmond, including management and
academic structures, quality assurance processes
 Staffing, staff development and resources
11.30 Meeting with programme team

 Programme development, organisation, aims and rationale
 Programme content and structure, teaching and learning
methods
 Assessment strategy and methodology
 Programme management, administration, review and
improvement
 Student support
 Research and staff development
 Resources
37
2016-2017
13.00 Working lunch of the validation panel, including internal faculty

panel member and chair
14.00 Tour of facilities (if appropriate)
14.30 Meeting with students (if appropriate or begin private meeting with
validation panel)
15.00 Private meeting of the validation panel
15.40 Feedback to programme team
16.00 Finish
D13.4. Each validation, however, will naturally have its own particular matters for
discussion, and the chair will correspond with the members of the panel to
determine if any additional items are required. A draft agenda will be circulated
and agreed upon one week prior to the meeting.
D13.5. The final validation meeting offers the opportunity for the panel and the
programme team to complete the academic dialogue undertaken during the
process thus far on the programme proposal on aspects such as teaching and
learning, the achievement of learning outcomes, and curriculum content, and for
the panel to resolve any outstanding matters with regard to the rigour of the
proposal and the ability of the University to support it and deliver a good
experience to students. The final validation panel reserves the right to assure
itself of the adequacy of learning resources.
D14 Validation – Detailed Procedures: The Final Validation Report
D14.1. Based on the final validation checklist, the panel will propose the outcome,
which will be reported orally by the Chair at the end of the final meeting of the
panel. The Clerk is responsible for the written documentation.
D14.2. The Clerk will circulate the draft outcomes within a week of the meeting and
a full final validation report (approved by the Chair) within 10 days of the
meeting. The report will set out any specified conditions of approval, and any
recommendations. The introduction to the report will give a brief synopsis of the
validation process.
D14.3. The programme team is invited to comment on matters of factual accuracy,

and should do so within 1 week of receipt of the final validation report.
D14.4. Final Validation reports are important sources of qualitative information

about the design, development, monitoring and evaluation of programmes, and
38
2016-2017
complement the factual information available to it through programme

specifications.
D14.5. Final Validation reports will be used by the University to contribute to its
assessment about the standards being achieved, changing patterns of curricular
provision, and valuable and innovative practices. Consistency of approach to the
writing of reports is important to support the University’s system of external
peer group review. Validations will normally be recommended for periods of 5
years or to align with the Formal Programme Review timing of the department,
though it is at the discretion of the panel to recommend validation at a shorter
period as deemed necessary.
D15 Validation – Detailed Procedures: Possible Validation meeting outcomes
D15.1. The following approval decisions may be proposed by the panel:
D15.2. Validation: A degree programme will be offered and subject to a Formal

Programme Review in typically 5 years. A Formal Programme Review may be
called for earlier than 5 years if, for example:
a. harmonisation with the department’s Formal Programme Review cycle is
required
b. the field of study is new to the University
c. major changes to a programme are in prospect, for example as the result of
external developments, such as, the demands of a statutory, professional or
regulatory body
D15.3. Validation with Conditions: Validation may be made conditional upon the
fulfilment of certain requirements, by a specified date(s), though normally
before the end of the Summer term immediately preceding the start of the
Validation period, to the satisfaction of the panel or of members nominated at
the validation meeting. The date should be specified in the final report. The
Dean of the School is responsible for ensuring that such changes are met in
accordance with the terms of the requirements set out in the final validation
report by completing and returning the Programme Conditions Checklist to
Academic Board and then the panel. Confirmation of validation will not be
issued by Academic Board until it is satisfied that changes have been met.
University Board gives final validation of degree programme.
D15.4. Validation with Recommendations: The panel may make recommendations.

Academic Board, normally through annual monitoring, will track and approve
the progress of these recommendations or reasons that they have not been
adopted.
D15.5. Non- validation: The panel may decide not to recommend validation of the
programme if it has major reservations. In this case it will offer advice about
39
2016-2017
those aspects which require further consideration and, if appropriate, give

guidance about the timing of a resubmission.
D16 Validation – Follow-up
D16.1. If the University fails to register students on a new degree programme for
two consecutive annual intakes following validation, Academic Board will
consider its discontinuation and the programme must approved before it can be
taught again.
D16.2. DAAQA will maintain a tracker of all validation commendations,

recommendations and conditions. Academic Board, normally through annual
monitoring, will track and approve the progress of all Validation Panel action
items. The Academic Schools are responsible for answering the conditions and
recommendations and bringing the responses as an agenda item to Academic
Board. As above, conditions will be answered via the Programme Conditions
Checklist.
D16.3. The course approval procedures and associated forms will ensure that any
future changes to the validated programme do not contradict the conditions and
recommendations made by the validation panel.
D17 Associated Forms and Templates Relating to New Degree Programme

Approval and Validation
Background Document for Validation

Business Plan Template
Course Specification Document template
New Programme Proposal
Programme Specification template
Syllabus template
Summary New Course Approval Chart
Template for Validation External Panel Member Appointment Letter
Validation Report Template
Programme Conditions Checklist
40
2016-2017
E Degree Formal Programme Review

E1 Formal Programme Review (FPR) Objectives and Principles
E1.1. Formal Programme Review as described in this section is primarily designed

to apply to degree programmes. The School of General Education will examine
the Gen Ed Programme, minors (as a whole) and any certificates on a five-year
cycle, but it will not correspond exactly to the features of FPR.
E1.2. The objective of a Formal Programme Review (formerly known as

“revalidation”) is to ensure that programmes of study continue to be current,
meet their aims and intended learning outcomes and are adequately managed
and resourced. The ultimate aim is confirmation that the programmes continue
to meet the requirements for validated awards of the University.
E1.3. All degree programmes within a department or subject area of an Academic

School are normally reviewed at the same time. The purpose of this is
enhancement of departmental content and delivery. The aim is to ensure
consistency of academic standards across awards, but also to ensure that the
correct balance is struck between independence of individual degree
programmes and interdependency of cognate subject groups. The applicability
of courses that are shared across degree programmes, and the ways in which one
course’s learning outcomes may apply to various programme outcomes is of
particular interest here.
E1.4. During the review, the University takes into consideration the history and
development of the programmes within a department or subject area since initial
validation or previous review and the success of the programme(s) in achieving
outcomes. It provides an opportunity for the Academic School to undertake a
critical review of the programmes within a department or subject area and to
engage in planning and setting objectives for the future.
E2 Formal Programme Review External Reference Points
E2.1. The section of the QAA Quality Code relating to Formal Programme Review is:
B8 Programme Monitoring and Review
E2.2. The programme team should also use the Quality Code’s Section A: Setting
and Maintaining Academic Standards, which outlines expectations regarding
degree characteristics and levels. Consultation of this section of the Quality Code
will assist teams in demonstrating that the structure and aims of the degree
programme remain appropriate to the award to which they lead.
E2.3. Other relevant sections of the QAA Quality Code are:
41
2016-2017
B1 Programme Design, Development, and Approval

E2.4. The sections of the MSCHE Characteristics of Excellence relating to Formal

Programme Review are:
E3 Formal Programme Review Internal Reference Points
E3.1. Timeline Flowchart for Formal Programme Review
E3.2. Guide for Formal Programme Review External Panel Members
E3.3. Academic Board Terms of Reference
E3.4. Discontinuation of a Programme (section G of the Quality Manual)
E3.5. Annual Monitoring Reports (including External Examiner Reports) – 5 years
E3.6. The Digest
E3.7. Degree Programme Meeting Minutes (formerly Internal Exam Board Minutes)
E3.8. Formal School Exam Board Minutes
E4 Key Issues for Evaluation in Formal Programme Review
E4.1. The programme teams within departments or subject area undertake the
detailed work leading up to the review. Because the review could cover several
degree programmes, a condensed single departmental/subject area team will
responsible for the overall review. The departmental/subject area team is
composed of members selected by the Associate Dean/Head of Department
from the programme teams. The Associate Dean/HoD will also coordinate the
work involved in the review process. The following key aspects of programme
design and delivery must be taken into account during Formal Programme
Review.
E4.2. Performance of the programme as revealed through statistics presented in

operating plans and annual monitoring and assessment, especially on student
recruitment, retention, progression and achievement;
42
2016-2017
E4.3. Currency of the Curriculum in light of developments in the subject area,

including any development of subject benchmark statements or professional
requirements;
E4.4. Special Consideration of Courses Shared across Degree Programmes (see

E1.3)
E4.5. Teaching Methods and Assessment: an evaluation by the programme team

of the continuing effectiveness of teaching methods and the assessment strategy
in enabling the achievement of learning outcomes;
E4.6. Syllabi Audit: Programme teams are required to review the existing syllabi vs
the approved CSDs and the current syllabus template to address any disparities
that may have arisen. The audit should begin early in the review stage and must
be complete before the documentation is sent to the panel. The team should
request a list of active courses in the subject area from the Academic Registry,
and all must be accounted for;
E4.7. External Examiners: an evaluation of how feedback from external examiners

has been taken into account in the delivery and development of the programme;
E4.8. Feedback: an evaluation of the feedback from students and graduates, and,
where there are employer links, analysis of employer feedback and their
involvement in programme development; an account of other external input on
the programme, including the outcomes of any external subject reviews
undertaken by the QAA, MSCHE, and by PSRBs;
E4.9. Staffing: an analysis of staffing, including an account of any unplanned

changes to the staff team (for example, through prolonged absence, illness or
departure) and an explanation of how continuity of the teaching programme was
maintained and the impact upon the student experience; a description of any
professional development activities supported by the department; an analysis of
how the engagement of staff with research, consultancy and professional activity
informs programme development; an account of the activity of adjunct
professors and their engagement with the department; any other staffing issues
that the department considers relevant;
E4.10. Student Support: the evaluation of adequacy of student guidance and

support systems, including evaluation of internships where applicable
E4.11. Resources: the adequacy of learning resources to support the programme

and identification of any additional resources needed.
E5 Formal Programme Review Processes

43
2016-2017
E5.1. The process of formal programme review subjects programmes of study

within a department or subject area of an Academic School to critical appraisal at
defined intervals by a panel of peers.
E5.2. During the review process, changes already approved via Academic Board are
considered as a whole, and further plans for change are considered.
E5.3. The review covers all programmes offered within the department or subject
area of an Academic School, undergraduate and graduate, so that the panel can
review the provision across levels QCF 3 to FHEQ 7.
E5.4. All degree programmes within a department or subject area are reviewed at
the same time. The intervals for review will normally be every 5 years, and so
the initial review of a new degree programme may be adjusted in order for that
degree to be in sync with the monitoring and review of other degree
programmes within their area.
E5.5. Academic Board also reserves the right to mandate an FPR of a programme at
any time, normally under (but not restricted to) the following conditions:
a. the programme is undergoing a major change that requires additional
scrutiny;
b. the outcomes of annual programme monitoring and assessment deem it
necessary;
c. the forward planning in an operating plan is such that a formal review is
deemed appropriate;
d. a review has been recommended by an external body, such as the QAA.
E5.6. The process of Formal Programme Review broadly follows the same pattern
as that outlined for validation in section D of the Quality Manual, including early
external input. Key differences include:
a. the analysis and review of programme statistics as reflected in annual
programme monitoring and assessment and operating plans;
b. a multi-year review of resources by the Planning and Resource Committee
(PRC)
c. an evaluation of the changes made to the degree programmes as recorded in
the curricular change logs.
E6 Flow of Formal Programme Review Process
E6.1. What follows is a step-by-step outline of the main processes leading up to

Formal Programme Review of a degree at Richmond. Detailed procedures are
found in section E8.
E6.2. Timetabling
44
2016-2017
a. Establishment of normal Formal Programme Review calendar by Department

of Academic Affairs and Quality Assurance (DAAQA)
b. DAAQA corresponds with Deans for programmes requiring review in the next
academic year to start the planning
c. Academic Board approves the list
E6.3. Planning Meeting and Consultations

d. Departmental planning meeting, including panel member nominations
e. Panel member nominations taken to Academic Board for approval
f. External/employer consultation
g. Further discussions, including with students, reflected in school or
departmental meeting minutes
E6.4. Documentation
h. Syllabi audit
i. FPR forms completed, including planning resource audit (and business plan if
required)
j. Revise programme specifications (if necessary)
k. CSDs for any new courses plus associated forms
l. Minuted school approval
m. Quality team check of documentation
E6.5. Final Consultations

n. Consultation with Academic Committee of the Board of Trustees
o. Provost’s council for consultation
p. FPR forms with PS, and CSDs to Academic Board for consideration and
approval, Clerk confirmed
q. Approval by PRC
E6.6. Formal Programme Review

r. Documents sent to review meeting panel members
s. FPR meeting, including consideration of the Formal Programme Review
criteria checklist
E7 Flow of Post-Formal Programme Review Procedures
E7.1. What follows is a step-by-step outline of the main processes following Formal
Programme Review, encompassing the several potential outcomes of the review
meeting.
E7.2. Submission of Paperwork

a. Submission and consideration of Formal Programme Review Report by the
Review Panel
b. Response on any matters of factual accuracy from Programme Team(s)
collated by Head of Department/Associate Dean.
45
2016-2017
E7.3. Review with conditions and/or recommendations

c. Any conditions are met and recommendations are addressed by the
programme team(s), and presented to the Academic School meeting by the
Head of Department/Associate Dean
d. Relevant Associate Dean/Dean reports to Academic Board for approval,
noting specifically any resultant changes to documentation
e. University Board gives final approval of the Formal Programme Review
f. School submits final PS, CSDs approved at Academic Board to Academic
Registry for archiving
E7.4. Review with no conditions/recommendations

g. In this case there should be no changes to documentation (PS or CSDs)
presented at the review
h. Academic Board and University Board notes successful Formal Programme
Review
i. School presents PS, CSDs approved by Academic Board prior to the review
meeting to the Academic Registry for archiving
46
2016-2017
Figure 7: Formal Programme Review Timeline
47
2016-2017
E8 Formal Programme Review – Detailed Procedures: Planning Meeting
E8.1. The planning meeting for formal programme review broadly consists of the
same elements as the approval planning meeting outlined in section D10.1.
There are several key differences, however, based on the fact that several degree
programmes are meeting to coordinate a shared formal programme review
process.
E8.2. At the planning meeting, several fundamental items will be agreed amongst
the programme teams as outlined below.
E8.3. Key Dates: date for formal programme review meeting;
E8.4. Key Personnel: including the composition of the final Formal Programme
Review panel; most important to this process are consideration of the External
Panel Members (see section E9.2).
E8.5. Externality: The Dean of the relevant Academic School is responsible for
ensuring that external consultation with appropriate subject specialists takes
place at relevant times in the review process, taking due account of external
reference points. Therefore, at the planning meeting, the nature and extent of
external involvement during the review process must be agreed, and any specific
issues on which external comment is required must be identified;
E8.6. PSRBs: involvement of professional, statutory and regulatory bodies, as

needed or required;
E8.7. Timetables: dates for the following should be agreed; meetings of the
programme and departmental teams; deadline for circulation of papers to
external panel members;
E8.8. Resources: As part of the process, a review of resources including library, IT,
staffing will be required and considered at Academic Board and approved at PRC.
Therefore, responsibility and timescale for a resource audit must take place at
the planning meeting. In addition, any data needed for analysis needs to be
requested from the appropriate office (Planning, Academic Registry, Library, IT).
E8.9. Documentation: Following the planning meeting, the programme team will
work on the following documentation:
 Formal Programme Review forms
 programme specification(s)
 new CSDs, if applicable
48
2016-2017
E9 Formal Programme Review – Detailed Procedures: Panel Composition and

Nominations
E9.1. Formal Programme Review panels should comprise sufficient breadth of

experience to cover all parts of the provision under consideration. They differ
from validation panels in that several subjects will be under consideration by a
single review panel.
E9.2. The number of external academic members required on a Formal Programme

Review panel is chiefly determined by the QAA subject benchmarks which apply
(eg. Political Science and International Relations would share an external panel
member, as the relevant benchmark is “Politics and International
Relations”). There will normally be one external academic expert for each QAA
subject benchmark, and one professional/employer representative for the
department/subject area. Where subject benchmarks do not exist for the
programme(s) in question, a relevant external academic expert would still be
expected. The composition of the FPR panel should be decided in the planning
phase and approved at Academic Board.
E9.3. Panels will normally be constituted as follows:

a. Chair: The chair will normally be the Dean of the School of General
Education. If the Dean is not available, a Dean from another school or senior
faculty member from the School of General Education may be nominated.
b. Clerk: The clerk of the event will be an administrator with quality assurance
experience, normally DAAQA’s administrative assistant. The clerk will take
notes of all the meetings, guide the panel in reaching their consensus and
provide technical guidance as necessary
c. External Panel Members chosen
d. additional faculty or staff panel member from the University, if required (to
address resource implications or special features).
E9.4. Panel nominations will be discussed during the planning process, and the
review team will seek formal approval of the panel at Academic Board by
submitting CVs and completing the panel member nomination form.
E10 Formal Programme Review – Detailed Procedures: Formal Programme

Review Meeting
E10.1. The meeting should include the entire panel list plus the
departmental/subject area team, members from University Board, and other
members from the University as requested by the Chair (see panel member list
E9.3).
49
2016-2017
E10.2. The team/school administrator must provide documentation for

consideration by panel members at least three weeks in advance of the review
meeting. This documentation includes:
 list of panel members including their positions and home institutions
 introductory notes, including information on the University as an institution
 programme specifications
 CSDs for required courses (providing a link to digital copies when possible)
 syllabi for pre-existing courses and any new core courses running in first year
 review forms
 any other documents agreed via Academic Board’s Chair’s action
E10.3. The standard agenda structure for the Formal Programme Review Meeting is
outlined in Figure 8 below:
Figure 8: Standard Agenda – Formal Programme Review Meeting
9.00 Arrival and coffee
9.15 Private meeting of the Formal Programme Review panel, including

internal panel member and chair
10.15 Meeting with members from the Senior Management

 Introduction to Richmond, including management and academic
structures, quality assurance processes
 Staffing, staff development and resources
11.00 Meeting with the departmental/subject team

 Programme changes since last validation or Formal Programme
Review
 Department organisation, aims and rationale
 Programme content and structure, teaching and learning
methods
 Assessment strategy and methodology
 Programme management, administration, review and
improvement
 Student support
 Research and staff development
 Resources
13.00 Working lunch, including internal faculty panel member and chair
14.00 Tour of facilities (if appropriate)
14.30 Meeting with students
50
2016-2017
15.00 Private meeting of the panel
16.00 Feedback to programme teams
16.15 Finish
E10.4. Each Formal Programme Review, however, will naturally have its own
particular matters for discussion, and the chair will correspond with the
members of the panel to determine if any additional items are required. A draft
agenda will be circulated and agreed upon one week prior to the meeting.
E10.5. The Formal Programme Review meeting offers the opportunity for the panel
and the department or subject area to complete the academic dialogue
undertaken during the process thus far, for the panel to review examples of
assessed student work and for the panel to resolve any outstanding matters with
regard to the rigour of the offer and the ability of the University to continue to
support it and deliver a good experience to students. The final review panel
reserves the right to assure itself of the adequacy of learning resources.
E11 Formal Programme Review – Detailed Procedures: The Review Report
E11.1. Based on the Formal Programme Review checklist, the panel will propose the
outcome, which will be reported orally by the Chair at the end of the panel’s final
meeting. The Clerk is responsible for the written documentation.
E11.2. The Clerk will circulate the draft outcomes within a week of the meeting and
a full a final report (approved by the Chair) within 10 days of the meeting. The
report will set out any specified conditions of approval, and any
recommendations. The introduction to the report will give a brief synopsis of the
Formal Programme Review process.
E11.3. The department/subject team is invited to comment on matters of factual

accuracy, and should do so within 1 week of receipt of the final report.
E11.4. Formal Programme Review reports are important sources of qualitative

information about the design, development, monitoring and evaluation of
programmes, and complement the factual information available to it through
programme specifications.
E11.5. Formal Programme Review reports will be used by the University to

contribute to its assessment about the standards being achieved, changing
patterns of curricular provision, and valuable and innovative practices.
Consistency of approach to the writing of reports is important to support the
University’s system of external peer group review.
51
2016-2017
E11.6. A positive outcome in a Formal Programme Review will normally result in

continued validation of a programme for a period of 5 years. The panel has the
discretion to designate a shorter period if deemed necessary. This may be for
quality assurance purposes, or to bring the programme into line with the
department/subject area’s overall Formal Programme Review timing.
E12 Formal Programme Review – Detailed Procedures: Possible Formal

Programme Review meeting outcomes
E12.1. The following approval decisions may be proposed by the panel:
E12.2. No change/ Continued Validation: A programme may be continue to be

offered for a specified period of not more than five years subject to review
before the end of the approval period. A Formal Programme Review may be
called for earlier than 5 years if, for example:
a. harmonisation with the department/subject area’s Formal Programme
Review cycle is required
b. the field of study is new to the University
c. major changes to a programme are in prospect, for example as the result of
external developments, such as, the demands of a statutory, professional or
regulatory body
E12.3. Continued Validation Subject to Conditions: A programme will continue to

be offered, but certain requirements must be met, by specified dates. The
departmental/subject team will prepare a response to the report outlining how
the requirements have been met and/or with an action plan to address them.
The departmental/subject team will request an agenda item at Academic Board,
and Academic Board will track and approve progress and completion of the
action plan. If the requirements are not met, the University may decide to
discontinue the programme (see section G).
E12.4. Continued Validation Subject to Recommendations: The panel may make

recommendations. Academic Board, normally through annual monitoring, will
track and approve the progress of these recommendations or reasons that they
have not been adopted.
E12.5. Special note regarding the nature of conditions/recommendations: If the

conditions or recommendations are of such a nature that serious doubt is cast
upon the academic standards or viability of the existing programme, during the
normal consideration of the report and its response at AB, the possibility of
programme discontinuation will be considered (see section G).
52
2016-2017
E13 Associated Forms and Templates Relating to Formal Programme Review
Background Document for Formal Programme Review,

Template for External Panel Member Appointment Letter
Formal Programme Review Report Template
Programme Conditions Checklist
53
2016-2017
F Curricular Changes
F1 Curricular Changes – Objectives and Principles
Please note that throughout this section, as elsewhere in the Quality Manual,
“course” is the US term for what is normally described as a “module” in UK parlance.
F1.1 The University is committed to the ongoing adaptation of existing validated

degree programmes as a result of its commitment to continuous improvement.
Richmond’s flexible, modular curriculum requires a process for curricular changes
(eg. the introduction of new course offerings, changes to existing courses,
deletion of courses, etc.). This process exists independent of annual monitoring
or Formal Programme Review (although both of these processes will naturally
result in curricular changes as well). The proposal for new courses and
alterations to existing courses arise from a variety of sources, including student
feedback, developments in the field, faculty research, etc.
F1.2 The primary curricular changes covered in this section are:

a. Design principles for new courses
b. Approval of new courses (that may or may not be part of an existing degree
programme)
c. Major changes to existing courses
d. Minor changes to existing courses
e. Discontinuation of existing courses
f. Changes to the structure of a degree programme (outside of the normal
validation/Formal Programme Review cycle)
g. Major changes to an existing degree
h. Minor changes to an existing degree
i. Introduction of minors or certificate programmes
F1.3 In the case of all curricular changes, there is an overall requirement to

consider a course in all relevant contexts including: any degree programmes of
which it is a part, the General Education programme, any minors or certificates of
which it is a part, and the larger context of the University mission.
F1.4 All curricular changes affecting the composition of a degree programme (that
is, the list of courses making up a degree programme) must be submitted by the
March Academic Board meeting in order to be included in the following
academic year’s degree programme. See sections F7 and F14
F1.5 The Course Specification Document template and Syllabus template is

reviewed regularly by DAAQA, in consultation with colleagues in the Academic
Schools. Any suggested changes will be brought to Academic Board for
consideration, and approved revised templates will be sent out to all faculty and
posted on the portal at the end of the Spring semester/beginning of the summer
54
2016-2017
session. Faculty are required to update their syllabi to use the template in place
at the start of the following academic year.
F2 Curricular Changes External Reference Points
F2.1. The section of the QAA Quality Code relating to Curricular Changes is:
Chapter A3: Securing academic standards and an outcomes-based approach to
academic awards, esp. indicator A3.1 “Design and approval of modules,
programmes and qualifications”.
F2.2. Other relevant sections of the QAA Quality Code are:

B6 Assessment of Students and the Recognition of Prior Learning
Part C: Information about Higher Education Provision
F2.3. Information on UK Notional Hours of Learning and Credit can be found in the
QAA’s Higher Education Credit Framework. This must be used in conjunction
with MSCHE guidance on US credit and credit hours. Please contact DAAQA
directly for further information and clarification on this.
F2.4. The sections of the MSCHE Characteristics of Excellence relating to Curricular

Changes are:
Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning
F3 Curricular Changes Internal Contexts
F3.1. CDC ToR
F3.2. University Catalogue (especially course list)
F3.3. Programme Specifications
F3.4. List of minors
F3.5. Assessment Norms
F3.6. Credit Hour Policy

55
2016-2017
F4 New Courses – Design Principles
F4.1. New courses normally originate with a faculty member in one of the
Academic Schools. They can either be part of a new degree programme, or
courses that contribute to the “combined studies” element of the liberal arts
degree, that is: General Education, literacy and numeracy requirements, modern
languages, etc. In either case, there are certain standard expectations with
regard to design and documentation for a course. What follows in this section
outlines these expectations.
F4.2. A typical undergraduate course at Richmond consists of 3 US credits / 12 UK

credits. In the US system, 3 credits normally corresponds to classroom hours as
follows:
 50 minute classes that meet 3 times per week
 75 minute classes that meet 2 times per week
 150 minute class that meets 1 time per week
This ratio of class time to US credit value is a MSCHE expectation. It normally
works out to 45 classroom hours in a semester, with the expectation that
students will complete around 2 hours of associated study for every contact
hour.
F4.3. A standard 3 US /12 UK credit undergraduate course as above normally has

120 notional hours of learning as outlined by the QAA.
F4.4. Any increase in credit over these amounts for an individual undergraduate
course must be reflected by an increased class time OR by a strictly accounted-
for calculation of notional hours of learning. An increase in credit amount for a
course will impact upon degree structure and possible time to completion for
students (as the calculation of notional hours of learning per semester means
that students are normally restricted to 15 US credits / 30 UK credits per
semester). Faculty members should seek assistance with any proposed deviation
from the normal credit model from DAAQA at an early stage in the development
of the course.
F4.5. New courses must be designed in line with University Assessment Norms.
F4.6. New courses must contain programme outcomes for ALL degrees for which
the course will act as a requirement1.
1
In progress across 15-16, to be implemented for 16-17.
56
2016-2017
F4.7. All new courses must have a Course Specification Document (CSD) from
which a more detailed syllabus will later be derived after the CSD is approved.
These two pieces of documentation are required for all courses at Richmond.
F4.8. The CSD and the syllabus work in concert to provide students with the US/UK
information for each course. The CSD outlines the fundamental basis of the
course and will normally be subject to few changes. The syllabus is more flexible,
and provides greater practical detail for the student about the course, including a
weekly schedule of topics, a detailed bibliography, and specifics of assessment
methods. While the CSD is the document put forward to the Academic School
and Academic Board in the course approval process, a course will not be
permitted to run until its detailed syllabus has been approved by the Academic
School. The syllabus for a course must be approved by a School at the very latest
by the end of the semester/summer session prior to the one in which it runs.
F4.9. The CSD must be designed using the most recent CSD template, and the
syllabus designed using the most recent syllabus template. These should be
uploaded from the website/portal each time a new course is proposed, to ensure
that the correct version of the template is being used.
F5 New Courses – Approval Process
F5.1. New Courses Associated with New Degree Programmes: The following steps
are taken for new courses that specifically form part of a proposed new degree
programme.
F5.1.1. If the proposed new course is part of a new degree

programme, the course design and approval process is rolled into the
New Degree Programme design, approval, and validation processes
(see sections C and D).
F5.1.2. The main difference to what is outlined below for individual

course approvals is one of required documentation. For new degree
programmes, a Summary New Course Approval Chart is submitted to
CDC/Academic Board with the collection of CSDs and other
documentation associated with the new degree programme.
F5.1.3. The Summary New Course Approval Chart should continue to

be used by the programme team for all new courses that will form
part of the new degree until the commencement of the degree. This
applies to courses added as a result of feedback from the Preliminary
Validation meeting, or from validation panel
conditions/recommendations.
57
2016-2017
F5.2. Individual New Courses: The following steps are taken if the new course
forms part of an existing programme (degree, minor, certificate, or General
Education programme).
F5.2.1. The faculty member submits a CSD and a course approval form
to the School/Department meeting for agreement to proceed to the
Curriculum Development Committee (CDC)/Academic Board.
F5.2.2. Key considerations at the School/Department meeting are as

follows:
 how will the course fit into the programme(s) structure?
 does the external examiner need to be consulted?
 if the course is primarily intended as part of a major, will it also be
part of:
o a minor or minors?
o The General Education Programme?
o Will/how will the course affect other degree programmes
in the University (i.e. in cases where it may be shared with
other majors)?
F5.2.3. The Course Approval Form will act as a check-list for these
considerations.
F5.3. It is the responsibility of the Academic School to ensure that all

documentation is correct before submission to CDC/Academic Board.
F5.4. The School/Department then either agrees that the new course is ready for
presentation at CDC/Academic Board, or sends it back to the faculty member for
further work. Once approved by the Academic School/Department, the CSD and
Course Approval Form are submitted to the CDC.
F6 New Course Approval – Possible Judgements
F6.1. A representative from the school will send the CSD, course approval form and
the curricular change log (with potential new course(s) recorded) to CDC for
review. See Figure 9: Curricular Changes: Snapshot of Forms and Processes. The
CDC will either send the documentation back to the school for further
development or recommend it for approval at Academic Board.
F6.2. At Academic Board there are two possible judgments, outlined as follows:
F6.3. New Course Approved:

a. CSD is copied into a subfolder for the relevant Academic Board meeting
entitled “Approved CSDs”;
58
2016-2017
b. The Academic Registry then creates the entry in PowerCAMPUS, assigns the
course code, adds it to the CSD, and adds the CSD to the archive (normally
within 10 working days);
c. The Academic Registry informs the relevant Dean and Associate Dean that a
new CSD(s) has/have been uploaded;
d. The Dean/Associate Dean makes a note of the new code on the curricular
changes log;
e. The faculty member responsible for the course develops a detailed syllabus
and submits this to the Academic School for approval. Syllabi do not need to
be presented to Academic Board.
F6.4. New Course Not Approved: The CSD is sent back to the Academic School for
revision and re-submission to Academic Board for approval at a later date.
F7 Timing of Requests for New Course Approval
F7.1. All new courses must be submitted for approval by the March Academic
Board meeting if the new course is to be included in a new programme (causing
any alteration to the chart(s) in section 5 of the relevant Programme
Specification and therefore to Academic Plan for the following academic year).
F7.2. If the CSD is not submitted by the March Academic Board, its inclusion as
part of a degree programme, minor, or the General Education Programme will
be delayed by another academic year.
F7.3. Note that other significant curricular changes that affect a degree
programme and would involve a change to Academic Plan must also be
submitted by the March Academic Board (see course changes process below F8.1
to F9.3).
F7.4. It is very important to comply with this scheduling to allow time for all
necessary updates to the Programme Specifications and annual editing of each
degree’s Academic Plan for the incoming cohort of students.
F8 Minor Course Changes
F8.1. Minor changes to a course are those which do not change either singly or
incrementally the basis of the course.
F8.2. Examples of minor changes include:

 Insignificant change in course descriptions, course title, aims and objectives
(such as a change in vocabulary or addition of a field trip)
 Minor changes to indicative content
59
2016-2017
 Minor changes to teaching methodology (eg. Course structure largely

remains the same, but no longer using film clips, introduction of a site visit
etc.)
 Bibliography
 Changes to assessment activities, including the balance between different
types of assessment within a course
F8.3. Any minor change must be recorded on the CSD log and will need approval at
the School/Department level. Once approved, the CSD with the requested
change is sent to the Academic Registry for CSD version update and upload of
any relevant material into PowerCAMPUS.
F8.4. As noted in F9.2 below, a combination of three minor changes will normally
be considered a major change. When in doubt, use the course approval form.
F9 Major Course Changes
F9.1. Major changes to a course are those which change the basic nature of the
course or student experience.
F9.2. Examples of major changes include:

 FHEQ level change
 Credit weight
 Pre-requisites
 Significant changes to indicative content
 Significant changes to learning outcomes (those that would affect the
curriculum map)
 Significant changes teaching methodology (eg. A traditional course now
offered as a travelling programme; movement from “chalk and talk” to
shared teaching amongst a number of professors, etc.)
 Significant changes to course description, aims and objectives
 Change in assessment table if not using standard assessment
 Significant change to course title
 A combination of three minor changes that, when aggregated, can be
considered to be a major change.
F9.3. Any change that is defined as “major” will first need approval at the
Academic School/Department level. The faculty member submits a CSD and a
course approval form to the School/Department meeting for approval. After
School/Department approval, the CSD plus the course approval form and
curricular change log will go to CDC/AB. Once the revised CSD is approved at AB,
it is ready for Academic Registry.
F10 Discontinuing a Course
60
2016-2017
F10.1. When the programme team wishes to discontinue a course, it will first make
the suggestion at the relevant Academic School meeting. Once this is approved,
the Associate Dean submits the proposal to Academic Board for approval using
the Change in Programme form, where the impact on the other degree
programmes, minors, and/ or core curriculum will be measured before making a
decision.
F10.2. If the discontinuation is approved by Academic Board, the

School/Department will record this on the Curricular Changes Log. Academic
Board will note the deletion in the minutes including specific reference to any
other programmes that are affected.
F10.3. The Academic Registrar will make the course inactive in PowerCAMPUS for
the following academic year. Academic Plans for the following academic year
will be adjusted in due course, based on the annually-updated Programme
Specification and accompanying Curricular Changes Log (see the annual
programme monitoring and review process H4.5).
F10.4. Any courses that have not been offered in 5 years will normally be removed
from the catalogue. This is considered during the Formal Programme Review
process (E).
F10.5. Courses deleted in this way cannot be revived without revision of the
indicative texts and examination of the course description. If an academic school
wishes to revive a previously-offered course, the same procedure must be
followed as if the course were brand-new. A new CSD with appropriate forms
must be submitted to Academic Board, reflecting an updating of the course (but
noting that a new number will not be required). See section F4
F11 Changes to the structure of a degree programme
F11.1. This guidance applies to any requested change to a degree programme

requested outside of the Formal Programme Review cycle. Changes to a degree
programme that are proposed as part of the Formal Programme Review of a
degree programme should be dealt with under the processes outlined in section
E above.
F11.2. Where changes to the structure of an existing degree programme are

required outside of the Formal Programme Review cycle, these are first
considered and agreed by the Academic School via a “Change in Programme
Form”.
F11.3. The Academic School then proposes the changes with the “Change in
Programme Form” to CDC. CDC either sends the documentation back to the
School for revision or recommends it for approval to Academic Board.
61
2016-2017
F11.4. Academic Board has four possible judgements as outlined below:
F11.5. Degree Programme Changes Approved: The Dean/Associate Dean notes the
change on the Curricular Changes Log, and immediately following the March
LTPC meeting, alters the Programme Specification for the following academic
year (see F14 and F15 .
F11.6. Degree Programme Changes Approved subject to Action Points: The

Dean/Associate Dean addresses the requested action points, notes the approval
on the Curricular Changes Log, and immediately following the March LTPC
meeting, alters the Programme Specification for the following academic year (see
F14 and F15 .
F11.7. Degree Programme Changes Approved subject to a Formal Programme

Review: This would normally occur when the change(s) are judged to be so
substantive in quality or quantity as to warrant a formal review (see minor and
major changes to a degree programme below).
F11.8. Degree Programme Changes Not Approved: Proposal is sent back to the
Academic School.
F12 Minor Changes to Degree Programme
F12.1. Minor changes to a programme are those which not change either singly or
incrementally the basis of the programme. A minor change will not normally
trigger a Formal Programme Review.
F12.2. Examples of minor changes include:

 Changes in the number of optional courses
 Changes in the balance of assessment norm tables
 Minor changes to teaching and/or delivery methods
F13 Major Changes in a Degree Programme
F13.1. Major changes are those which change the basic nature of the programme or
student experience. External Examiners should be consulted on major changes. A
Formal Programme Review may be required unless the changes were an
outcome of annual monitoring or a previous review.
F13.2. Examples of major changes include:

 Changes to programme outcomes
 Significant changes to programme mission and goals
62
2016-2017
 New pathways or concentrations

 New additions or changes to the required courses
 Changes in credit distribution
 A combination of minor changes that, when aggregated, can be considered to
constitute a major change
F14 Timing of Requests for Degree, Minor and/or General Education

Programme Changes
F14.1. Approved changes to a programme necessarily result in an alteration to the

chart(s) in section 5 of the Programme Specification (and therefore to Academic
Plan for the following academic year).
F14.2. All programme change requests must therefore be submitted by the March
Academic Board meeting. Examples include any of the following actions that
may impact upon a major, minor, certificate or the General Education
Programme:
 the deletion of a course that is included in any of the above programmes;
 the addition of a new course to any of the above programmes;
 the proposed addition of an existing course to any of the above programmes;
 a proposed move of an existing course out of the list of options in a major
and onto the degree programme mandatory requirements or vice-versa.
F14.3. If such a change request is not submitted by the March Academic Board,
consequent changes to the relevant programme(s) will be delayed by another
academic year.
F14.4. It is very important to comply with this scheduling to allow time for all
necessary updates to the Programme Specifications and annual editing of the
Academic Plans for the incoming cohort of students.
63
2016-2017
Figure 9: Curricular Changes: Snapshot of Forms and Processes
64
2016-2017
F15 Curricular Changes and Updating of Documentation
F15.1. The adoption of new courses, changes to existing courses, and changes to
existing degree programmes can affect the structures of degree programmes. As
noted throughout the processes outlined above, it is very important that
university documentation be updated to reflect curricular changes. This is done
annually, so that incoming students are aware of any changes to degree
structures, whilst existing students continue to be subject to the structures in
place at the time of their admission.
F15.2. Curricular changes that are approved by the March Academic Board meeting
of any given academic year must be reflected in the Programme Specification for
the following academic year (i.e. inserting as a required or optional course in the
degree, adjusting the curriculum map and degree progression flowchart, etc.)
F15.3. An annual update of each degree’s programme specification is a University

requirement. It is also a QAA expectation with regard to the provision of public
information. In line with Richmond’s programme monitoring and review
processes, it is the responsibility of the Academic School (normally via the
Associate Dean or nominated delegate) to log all curricular changes over the
course of an academic year on the Curricular Changes Log. This will form the
basis of the annual revision of the Programme Specification.
F15.4. In the interest of version management, when updating the Programme

Specification, the Associate Dean must work from the official version of the
Programme Specification held in the web archive, and so must request a word
version of the programme specification from the Academic Registrar in order to
make these changes.
F15.5. The Associate Dean or nominated delegate is responsible for recording all
changes approved at Academic Board on the Curricular Changes Log as they are
approved.
F15.6. Both the Curricular Changes Log and the updated Programme Specification
will be submitted annually (by the end of April in any given Academic Year) to the
Department of Academic Affairs and Quality Assurance (DAAQA) for a final
proofread. Note that substantive changes will not be expected at this stage –
DAAQA will be looking for errors that may have escaped the notice of colleagues
in the department. DAAQA is not responsible for the accuracy of the document’s
content, and any significant changes required will be sent back to the Academic
School.
F15.7. Once the proofread is complete, DAAQA will forward the Programme
Specification and Curricular Changes Log on to the following departments:
65
2016-2017
 Academic Registry (for the creation of Academic Plan for the following year,
updates to the printed catalogue, and upload of the annual PS to the web
repository)
 IT (for updates to the programme pages of the website)
F16 Associated Forms and Templates Relating to Curricular Changes
Course Specification Document (CSD) Template

Course Approval Form
Change in Programme Form
Curricular Changes Log
66
2016-2017
G Discontinuation of a Programme
G1 Objectives and Principles
G1.1. Richmond may decide to discontinue a programme, either as an outcome of

programme monitoring/review, or for other reasons, underpinned by analysis of
management information. These reasons may include (but are not limited to)
changes in patterns of demand from potential applicants, low enrolment,
changes in staffing, changes within a larger academic discipline, or a strategic
change to the University’s provision that affects academic offerings.
G1.2. The following process is designed to ensure that students on a programme

that is being discontinued are not disadvantaged, and to safeguard the academic
integrity of the degree programme as it is taught out.
G1.3. When the decision is made to close a programme, sufficient advance timing
must be given to ensure that prospective students are not making their college
choice decisions based on a programme that may become unavailable to them.
G2 External Reference Points
G2.1. The section of the QAA Quality Code relating to the discontinuation of a
degree programme is: B8 Programme Monitoring and Review, Indicator 3.
G2.2. The sections of the MSCHE Characteristics of Excellence relating to the

discontinuation of a degree programme are:
G3 Discontinuation of a Programme Internal Reference Points
G3.1 Programme Specifications
G3.2 University Catalogue and Catalogue Archive
G4 Determination and Decision Process
G4.1. The impetus for programme closure may come from a number of sources,
outlined below.
67
2016-2017
G4.2. When the University fails to register students on a programme for two
consecutive annual intakes, Academic Board will consider its discontinuation and,
if discontinued, the programme must approved before it can be taught again (see
section D).
G4.3. Annual Programme Monitoring and Assessment may highlight low enrolment
and/or retention as a possible foundation for programme closure. This would
necessarily be discussed at Academic Board, as part of the APMA process (see
section H Annual Monitoring).
G4.4. Programme closure may also be suggested by the Academic School (for
academic or operational reasons), from the Executive Committee (for low
enrolment), from Academic Board (for academic reasons) or from the University
Board (for strategic or budgetary reasons). In such cases, the Academic School
must be informed of the possibility as soon as it is under discussion, so that
colleagues can discuss the possibility at the school level and prepare any
arguments and/or data in support of or contrary to the proposal.
G4.5. The possibility is then discussed at Provost’s Council, and a recommendation

is made by the Academic School to Academic Board, which makes a further
recommendation to University Board. The considerations are documented by the
Dean of the School in the Discontinuing a Programme Proposal form.
G4.6. The final decision as to whether or not a programme will be closed is made at
University Board.
G5 Responsibilities of the Academic School
G5.1. In the event of a decision to discontinue a programme, the Academic School

has several key responsibilities designed to ensure both that students on the
programme are not disadvantaged and that the academic integrity of the
programme is maintained. These responsibilities are normally carried out by the
Dean or Associate Dean in conjunction with the programme team, and are
outlined below.
G5.2. Recruitment onto the programme will be halted. The decision to cease
student recruitment to a programme will apply to recruitment to any level of
that programme;
G5.3. The possible impact on academic standards and the quality of learning
opportunities, particularly with regard to specific groups of students must be
assessed;
G5.4. At the earliest opportunity, a specially-convened “majors meeting” must be

arranged to discuss the implications with affected enrolled students;
68
2016-2017
G5.5. Students on Leave of Absence or studying abroad must be informed

(normally via email) about the implications, and given guidance as to how to
proceed (as below);
G5.6. The Dean or Associate Dean of the School offers individual guidance on
options to all affected students;
G5.7. Arrangements must be made to “teach out” the programme for current
students, i.e. teaching continues on enough courses to enable completion of the
programme. A concrete “programme teaching-out plan”, with timelines for
students and specific course scheduling information must be produced (including
any suggested additional summer scheduling of courses);
G5.8. If necessary, reasonable adjustments must be made to programme

requirements in order to maintain quality throughout the teach-out period. Any
such change in curriculum will require formal Academic Board approval;
G5.9. Students who wish to transfer to other majors or institutions, will be given
assistance with their options, including liaising with the Academic Registry
concerning the waiving of any transcript fees for the purposes of institutional
transfer applications;
G5.10. The Programme Specification must be altered to prominently display the

projected closure date and link to the programme teaching-out plan. This must
be provided to the Academic Registrar for upload into the Programme
Specification archive.
G6 Communication
G6.1. Once UB has minuted the decision, in addition to informing the Academic
School, it informs the following departments, who take the actions outlined
below.
G6.2. Marketing and Recruitment:

a. Notes and informs all MRA staff of the decision to cease all student
recruitment onto the programme (see G5.2 above);
b. Removes all promotional material from the website (whilst ensuring that
current students continue to have the information that they require readily
accessible via the internal portal);
c. Informs all prospective students in the admissions “pipeline”. The
expectations of any applicant who has formally signalled an interest in the
programme must be considered. This would include students who selected
the programme on the application or admission, or have otherwise been in a
formal advising flow preceding declaration of the programme. These
69
2016-2017
applicants must be informed that their programme of study is no longer

available and given information as to other programme options available.
G6.3. Academic Registry:

a. Uploads the updated Programme Specification once received from the
Academic School;
b. Liaises with and assists the Academic School in the production of the
programme teaching-out plan, in particular with scheduling proposals;
c. Informs AIFS of the discontinuation;
G6.4. Department of Academic Affairs and Quality Assurance

a. Liaises with and assists the Academic School in the production of the
programme teaching-out plan;
b. Informs MSCHE, the QAA, and any relevant Professional or Statutory Bodies
of the discontinuation.
G6.5. Finance
a. If the programme teaching-out plan suggests an accelerated timetable,
where students are expected to attend additionally-scheduled classes in
summer sessions, the University will consider special arrangements regarding
fees. The Executive will propose these arrangements to University Board.
b. The Finance Department will be informed of any such arrangements, to
ensure that students’ fees are charged at the correct rate.
G7 Special Considerations Regarding the Programme Teaching-Out Plan
G7.1 The programme teaching-out plan is required to assure that there are
concrete arrangements in place to meet the commitment made to students who
are currently studying on the programme, or who are making decisions to enter
Richmond based on the availability of the programme. Specific considerations
regarding the teaching-out process that the Academic School must take into
account are detailed below.
G7.2 The plan will need to make the programme available to students for a
sufficiently long time to allow all enrolled students to complete. This can be up to
several years;
G7.3 The plan must give timelines for the process based upon specific attention to
all cohorts of students continuing on the programme. This may require detailed
analysis of individual students’ Academic Plans;
G7.4 Specific course schedules must be provided to ensure that students can plan
their trajectory. Any additional scheduling (eg. teaching of courses in the
summer sessions not ordinarily taught at this time) must be highlighted;
70
2016-2017
G7.5 As the programme winds down, planning must be in place for alternatives to
current requirements if needed;
G7.6 Students who have withdrawn from the University (officially or unofficially)
will not normally be permitted to readmit to the University onto the programme
during the discontinuation process.
G8 Associated Forms and Templates Relating to Discontinuation of a Degree

Programme
Discontinuing a Programme Proposal form

Programme Teaching-Out Plan Template
71
2016-2017
H Annual Monitoring and Assessment

H1 Annual Monitoring and Assessment Objectives and Principles
H1.1. The annual monitoring process is a key quality assurance mechanism by

which Richmond assures itself that it is meeting UK and US quality expectations,
and identifies ways in which it can enhance provision. It constitutes an
opportunity to reflect on the issues arising from programme assessment and to
evaluate its arrangements for quality assurance and enhancement.
H1.2. Annual monitoring and assessment is conducted for administrative

departments as they relate to the academic provision. It also refers to the
annual monitoring of degree programmes within academic Schools. Annual
monitoring and assessment enables all members of the University to reflect on
the extent to which objectives outlined in departmental and School operating
plans are being met and whether, in the light of the review, those objectives
should be reconsidered.
H1.3. Richmond’s Annual Monitoring Report consists of the following main

elements:
 An Annual Institutional Assessment, including a statement outlining changes
to the administrative structure since the previous AMR;
 An Annual Programme Evaluation (for OU degrees) or Annual Monitoring and
Assessment (APMA – see template) (non-OU degrees) for each degree
programme or group of concentrations offered at the university;
 a quality assurance flowchart setting out the annual monitoring process;
 an updated version of the QAA Quality Code / MSCHE Characteristics of
Excellence mapping documents
H1.4. For degrees that are validated by the Open University, a supplement to the
APE is completed that directly assesses a key programme outcome. Together
these documents comprise annual monitoring and assessment processes.
H1.5. Documentation from Annual Monitoring and Assessment activities will be

retained by DAAQA and made available to the University community via the
portal, in order to enable the University or outside agencies (QAA, MSCHE etc.)
to review it.
H1.6. Although Richmond is a voluntary subscriber to the QAA and subject to full
IRENI/HER review, as an Alternative Provider, it is required to complete an
annual Educational Oversight return (post-TDAP this may no longer be required).
The exact synchronisation of this process with Richmond’s internal annual
monitoring is to be determined. The data and information presented in the AMR
process will be used for the QAA EO return form.
72
2016-2017
H1.7. The formats of the annual monitoring templates will be evaluated by DAAQA
and PC in the Spring semester following annual monitoring. Any suggested
changes to the templates will be presented to Academic Board for approval for
implementation in the following year.
H2 Annual Monitoring External Reference Points
H2.1. The section of the QAA Quality Code relating to Annual Monitoring is:
H2.2. Other relevant sections of the QAA Quality Code are:

B7 External Examining
H2.3. QAA HER Handbook
H2.4. The sections of the MSCHE Characteristics of Excellence relating to Annual

Monitoring are:
Standard 7: Institutional Assessment
H2.5. Other relevant sections of the MSCHE Characteristics of Excellence are:

H3 Annual Monitoring Internal References
H3.1. The Digest
H3.2. Previous AMRs
H3.3. Operating Plans
H3.4. Previous relevant self-studies (eg. CSA, MSCHE Self-Study etc.)
H3.5. Programme Specifications
H3.6. Curricular Changes Logs
H3.7. The University Catalogue
H4 Annual Programme Monitoring and Assessment (APMA)

73
2016-2017
H4.1. In the Fall semester, each Academic School undertakes an Annual Programme
Monitoring and Assessment (APMA) of each of its degree programmes as it was
conducted over the previous academic year. The Dean of the School delegates
the production of the report to an individual, who works with the programme
team on the analysis. The APMA is a means by which the Academic School:
 assures itself that its degree programmes are meeting their learning
objectives and contributes to the maintenance of the quality and standards
of programmes;
 assesses the quality of the student experience;
 assesses programme learning outcome(s);
 records issues to be addressed and determines actions;
 contributes to the enhancement of programmes;
 identifies and disseminates good practice.
H4.2. An information session on APMA compilation is conducted by DAAQA at the

start of each academic year. Academic Schools should follow the following
process in compiling an annual programme monitoring and assessment.
H4.3. Information is gathered from various sources, to include:

 statistical information provided by the Planning Office, and HESA figures (to
allow for comparison with similar provision in the sector);
 outcomes of student feedback from majors meetings, course evaluations, exit
interviews;
 a copy of the programme specification and relevant Curricular Changes Log;
 academic school minutes;
 reports from external examiners and any feedback from the Academic
Committee of the Board of Trustees;
 the feedback from the University arising from the previous year’s annual
monitoring exercise;
 the list of conditions and/or recommendations arising from the latest
validation or revalidation of the programme;
 a copy of the previous year’s action plan for enhancement of the programme,
as outlined in the previous APMA;
 issues arising over the year related to learning resources, staffing, and any
engagements with employers, the QAA, MSHCE, professional, statutory and
regulatory bodies and/or UKBA.
H4.4. Programme teams (including student representation) meet to review the

information above and critically evaluate the previous academic year, and
responses made to the external examiners’ reports of the previous academic
years. Programme teams then work with the primary author to complete a draft
APMA.
74
2016-2017
H4.5. The APMA consists of accounts and analyses of the following main topics for
each degree programme or group of concentrations:
 Progress made on the previous year’s action plan, and on the list of
conditions and/or recommendations arising from the latest validation or
revalidation of the programme;
 The relevant statistics for the programme and comparison to HESA figures;
 student progression, retention, and achievement within the degree
programme;
 Actions planned or taken in response to External Examiner reports;
 A specific programme outcome;
 The internal moderation process for the academic year;
 Student feedback and engagement;
 Employer feedback;
 Student complaints and appeals;
 Faculty feedback;
 Learning Support resources;
 Details of Faculty/Staff Development and Scholarship;
 Changes made over the course of the year (the programme specification and
curricular changes log).
H4.6. All APMAs are considered at the December meeting of Academic Board, to
ensure that there is a cross-university perspective of all degree programmes.
Any institution-wide issues are identified for the AIA and the attention of
University Board.
H4.7. The final AMR is considered at the December meeting of Academic Board,
and once approved, is signed off by the President. Copies are sent to the
Academic Committee of the Board of Trustees (which considers the APMAs), and
to the Board of Trustees (which largely focuses on the AIA). Examples of good
practice arising from the AMR are disseminated by the Centre for Learning and
Teaching.
H4.8. DAAQA will maintain a tracker of institutional issues and areas of good
practice that should be identified and assessed in annual monitoring. These
issues will likely arise from a previous year’s APMA, but could also arise from
Formal Programme Review, Operating Plans or from any normal day to day
operations.
H5 Annual Institutional Assessment
H5.1. The Annual Institutional Assessment consists of the following:

a. an account of action taken in relation to any QAA, MSCHE, OU or other
external reviews (including UK Border Agency (UKBA) applications) during the
year;
75
2016-2017
b. an account of progress made to date on addressing recommendations arising

from the previous AIA and on the previous institutional enhancement action
plan;
c. an overview of all programme statistics;
d. an account of staff development priorities and staff development activities;
e. an overview of the APMAs, including learning and teaching resources, faculty
and student feedback, and academic appeals and complaints;
f. an overview of external examiner feedback, identifying in particular any
concerns that have been expressed;
g. an overall examination of the commendations, recommendations and
conditions arising from validation and Formal Programme Review activities;
h. identification of cross-institutional themes by the Provost’s office;
i. identification of significant achievements and good practice for dissemination
across the institution;
j. an evaluation of the institution’s engagements with the Quality Code and
with the Characteristics of Excellence. This should include, where applicable,
an updated mapping of institutional policies and practices against these
frameworks, and any measures taken as a result of the mapping;
k. an institutional enhancement action plan;
l. an evaluation of administrative systems and procedures
Figure 10: Typical AMR Timeline
Workshop on Annual Monitoring Report – mid-September

↓
Programme Teams begin first draft of APMAs/APEs

↓
Planning Office to provide statistics – mid-October
↓
Programme Team meetings, including student representatives and School Deans, to discuss curriculum,
individual courses, student performance issues, faculty resource planning, and outcomes assessment.
Discussion of External Examiners’ reports, issues raised from previous year’s AMR, issues raised from
recent revalidation report (if applicable).
↓
Programme Teams finish draft APMAs and send to DAAQA by mid-November
↓
DAAQA reviews content for compliance with QAA/MSCHE expectations and consistency in reporting
between Schools, completes the AIAO and meets with School Deans for feedback/further editing.
↓
APMAs and AIO sent to Annie Herring for Academic Board by end November
↓
Academic Board to review the reports and Annual Institutional Overview – presented at Dec
Academic Board meeting
76
2016-2017
↓
AMR edited following recommendations by Academic Board. Academic Board considers summary
and sends any emerging issues to relevant committees and working parties.
↓
Report sent to Board of Academic Advisors and Overview institutional issues and good practice
Board of Trustees by mid-December sent to University Board. Areas of good practice
disseminated by CLT.
H6 Associated Forms and Templates Relating to Annual Monitoring
Annual Programme Monitoring and Assessment Template (APMA) (for non-OU

degrees)
Key Programme Outcome Assessment supplement (for OU degrees)
Response Tracker for Annual Programme Monitoring and Assessment
77
2016-2017
I Assessment and Internal Moderation

I1 Principles and Objectives
I1.1. Richmond has an established set of Assessment Norms and Feedback Norms
designed to ensure parity of treatment of students across courses and degrees.
Internal Moderation is used at the University to ensure compliance with those
norms, and “provides assurance that assessment criteria have been applied
appropriately, reflecting the shared understanding of the markers, and an
approach which enables comparability across academic subjects.” (QC, p. 22).
I1.2. Internal moderation at Richmond is used to:

a. detect errors in grading (possibly leading to a closer examination of grading in
an individual course);
b. ensure oversight of the assessment practices of a course;
c. monitor the university’s approach to academic dishonesty;
d. allow for any variation in practice to be examined and addressed.
I1.3. Internal Moderation is conducted using a defined sample of graded activities

across a course (see J5).
I1.4. The Conduct of Examination and Moderation Meetings and Boards document
outlines the specifics of the conduct of these processes. Internal Moderation is
primarily addressed at the “Moderation and Reconciliation Meetings” and at the
“Degree Programme Meetings”.
I1.5. The processes apply all Richmond provision, including RIASA and the Italian
Study Centres. However, some logistical adjustments are made for the additional
locations. These are outlined where applicable throughout.
I2 External Reference Points
I2.1. The section of the QAA Quality Code relating to Assessment and Internal
Moderation is Chapter B6: Assessment of Students and the Recognition of Prior
Learning. Esp. Indicator 13, which reads: “Processes for marking assessments
and for moderating marks are clearly articulated and consistently operated by
those involved in the assessment process.”
I2.2. The sections of the MSCHE Characteristics of Excellence relating to

Assessment are:
78
2016-2017
I2.3. The Higher Education Academy: Assessment and feedback:

www.heacademy.ac.uk/assessment
I2.4. The Higher Education Academy (2012) A Marked Improvement: Transforming

assessment in higher education
www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/assessment/a-marked-improvement
I2.5. QAA (2012) Understanding assessment: its role in safeguarding academic

standards and quality in higher education, Second edition.
www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/understandingasse
ssment.aspx
I3 Internal Reference Points
I3.1. Conduct of Examination and Moderation Meetings and Boards document
I3.2. Assessment Norms
I3.3. Feedback Norms
I3.4. For information on the US system of grading, including the calculation of

Grade Point Averages, please see the Academic Affairs section of the University
Catalogue, especially the section entitled “Academic Standing”.
I3.5. For an explanation of the calculation of a UK degree classification from US

Grade Point Average calculation, please see the University’s Degree Classification
Document and the Academic Affairs section of the University Catalogue,
especially the section entitled “Completion of Study and Graduation: UK Degree
Classification”.
I3.6. For information on transfer credit policies (accreditation of prior learning in

UK parlance), please see Transfer Credits and the Academic Affairs section of the
University Catalogue, especially the section entitled “Transfer Credit Policy”.
I4 Timing of Internal Moderation
I4.1. Owing to the relatively tight submission schedule for final grades at
Richmond (i.e.; no more than 96 hours after the final examination), internal
moderation is typically coordinated by full-time subject specialists. The subject
specialists liaise with Adjunct Faculty in respective academic areas to ensure
moderation of final exams. Essays, term papers, etc. submitted earlier in the
semester are also subject to moderation.
79
2016-2017
I4.2. The desired timing of internal moderation varies amongst the departments.
Some degrees are better suited to an overall end-of-semester approach, with the
samples of all work being considered in one short period. Other degrees and
programmes prefer to conduct internal moderation throughout the year. Both
practices are accommodated at the University – this will be left to the discretion
of the Heads of Department/Associate Deans, but internal moderation
dates/deadlines must be formally scheduled and a schedule provided in advance
to the Academic Registry by the second week of the semester.
I4.3. As the turnaround period for faculty submission of overall final grades cannot
be altered, it is crucial that students are made aware of the fact that the grades
assigned are provisional until the moderation process has been conducted and
the Exam Boards have convened.
I4.4. Timing for moderation at the Italian Study Centres is adjusted for practical
reasons. Full-time London faculty members act as internal moderators for Italy
and are sent to the study centres on a semesterly basis to conduct the process
on-site (some moderation is conducted via electronic transfer of files).
I5 Sampling
I5.1 Sampling at FHEQ Level 7 (Graduate-level courses).
I5.1.1 All final exam papers are moderated internally, then by the relevant
External Examiner. If the course does not have a final exam, then the
assessment activity with the highest percentage needs to be treated in the
same manner. For assessments of equal weighting, the decision is left to the
instructor.
I5.1.2 A sample is selected by course, and is based on the following criteria:

a) All A grades (does not include A- grades).
b) All B- grades and all F grades.
c) In addition to a) and b), 10% of work across each course.
d) All dissertations
I5.2 Sampling at FHEQ Levels 6 and 5 (“upper-division courses”)
I5.2.1. All final exam question papers at Levels 6 and 5 are internally
moderated and moderated by the relevant External Examiner. If the course
does not have a final exam, the assessment activity/activities comprising not
less than 40% of the final grade must be treated in the same manner.
I5.2.2. The sample of internally moderated student work is based on all

assessed activities within individual courses. This normally includes the final
exam (where applicable) and another substantive piece of work.
80
2016-2017
Assessments contributing less than 20% to the calculation of the overall final
grade will not normally be included in the sample.
I5.2.3. The sample comprises:

a) All A/A- grades.
b) All academic F grades.
c) In addition to a) and b), a representative sample across grade
bands which are included in 5000-6000 level course work
portfolios sent to External Examiners. This should represent at
least 10% of the work assigned. Normally the sample is selected
by the moderator.
d) All 6000-level Senior Project, Senior Seminar/Senior Essay written
work (in some cases the External Examiner also attends final
project presentations).
I5.3 Sampling at FHEQ Level 4
I5.3.1. All final exam question papers at Level 4 are internally moderated. If
the course does not have a final exam, the assessment activity/activities
comprising not less than 40% of the final grade must be treated in the same
manner.
I5.3.2. At least one single activity contributing a minimum of 20% to the
overall final grade is selected from each Level 4 course for internal
moderation. From this activity, the following sample is selected:
a) All A/A- grades.
b) All academic F grades.
c) One item per grade range (B, C, D)
I5.4 Sampling at FHEQ Level 3
I5.4.1. All final exam question papers at Level 3 are internally moderated. If
the course does not have a final exam, the assessment activity/activities
comprising not less than 40% of the final grade must be treated in the same
manner.
I5.4.2. At Level 3, only overall final grades are examined. Any student
achieving an overall final grade of an academic F (not an attendance failure)
in a Level 3 course will normally have the one graded activity contributing the
largest amount to the grade examined. Where all graded activities are worth
the same amount, the Head of Department or Associate Dean will decide on
the composition of the sample.
I5.5 Sampling: Additional Cases
81
2016-2017
I5.5.1. There are certain subjects (normally those with discrete University
Assessment Norms or which have been approved for atypical assessment) for
whom the above sampling processes may be inappropriate. The
Dean/Associate Dean of the School responsible for any subjects requiring an
atypical sample will present the rationale and proposed process to Academic
Board for approval. Once approved, the sampling process will be
incorporated into this document.
I5.5.2. RIASA and the Italian Study Centres: All of the sampling principles as
outlined above apply. However, please note that at the additional locations
the Director selects the sample (rather than the moderator).
I6 Internal Moderation Processes
I6.1. Once the sample is selected, the internal moderator will review the work and
either agree or disagree with the grades and communicate this to the faculty
member concerned. The process of reconciliation is engaged in at the “Internal
Moderation and Reconciliation Meeting”. See section 3 of the Conduct of
Examination and Moderation Meetings and Boards document.
I6.2. The internal moderator completes an internal moderation report for the
sample.
I6.3. The moderated sample for courses at Levels 5 and 6 in each degree
programme are collated and sent to the relevant External Examiner.
I6.4. The sample is considered as a whole and in the context of all degree
programmes in the Academic School at the “Degree Programme Meeting”. See
section 4 of the Conduct of Examination and Moderation Meetings and Boards
document.
I6.5. The sample is considered again at the Academic School along with the
External Examiner’s view at the “Formal School Exam Board”. See section 5 of
the Conduct of Examination and Moderation Meetings and Boards document.
I6.6. The University Exam Board considers the results across the University and
receives a report on internal moderation. See section 6 of the Conduct of
Examination and Moderation Meetings and Boards document.
I7 Associated Forms and Templates Relating to Internal Moderation
Internal Moderation Report Template
82
2016-2017
J External Examination
J1 Principles and Objectives
J1.1. The aim of the University’s external examination system is transparency,

rigour, and consistency.
J1.2. It is designed to ensure that the process of assessment measures student

achievement against the stated structure and content of the University’s course
and programme offerings and its expectations within the approved Assessment
Norms.
J1.3. It also ensures that all assessment is conducted in a fair, consistent and
transparent manner, that academic standards are maintained transparently and
consistently across Schools and courses, and that the maintenance of Richmond’s
academic standards is comparable with those of similar institutions.
J2 External Reference Points
J2.1. The section of the QAA Quality Code relating to External Examination is:
Chapter B7: External Examining.
J2.2. The sections of the MSCHE Characteristics of Excellence relating to Annual

Monitoring are:
Standard 7: Institutional Assessment
J3 Internal Reference Points
J3.1. Conduct of Examination and Moderation Meetings and Boards document
J3.2. Assessment Norms
J4 Selection, Nomination and Appointment
J4.1. In appointing an external examiner the Schools and the University follows a
selection, nomination and approval process that includes consideration of
appropriate documentation in support of nominations, approved at Learning and
Teaching Policy Committee.
J4.2. A central register of appointments and periods of tenure is maintained by the

Provost’s Office to ensure that the University is able to avoid inadvertent
conflicts of interest and ensure the proper rotation of examiners;
83
2016-2017
J4.3. In proposing an external examiner, Schools should provide a detailed CV and

the External Examiner nomination form indicating how they meet the required
specification (as below);
J4.4. External examiners must be able to demonstrate evidence of the following:

a. knowledge and understanding of UK and/or US HE sector reference points for
maintaining academic standards and assuring quality enhancement;
b. experience and competence in the subject of the programme of study, or
particular expertise in relevant parts;
c. relevant academic and/or professional qualifications to at least the level of
the qualification for which they will externally examine, and/or extensive
practitioner experience if appropriate;
d. experience relating to the design and delivery of a variety of assessment
tasks, and awareness of current developments appropriate to the subject
area;
e. sufficient standing, credibility and breadth of experience within the discipline
to be able to command the respect of academic peers;
f. familiarity with the standard expected of students in the subject area, to
achieve the award to be assessed;
g. fluency in English and where programmes are chiefly delivered in languages
other than English (i.e. language instruction), fluency in the relevant
language(s) (unless other secure arrangements are in place to ensure that
external examiners are provided with the information to make their
judgements);
h. an understanding of relevant criteria set by professional, statutory or
regulatory bodies for the subject.
J4.5. Anyone in the following categories or circumstances should not be

nominated to act as an external examiner for Richmond programmes. Where an
examiner does not meet one or more of the criteria, the School must identify the
way in which the proposed examiner does not meet the required criteria and
provide a justification for the appointment for consideration by Academic Board:
a. a member of Richmond’s Board of Trustees or its Academic Committee, or of
one of its collaborative partners;
b. a current employee of RAIUL or its collaborative partners;
c. anyone with a close professional, contractual or personal relationship with a
member of Faculty or student involved with the programme or any of its
associated courses;
d. former staff or students of the institution unless a period of five years has
elapsed and all students taught by or with the external examiner have
completed their studies;
e. a reciprocal arrangement involving similar or related programmes at another
HEI;
f. the succession of an external examiner by a colleague from the examiner’s
home department and institution;
84
2016-2017
g. the appointment of more than one external examiner from the same
department of the same institution to oversee a programme at Richmond.
J4.6. Nominees should not normally hold more than two other concurrent external
examinerships during the appointment period;
J4.7. Former external examiners may not normally be re-appointed until an

intervening period of at least four years has elapsed;
J4.8. Appointments are normally made for a period of four years. Appointments
may be extended for a further year subject to the approval of Academic Board;
J4.9. Richmond may terminate an external examiner’s contract prior to the normal
expiry date of the appointment if a conflict of interest arises which cannot be
satisfactorily resolved, or if the examiner fails to fulfil his/her obligations to the
University. Examples of this include but are not limited to:
 Non-attendance at an exam board without notice;
 Failure to submit timely external examiner reports
 Submission of external examiner reports that are insufficiently detailed, or
not useful.
J4.10. Only Academic Board can authorise the termination of an External

Examiner’s contract.
J5 The External Examiner’s Role
J5.1. External Examiners are asked to comment and give advice on programme and
constituent course content, balance and structure;
J5.2. Review, evaluate and take oversight of examinations and other forms of
assessment and assessment practices (particularly where these involve
summative assessment);
J5.3. Comment on draft examination papers and scrutinise samples of completed

examination scripts:
a. the external examiner has the right to see all exam scripts;
b. principles for the selection of samples of scripts should be agreed in advance
and will normally correspond with those outlined for internal moderation in
section I5;
c. these principles should ensure that there are sufficient examples from the
top, middle and bottom of the range for the external examiner to be able to
decide whether internal marking and moderation procedures are of an
appropriate standard and are consistent;
d. the external examiner may not change individual marks, but may make
recommendations to the Formal School Exam Board for consideration of
85
2016-2017
adjustments. Where such recommendations are made, and the Board

accepts or rejects them, details must be recorded in the minutes of the
meeting;
e. external examiners should not be asked to act as markers under any
circumstances.
J5.4. Support Richmond Faculty in the calibration of academic standards through

the review and evaluation of the outcomes of the assessment processes;
J5.5. Be a member of, and attend, the relevant Formal School Exam Board, where
their signature is required to support the Board’s recommendations for awards
and recommendations of failure:
a. external examiners are expected to be present at all meetings of the relevant
Formal School Exam Board. In exceptional circumstances, Academic Board
may approve participation by video or telephone conferencing, although the
external examiner must have access to all relevant paperwork in order to be
able to participate in such a meeting and deliver the requirements of the
role;
b. external examiners should be invited to provide an oral report on their main
findings at the Board, and offer comments and advice on any aspect of the
assessment process, which will be minuted. The report and comments may
be used for the APMA;
c. any conflicts of interest should be declared to the Chair as soon as possible.
J5.6. Support and ensure fairness and consistency in the decision-making process;
J5.7. Submit an annual written report to the Provost, commenting on the validity,
reliability and integrity of the assessment process and the standards of Richmond
students’ attainment.
J6 The External Examiner’s Report
J6.1. Examiners are asked to use their expertise and judgement to report on:
a. the appropriateness of the academic standards for the University’s awards;
b. the teaching quality and methodology as evidenced in the work they have
seen, and comments on assessment methods, meeting of learning outcomes
and appropriateness of assessment and marking processes;
c. the standard of students’ performance in the subject area, and the
comparability of their knowledge, skills and understanding with students at
other similar institutions in the sector;
d. the rigour, transparency and consistency of the assessment processes;
e. the equitable treatment of students and the conduct of assessment and
marking;
f. evidence of good practice they have identified;
86
2016-2017
g. the conduct of the Board of Examiners and whether the external examiner’s
participation in the assessment process is sufficient and adequate;
h. the way in which disability issues have been addressed in processes;
i. the procedures for induction and preparation for their role and the time
available to perform it.
J6.2. The Provost’s Office and the Academic Registry conduct a formal orientation
for new External Examiners. The School is responsible for ensuring that the
External Examiner has the correct form and understands how to complete it.
J6.3. The External Examiner must use the associated form and return it to the
Dean of the Academic School within two months of completion of the annual
examination process. If there is a matter for concern, or a confidential issue that
the external examiner wishes to discuss, the report should be sent directly to the
Provost.
J6.4. Reports are normally considered and discussed within the University and
therefore should not allow students or other faculty to be able to identify
individual students from the content of a report. Where an external examiner
believes it would be appropriate and/or necessary to make a confidential report
to the Provost, such reports are dealt with outside the usual procedures for
review and consideration.
J6.5. Fees are authorised for payment upon receipt of the signed report. The
University will reimburse travelling expenses and any other reasonable expenses
associated with the role and responsibilities.
J6.6. Schools are responsible for ensuring that External Examiners are provided
with a response to their comments and recommendations within a reasonable
time. Such responses will include details of any action taken as a result of
comments in the report, or clear reasons for non-acceptance of
recommendations.
J7 University Review and Overview of External Examiners’ Reports
J7.1. The University Exam Board (a sub-committee of Academic Board) considers

the suite of external examiner’s reports for all programmes at the end of each
academic year at their June meetings.
J7.2. School meetings also review and reflect on relevant external examiner
reports for their programmes and courses as part of the APMA. Academic Board
considers External Examiner reports and the School’s responses as part of its
oversight during the annual monitoring process.
87
2016-2017
J7.3. All external examiner reports are scrutinised by the Provost and any major,
institutionally significant issues are raised with the Executive and the Trustees as
appropriate.
J8 Associated Forms and Templates Relating to External Examining
External Examiner nomination form

External Examiner report form
88
2016-2017
K Other Regulatory Issues: Admissions

K1 Principles and Objectives
K1.1 Full details of Richmond’s admissions policies and procedures are located in
the Admissions Policy and Summary of Practice. This is founded on the basic
principles that
a. There is a reasonable expectation that the applicant will be able to
fulfil the learning outcomes of the programme and achieve the
standard required for the award
b. The University’s requirements for the award to which the programme
leads are clearly defined and level-appropriate
c. The regulations for the particular programme of study describe the
knowledge and skills required for admission
d. The University active steps to ensure equality of opportunity for all
applicants
e. In cases where it is proposed that students should be admitted with
less than the defined minimum entry requirements for higher
education, the decision will be clearly justified, and the University will
support students to achieve the standards
f. Evaluation of transfer credit (accreditation of prior learning) is
conducted on an individual case-by-case basis, according to the
policies outlined in the University regulations/catalogue
g. Applicants have a right of appeal against a decision not to admit them
to the institution
K2 External Reference Points
K2.1 The section of the QAA Quality Code relating to Admissions is Chapter B2:
Recruitment, Selection and Admission to Higher Education.
K2.2 Other relevant sections of the Quality Code are as follows:

Chapter B4: Enabling Student Development and Achievement
Chapter B6: Assessment of Students and the Recognition of Prior
Learning
Chapter B9: Academic Appeals and Student Complaints
K2.3 Other relevant QAA publications are as follows:

International students studying in the UK - Guidance for UK higher
education providers (2012).
Assuring Quality for International Students Studying in the UK: A Guide
for UK Higher Education Providers. Draft for consultation (December
2014).
89
2016-2017
K2.4 The sections of the MSCHE Characteristics of Excellence relating to

Admissions are:
Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention
Standard 9: Student Support Services
K3 Internal Reference Points
K3.1. Admissions Policy and Summary of Practice
K3.2. University Academic Regulations / University Catalogue and Catalogue

Archive
K3.3. For information on transfer credit policies (accreditation of prior learning in

UK parlance), please see Transfer Credits and the Academic Affairs section of the
University Catalogue, especially the section entitled “Transfer Credit Policy”.
90
2016-2017
L Other Regulatory Issues: Equality and Diversity

L1 Principles and Objectives
L1.1. Richmond’s mission commits to an articulated vision of “an international

university offering high quality undergraduate and postgraduate education,
research excellence and public engagement.” Its first commitment towards
delivery of this mission is “to internationalism, cosmopolitanism and diversity in
all endeavours of the university.” (University Mission Statement)
L1.2. As described in the Introduction to the QAA Quality Code: “The essence of
equality is treating everyone with equal dignity and respect, and valuing people
regardless of their background or the group or groups to which they belong. An
inclusive environment for learning anticipates individual difference and aims to
ensure that all students have equal access to educational opportunities, through
inclusive design wherever possible and through reasonable individual
adjustments where necessary.”
L1.3. Richmond is committed to this general principle, and to the principle of equal
opportunities in admissions, employment and access to programmes. The
university operates in the context of UK “protected characteristics”, and declares
its opposition to any form of less favourable treatment or financial reward,
whether through direct or indirect discrimination, harassment, victimisation or
segregation accorded to employees, job applicants, applicants for admission or
students on the grounds of their age, disability, gender reassignment, marital or
civil partnership status, pregnancy or maternity, race, colour, nationality, ethnic
or national origin, religion or belief (including lack of such belief), political
opinions, sex or sexual orientation.
L1.4. Richmond is committed to ensuring that no student is placed at a

disadvantage as a result of their particular requirements or background. The
University takes all reasonable steps to remove barriers to student participation
in all aspects of the academic and social life of the higher education provider. In
particular, it provides support and assistance to students with disabilities and/or
special educational needs.
L1.5. Senior managers lead the promotion of equality, including developing

inclusive policy and practice which aims to enhance the experience of every
student. All University Committees have “Equality and Diversity” as a standing
item on meeting agendas.
L2 External Reference Points
91
2016-2017
L2.1 The Equality Act (2010). Note that The Equality Act incorporates and replaces
the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995. For detailed information on the
Equality Act, see the Guidance provided by the UK government.
L2.2 Equality Challenge Unit. Equality Act 2010: Implications for Colleges and HEIs
revised. 2012.
L2.3 Equality and Human Rights Commission. Further and Higher Education
Providers Guidance.
L2.4 The Americans with Disabilities Act (1990). Guidance on protecting students
with disabilities is provided by the DoE, and advice specific to universities is
provided by the ADA.
L2.5 Equality and Diversity is embedded and addressed in all sections of the QAA
Quality Code. It is a central consideration behind all expectations. Of particular
relevance, however, are chapters B1 to B6 and B9.
L2.6 Other relevant QAA publications are as follows:

The Single Equality Scheme. (2011).
International students studying in the UK - Guidance for UK higher
education providers (2012).
Assuring Quality for International Students Studying in the UK: A Guide
for UK Higher Education Providers. Draft for consultation (December
2014).
L2.7 Equality and Diversity is embedded and addressed in all sections of the
MSCHE Characteristics of Excellence. Of particular relevance to Equality are
sections 8-14, and especially:
L3 Internal Reference Points
L3.1. University Mission Statement
L3.2. University Academic Regulations / University Catalogue and Catalogue

Archive
L3.3. Admissions Policy and Summary of Practice
L3.4. Support for Students with Disabilities
L3.5. Student Charter
92
2016-2017
L3.6. Employment Handbook (esp. “Equal Opportunities”, p. 79)
L3.7. University Privacy Policy
L3.8. Child Protection Policy (for students admitted under the age of 18)
93
2016-2017
M Other Regulatory Issues: Student Complaints and Appeals

M1 Principles and Objectives
M1.1 Full details of Richmond’s complaints and appeals policies and procedures are
located in the following documents:
a. Academic Appeals Policy
b. Academic Related Complaints Policy
c. Student Code of Conduct (including the procedure for non-academic-
related complaints)
d. Admissions Policy and Summary of Practice
M1.2 These documents are founded on the following basic principles:

a. The University is committed to continuous improvement and
welcomes feedback from students. Any complaints will be taken
seriously, investigated thoroughly, and answered as promptly as
possible.
b. Students have the opportunity to raise matters of concern without
the risk of disadvantage;
c. All appeals and complaints are dealt with in the strictest of
confidence;
d. Where a complaint is judged to be particularly serious or of such a
sensitive nature that the initial informal procedures of address would
be inappropriate (e.g. in cases of an accusation of sexual harassment
or alleged criminal activity), formal procedures are engaged in
immediately to resolve the situation quickly.
e. Any complaint considered to be vexatious or frivolous will be rejected,
with reasons, at the earliest possible time;
f. Students who have exhausted all of the University’s appeals and
complaints procedures and who remain dissatisfied with the
conclusion, have the right to appeal to the Office of the Independent
Adjudicator.
M2 External Reference Points
M2.1 The section of the QAA Quality Code relating to appeals and complaints is
Chapter B9: Academic Appeals and Student Complaints.
M2.2 Other relevant sections of the Quality Code are as follows:

Chapter B2: Recruitment, Selection and Admission to Higher
Education
Chapter B4: Enabling Student Development and Achievement
Chapter B5: Student Engagement
Chapter B6: Assessment of Students and the Recognition of Prior
Learning
94
2016-2017
M2.3 Other relevant QAA publications are as follows:

Raising concerns about standards and quality in higher education:
guide and submission form.
M2.4 The sections of the MSCHE Characteristics of Excellence relating to appeals

and complaints are:
M2.5 Other relevant resources provided by the Office of the Independent

Adjudicator for Higher Education include the following:
Rules of The Student Complaints Scheme
The Good Practice Framework for Handling Complaints and Appeals
M3 Internal Reference Points
M3.1 Academic Appeals Policy
M3.2 Academic Related Complaints Policy
M3.3 Student Code of Conduct (including the procedure for non-academic-related

complaints)
M3.4 Admissions Policy and Summary of Practice
M3.5 University Academic Regulations / University Catalogue and Catalogue

Archive
M3.6 Student Charter
M3.7 University Privacy Policy
95
2016-2017
N Appendix 1: Glossary of Terms
AA Degree: “Associate of Arts” degree. A US undergraduate qualification consisting

of two years of study (60 US credits). If often comprises the first two years of a four-
year US BA.
Activity: also called “graded activity” – an individual graded element of a course

subject to formal assessment. Graded activities combine to form the overall final
grade for a course.
Advanced Placement (AP): Courses at US university-level study taken by senior-level

high school students. Successful completion of AP exams are accepted as “transfer
credit” for first-year courses in US universities (UK Level 3). This should not be
confused with the UK term “APL” – Advanced Placement courses represent a
formalized name course of study:
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/about.html
Core Curriculum: A minimum of 10 courses required of all Richmond

undergraduates, combining study in several major branches of knowledge with
interdisciplinary courses across the curriculum.
Course: Normally called “module” in UK HE. A discrete unit of study that is assessed
and for which credit is awarded upon successful completion.
Course Specification Document (CSD): Document setting out the basic required
elements of a course – course description, credit value, assessment, etc.
Degree Planner/Degree Planning Document: Spreadsheet outlining the degree

requirements for each major and specific to a particular entry cohort(s) of students.
The degree planner is used by students and advisors to track progress of course
completion, and a completed version is submitted as the “Graduation Check List”.
Faculty: academic staff whose sole or principal activity is teaching and research
General Education Requirements: Academic literacy and numeracy requirements of

the core curriculum.
GPA (Grade Point Average): The numerical equivalent for the US letter grade
assigned to each course is multiplied by the number of credits for that course to give
the number of “quality points” for that course. The GPA is then the sum of the
quality points for all courses divided by the total number of credits of all courses
attempted. Transfer credit is not included in the GPA calculation. See:
http://www.richmond.ac.uk/admitted-students/catalogues/
Graduation Audit: Final check conducted by the Academic Registry to ensure that a
student has completed all requirements for graduation.
96
2016-2017
Graduation Check List: A completed degree planner, signed by the student and
his/her academic adviser – it forms the basis of the graduation audit.
Incomplete: A “placeholder” overall final grade of “I” is assigned when a student has
successfully petitioned for a re-sit exam or an extension to course work into the
following semester. The final grade for the course is revised and assigned by the
instructor upon completion of the course requirements. Incomplete grades must be
reconciled by the semester immediately following the one in which the incomplete is
assigned.
Internships: work-based placements taken for academic credit.
Latin Honours: Graduating students whose cumulative GPA is at least 3.4 may
graduate with honors: cum laude if their major GPA is at least 3.5, magna cum laude
if their major GPA is at least 3.6, or summa cum laude if their major GPA is at least
3.7.
Liberal Arts: a tradition of higher education requiring the student to study a wide
range of academic subjects in the first and second years before specializing in one or
two academic disciplines
Major: The subject in which a student specializes – distinct from any core
curriculum, general education or minor requirements.
Minor: An optional subject of specialization outside of the major, consisting of 18 US

credits (normally 6 courses).
Partner Institution: In the context of OU validation, a partner institution is one who

has been OU-validated for a minimum period of 5 years. Partner institutions have
more autonomy than newly-validated “associate” institutions.
President: Equivalent to the post of Vice-Chancellor in the UK.
Programme: Equivalent to “course” in the UK – the degree programme consists of

all major, core curriculum, credit and Level requirements for graduation.
Provost: Equivalent to Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Academic in the UK
Residential Advisor/Residential Assistant: Student workers who live in university

residence and offer support to the residential community.
Semester: The main unit of the Richmond calendar – two 15-week semesters and
one optional 6-week summer session make up the academic year at the university.
Study Centres: Richmond’s other instructional sites in Florence and Rome, offering
courses (primarily to study abroad students, not Richmond degree-seeking
undergraduates).
Study Abroad: Undergraduates from other universities in the United States who
study for a semester at Richmond and transfer credit back to their home institutions.
97
2016-2017
Transfer Credit: equivalent to APL in the UK, transfer credit allows the award of
equivalent credit at Richmond for university-level study completed elsewhere.
Individual transfer credit evaluations are conducted for students, and equivalent
credit awarded. Transfer credit amongst universities in the US is very common, and
MSCHE regulations outline the circumstances of its award
(http://www.msche.org/documents/Transfer,-Prior-Learning,-Articulation---
1110.pdf).
US credit system: US credit is closely tied to classroom contact hours. A “credit

hour” is a unit of measure representing the equivalent of an hour (50 minutes) of
instruction per week over the entire term. It is the basis of the total number of
credits needed for completing the requirements of a degree. One lecture credit hour
represents one hour per week of scheduled class time and 2 hours of student
preparation time. Most lecture and seminar courses are awarded 3 credits – the US
credit system does not factor in expected student preparation time into the number
of credits awarded. This is the reason that 1 US credit = 2 ECTS credits = 4 UK CATS
credit (http://www.msche.org/documents/Degree-and-Credit-Guidelines-062209-
FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf).
View Book: The university prospectus.
98
2016-2017
O Appendix 2: Standard University Abbreviations

General
AAC Academic Appeals and Complaints Committee
AB Academic Board (Fall 2015—)
AC Academic Council (--Spring 2012)
AIA Annual Institutional Assessment
AIFS American Institute for Foreign Studies
AMR Annual Monitoring Report
APC Academic Procedures Committee
APMA Annual Programme Monitoring and Assessment
ASC Academic Standards Committee (--Spring 2012)
B&E Business and Economics
CASS Communications, Arts, and Social Sciences
CCL Curricular Changes Log
CDC Curriculum Development Committee (Fall 2015—)
CHP Course Homepage
CLT Centre for Learning and Teaching
CSD Course Specification Document
DAAQA Department of Academic Affairs and Quality Assurance
ECTS European Credit Transfer System
EE External Examiner
FAB Final Assessment Board
GAC Grievance and Appeals Committee (--SP13)
IM Internal Moderation
LEAD Leadership, Education And Development Seminars
LTPC Learning and Teaching Policy Committee (Fall 2012—Spring 2015)
LTS Learning and Teaching Strategy
MSCHE Middle States Commission on Higher Education
PC Provost’s Council
PDP Personal Development Plan
PRC Planning and Resources Committee
PS Programme Specification
R@R Research at Richmond
RA Resident Advisor
RD Resident Director
RPC Research Policy Committee
RPS Research and Professional Engagement Strategy
SA Study Abroad
SCC Student Code of Conduct
SDPR Student Degree Programme Representative
SEN Special Educational Needs
SG Student Government
SMT Senior Management Team (--FA13)
UB University Board
99
2016-2017
Academic Subject
ACC Accounting
ADM Art, Design and Media
AMS American Studies
APR Advertising and PR
ART Studio Art (Italian Study Centres)*
AVC Art History and Visual Culture
COM Communications
CRW Creative Writing
DEV Development Studies
EAP English for Academic Purposes*
ECN Economics
ENT Entrepreneurship
ENV Environmental Science*
FEC Financial Economics
FLM Film Studies
FNN Finance
FSH Fashion
GEP General Education Programme
HST History
IDE International Development Economics
INB International Business
INR International Relations
ISL Independent Service Learning*
ITL Italian Language (Italian Study Centres)*
JRN International Journalism
LIT Literature
MCL Modern Chinese Language and Culture
MGT Management
MKT Marketing
MSC Music*
MTH Math*
PHL Philosophy*
PLT Political Science
PSY Psychology
RLG Religion*
SCL Sociology*
SPT International Sports Management
THR Theatre and Performance Arts
VAM Visual Arts Management
*indicates that a degree is not offered in this subject
100

Quality Manual 2016 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Quality Manual 2016 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quality Manual 2016 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RAIUL Quality Manual V3

Richmond, the American International University

D15 Validation – Detailed Procedures: Possible Validation meeting outcomes . 39

G3 Discontinuation of a Programme Internal Reference Points ........................ 67

M Other Regulatory Issues: Student Complaints and Appeals ...........................94

Figure 1: University Committees................................................................................. 12

Version Date Published

A1.1. Richmond’s QM provides guidance and outlines policies and procedures

a. describe the University’s strategic approach to quality management, setting

principles underlying such implementation. As such, it is both a regulatory and

A2 QA Principles Underlying the Quality Manual

A3 The Relationship of the Quality Manual to other University Regulations

A3.1. Richmond’s Quality Manual addresses the following chief areas:

B Academic Governance and Quality Mechanisms

B2 Academic Governance and QA/QE Mechanisms: External Reference Points

B2.4. Other useful references on UK expectations with regard to academic

B3 Academic Governance and Quality Mechanisms Internal Reference Points

B3.1. University Governance Documents (including the University Bylaws)

B3.2. Terms of Reference of University Committees

B3.3. University Committees Organizational Charts

B3.4. Student Government Constitution

B3.5. University Academic Regulations / University Catalogue and Catalogue

B3.6. Richmond Quality Code Mapping Chart (updated annually)

B3.7. Learning and Teaching Strategy and related strategies

B4 University Management of Standards and Quality

B4.1. The University’s approach to managing academic standards and quality is

of the Academic Committee is to provide academic oversight of the University,

B4.6. The management of the University is conducted by the Executive Committee,

Figure 1: University Committees

B5 The Academic Board and its sub-committees

B5.1. Deliberative consideration of quality in relation to professional and

B5.2. Deliberative consideration of quality in relation to academic standards is

Manual are approved by UB. Academic regulations are approved by Academic

B5.8. Academic Board considers matters in relation to learning and teaching to

B6 Management of US and UK Quality Expectations

B6.1. Richmond is a much-examined institution, as a result of its dual identity as

B7 The MSCHE Accreditation Cycle

B7.1. Decennial Evaluation: This involves a significant institutional self-study

Figure 2: Typical Decennial Evaluation Structure

B7.4. DAAQA is responsible for the coordination of MSCHE review processes, in

B8 The QAA Review Cycle

C New Programme Design

C1.4 Curriculum design will also take account of graduate employability.

C1.6 A programme must demonstrate balance in relation to academic and

C1.7 Programme Teams must note the overall expectations as to degree

C1.9 There must be adequate levels of staffing to support the proposed

C1.11 There must be an appropriate overall strategy for academic support,

C2 Programme Design External Reference Points

C2.4. The sections of the MSCHE Characteristics of Excellence relating to

C3 Programme Design Internal Reference Points

C3.1. Curriculum Development Committee Terms of Reference

C3.2. Learning and Teaching Strategy

C3.3. Academic Board Terms of Reference

C3.4. University Assessment Norms

C3.5. University Feedback Norms

C3.6. University Academic Regulations / University Catalogue and Catalogue

C3.7. Credit Hour Policy

C4 Programme Design Expectations – Undergraduate Degrees