Principles for Programme Design

 

The following provides guidance on the principles to be considered when new programmes are designed.

 

1.         The University’s Mission and Ethos and Learning and Teaching Aspirations

 

Programme proposals should be compatible with the University’s Mission and Ethos and Learning and Teaching Aspirations, and with Faculty and Departmental Development Plans.

 

2.         The Intended Aims of the Programme

 

The Aims describe the broad purpose of the programme, indicating the major areas of knowledge and understanding. This includes, where appropriate, any prior study or experiences that the programme builds on and future study or experiences that it prepares students for, and the main transferable or personal skills that will be developed or encouraged. The Aims will be presented as Section 1 in the Programme Specification and will provide the context for the more specific Intended Learning Outcomes.

 

 3.        Intended Learning Outcomes

 

Guidance on Intended Learning Outcomes can be found in the Programme Specification Template and Guidance Notes at http://www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/ar/templates/index.htm.

ILOs for constituent modules should be consistent with the programme’s aims and ILOs. This should be illustrated in the proposal documentation by mapping these against each other in a table. Consideration should be given to how ILOs will be demonstrated and assessed (see 4 below).

           

4.         Methodology for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

 

Consideration should be given to providing variety in methods of Learning, Teaching and Assessment, whilst ensuring that these are appropriate to achieve ILOs. Assessment methods should be an appropriate test for ILOs, and should be guided by relevant Subject Benchmark Statements. In considering issues related to assessment practice, programme proposers should refer to [DOCUMENT ABOUT TO GO OUT FROM PDQ. SEE ATTACHED DRAFT]

 

5.         The Level of the Programme

 

Consideration should be given to the level of the programme and to the level of the stated learning outcomes at any named stages in the programme. A level is an indicator of the relative demand, complexity, depth of study and learner autonomy involved in a programme. Various systems are currently in use to identify levels, including descriptors indicating the intellectual and skill attainment expected of students (see, for example, those recommended in the National Credit Guidelines for HE qualifications at http://www.nuccat.ac.uk/credit.htm). Departments should be guided by the attainment thresholds presented in relevant Subject Benchmark Statements and by the QAA’s Framework for Higher Education Qualifications available at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/public/publications.htm

 

6.         Progression

 

In accordance with the level of the programme and the level of the stated learning outcomes at any named stages in the programme, consideration should be given to the way in which the curriculum promotes an organised progression so that the demands on the learner in intellectual challenge, skills, knowledge, conceptualisation and learning autonomy increase.

 

7.         Balance

 

Consideration should be given to the balance within the programme of a number of elements, typically academic and practical elements, a concern for personal development and academic outcomes and a determination of breadth and depth of the subject material to be included in the programme. The balance should be reflected in the Knowledge and Understanding, Subject-Specific Skills and Key/Transferable Skills sections of ILOs.

 

8.         Coherence

 

Consideration should be given to the overall coherence and intellectual integrity of the programme. The programme should be designed in a way that will ensure the student’s experience has a logic and integrity that are clearly linked to the purpose of the programme.

 

9.         Integrity

 

The expectations given to students and others about the intended learning outcomes of the programme should be honest and deliverable. Consideration should be given to the feasibility of attainment of the outcomes.

 

10.       Qualification Title

 

Annex 2 of the QAA’s Framework for Higher Education Qualifications provides guidelines to assist institutions in achieving consistency in the ways in which qualification titles convey information about the level, nature and subjects of study. The title of the award should reflect the Intended Learning Outcomes of the programme.

 

11.       Flexibility

 

The range of requirements of learners likely to enter the programme should be considered.

 

12.       Opportunities on Completion of the Programme

 

These should be considered in consultation with the Careers Service and possibly with potential employers when appropriate.

 

13.       Resources

 

The resources necessary and available to support the programme should be considered in consultation with the relevant support services.

 

14.       Reference Points

 

Internal and external points of reference should be used to inform the design of the programme. In addition to Subject Benchmark Statements, the QAA’s Framework for Higher Education Qualifications and the National Credit Guidelines for HE Qualifications mentioned above, external reference points might include information about similar or parallel programmes elsewhere, expectations of professional or statutory regulatory bodies (e.g. for accreditation/graduate registration), or employer expectations.

 

 

                                                                                   

 

To:       Departmental ‘Audit Contacts’

 

From: Robert Bowyer,

            Programme Development & Quality Team Manager

 

Date:  

 

 

 

Reflecting on Assessment Practice

 

Please find attached a short stimulus note setting out some questions that departments may find useful in reviewing their assessment practice.

 

Student assessment is a key area in relation to academic quality and standards.  A whole section of the QAA Code of Practice is devoted to it and the University will be expected to discuss its own assessment policy and procedures in the self-evaluation document being prepared for the Institutional Audit.  Departments in turn need to think about the sort of questions on student assessment that may arise at the time of the Institutional Audit in the Discipline Audit Trail process. 

 

This note is the product of a piece of work, commissioned by the PDQ Team and the Audit Steering Group, designed to assist departments in thinking about their approach to assessment issues.  The questions will also be of value as part of the preparation for internal Periodic Programme Reviews, and in Annual Programme Review discussions with ADTs. 

 

The questions are meant to be indicative rather than exhaustive, and it is expected that departments will generate additional questions on other aspects of assessment practice germane to their particular disciplines.  It will be important for departments to develop credible and well-considered responses that can be produced, if required, for the purposes of a Discipline Audit Trail.

 

It is recommended that this note be tabled for initial discussion at the Departmental Learning and Teaching Committee (or equivalent), ideally at their first meeting in the new academic year, and that the Chair of the committee subsequently highlights for the rest of the department areas for further consideration and possible action.  The thinking is that the questions will enable all colleagues with a responsibility for programmes and modules to engage in a robust review process as regards their assessment practice. 

 

If you have any queries about the contents of this note or require further information please contact Peter Maunder, Ext 2706, e-mail: w.p.maunder@lboro.ac.uk or Jan Tennant, Ext 2387, e-mail: j.m.tennant@lboro.ac.uk .

 

No reply is required. 

 

Reflecting on Assessment Practice

 

 

Nature and Rationale

 

1.      How wide a range of assessment methods do you use and why?
(You could compare the range of your assessment methods with those listed in the subject benchmark document(s) relevant to the subjects offered by your department).

2.      In what way do your assessment methods align with/differ from Departments that you regard as similar in standing?
(You could consult with colleagues who act as external examiners elsewhere).

3.      How do the views of employer/professional bodies (where applicable) affect your approaches to assessment?
(For example, do you have a standing Industrial Advisory Committee, or do you consult with colleagues in industry when you are planning a new programme or contemplating changes to an existing one?).

 

Supporting Learning and Progression

 

4.      How do assessments methods reflect student learning needs at different levels?
(For example, Parts A, B, C, D and PG).

5.      What support is given to students when they are expected to undertake new forms of assessment for the first time?
(For example, is there a departmental policy or strategy, or is it left to the discretion of individual tutors?).

6.      How effective do you consider to be the feedback mechanisms in place to help improve student learning?
(You could consider both feedback to and from students).

7.      How do you enhance the development of transferable/key skills in your discipline?
(For example, do you have a key skills strategy and/or a member of staff who has responsibility for this part of the curriculum?).

 

Standards

 

8.      What procedures does the Department’s Learning and Teaching Committee (or equivalent) have in place to ensure consistency of marking within and across modules?
(You could consider the effectiveness of these procedures).

9.      To what extent have External Examiners suggested that your Department experiment with new forms of assessment?
(If they have, what actions were taken and were they effective?).

10.  To what extent have External Examiners expressed any concerns about the reliability of specific assessment methods?
(If you have made changes as a result of such criticism, what has been the effectiveness of such changes?).

Equity

 

11.  How far do the assessment methods used recognise differences in the diverse backgrounds of students?
(You may wish to reflect upon whether you review of assessment methods has kept up with changes in your student population).

12.  To what extent are you able to demonstrate that consideration has been given to whether different modes of assessment impact differentially on identifiable student groupings such as:

(For example, are these issues addressed as part of Annual Programme Review and/or Periodic Programme Review?).

 

 

Information for Students

 

13.  What information is available and easily accessible to students, in Departmental Student Handbooks or elsewhere, on a range of assessment practice issues including:

 

·                     assessment requirements

·                     marking/grading criteria (for the various assessment methods operating within modules)

·                     timings of assessment

·                     degree classification

·                     plagiarism

·                     appeals procedure

·                     academic misconduct procedures?

 

(You may wish to reflect upon whether this is adequate for your students’ needs).

 

 

Staff Development

14.   How do colleagues keep abreast of developments/innovations in assessment practice?
(For example, is there departmental encouragement in this regard or is it a matter for individual tutors?).

15.   How does the Department ensure that each of the following categories of staff can take advantage of developmental activities to support assessment practice:

 

 

(For example, participation in sessions run by Staff Development, Department-based events, Learning and Teaching Subject Network activities, mentoring).

Monitoring

 

16.  Does the Departmental Learning and Teaching Committee (or equivalent) have any systematic means of monitoring:

 

(What is the effectiveness of any such measures?).