Guidelines on the Approval of Disciplines, Programmes and Courses

<strong>Guidelines</strong> on the 

Approval of Disciplines, 

Programmes and Courses 

(including Programme Proposals for 

Restructuring the Academic Year) 

March 2007 

Updated October 2010

<strong>Guidelines</strong> on the Approval of Disciplines, Programmes and Courses 

(including Programme Proposals for Restructuring the Academic Year) 

CONTENTS 

Preface 3 

Part A Background to the <strong>Guidelines</strong> 4 

Part B 

Courses 

1. Approval of Courses 5-6 

2. Withdrawal of Courses 6 

Part C 

Approval of Programmes 

1. Understanding Risk 7-8 

2. Standard Process for Approval: Discipline-Level Submissions 8-9 

3. Service Teaching 9 

4. Aspects of a Programme requiring Approval 9-12 

5. Documentation for Approval of Programmes 12 

6. Withdrawal of Programme 13 

Part D 

Appendices 

1. Guidance on Curriculum Structure (RAY) 14 

2. Format of Programme Proposal: Rationale and Templates 15-17 

3. Format of Discipline Proposal: Rationale and Templates 18-20 

4. Approvals Procedures: Coversheets and Templates 21 

Stages of Development 

Stage 1: Key principles of RAY Approval Processes approved by Senate, 25 October 2006 

Draft1: 

Draft 2: 

Draft 3: 

First full draft discussed informally with Deans of the University and with the Academic Registry, 

31 October 2006. 

First formal draft circulated to Learning and Teaching Board, Quality Enhancement and Standards 

Committee, Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies Committees, 15 December 2006; 

considered by above committees at meetings in January 2007. 

Second draft produced to incorporate comments from Learning and Teaching Board and Senate 

Committees, 8 February 2007. 

Second draft endorsed by Learning and Teaching Board, 15 February 2007. 

Second draft approved by Senate, 7 March 2007. 

Third and final draft produced, incorporating aspects of current approvals procedures to be 

retained and discipline, programme and course templates. 

Various versions of Draft 1 and Service Teaching Policy in Draft 2 were produced by Professor R J M 

Craik, Deputy Principal (Learning and Teaching) 

All enquiries and comments on the <strong>Guidelines</strong> should be directed to: 

General 

Dr Maggie King 

Assistant Registrar (Learning 

Strategies) 

Tel: 0131 451 3728 

Email: m.king@hw.ac.uk 

Undergraduate 

Helen Crosby 

Clerk to Undergraduate Studies Committee 

Tel: 0131 451 3445 

Email: h.crosby@hw.ac.uk 

Postgraduate 

Rachel Bourhill 

Clerk to Postgraduate Studies Committee 

Tel: 0131 451 3384 

Email: r.bourhill@hw.ac.uk 

Deans of the University and Academic Registry staff will gladly assist Schools with any aspects 

of preparing proposals documentation for approval. Contact details as above. 

Training on the modified approvals process will be provided for members of the Studies 

Committees; such sessions will also be open to any School staff members who wish to attend. 

Discipline, Programme and Course Approval <strong>Guidelines</strong> (including Programme Proposals for Restructuring the Academic Year) 2

<strong>Guidelines</strong> on the Approval of Disciplines, Programmes and Courses 

(including Programme Proposals for Restructuring the Academic Year) 

Preface 

Summary 

The following <strong>Guidelines</strong> on the Approval of Disciplines, Programmes and Courses 1 have been produced to 

enhance current procedures, and highlight and refocus on University priorities, and are designed for 

introduction as part of the preparations for Restructuring the Academic Year (RAY), whereby the institution 

will move to a two-block teaching and assessment structure from September 2008. 

Using the <strong>Guidelines</strong> 

These <strong>Guidelines</strong> cover the approvals processes for undergraduate programmes as well as for graduate and 

taught postgraduate programmes. The Approval <strong>Guidelines</strong> consist of a series of templates and supporting 

guidelines, and are designed to assist in the process of: preparing and submitting RAY-modified 

programmes for consideration by Undergraduate or Postgraduate Studies Committee; completing the 

various discipline, programme and course templates; clarifying proposals which require approval of the 

Undergraduate or Postgraduate Studies Committee and those which have been devolved to Schools for 

approval. 

For the specific purpose of submitting RAY modifications, these <strong>Guidelines</strong> should be used in conjunction 

with two accompanying documents: 

1. Undergraduate Curriculum Structure <strong>Guidelines</strong>; Graduate and Postgraduate Taught Curriculum 

Structure <strong>Guidelines</strong> 

The Undergraduate Curriculum Structure <strong>Guidelines</strong> and the Graduate and Postgraduate Taught 

Curriculum Structure <strong>Guidelines</strong> are designed to assist Directors of Learning and Teaching, 

Discipline/Programme Teams and individual members of academic staff in the process of re-designing 

existing curricula to incorporate the key requirements of RAY. In addition, they are also intended to 

cultivate the introduction of a diversity of teaching, learning and assessment approaches, albeit within a 

coherent, University-wide academic framework. The <strong>Guidelines</strong> also provide a number of options which 

Schools may wish to consider implementing as part of the overall programme re-design for RAY. 

2. Curriculum Design Toolkits 

The above Curriculum Structure <strong>Guidelines</strong> provide a summary of the core academic principles of RAY: 

skills development (introduction to scholarship, employability and professional career readiness, researchinformed 

learning); variety of assessment methods; informative feedback; internationalisation; induction 

and transition. Advice on how to develop and integrate these principles into programmes is provided in the 

accompanying Learning, Teaching and Assessment Toolkits, which have been produced by the 

Educational Development Unit. 

Development of the <strong>Guidelines</strong> 

The various initial versions of these guidelines were produced by the Deputy Principal (Learning and 

Teaching), with input from the Deans of the University and the Academic Registry, and were based on a 

series of key principles of the revised approvals process, as agreed by the Senate on 25 October 2006. The 

first formal draft was considered by the Learning and Teaching Board, Quality Enhancement and Standards 

Committee, Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies Committees during January 2007. The second 

version was produced early February 2007 to take account of comments made during the Committee 

consultation, and was endorsed by the Learning and Teaching Board on 15 February 2007 and was 

approved by the Senate at its meeting on 7 March 2007. The final and published version includes aspects of 

the current approvals procedure which have been retained. 

Sample completed programme proposals, templates and coversheets will be issued in due course, to 

provide Programme Teams with examples of the types of information to be submitted to the Studies 

Committees. 

These <strong>Guidelines</strong> are very much a working document, and they will be revised in response to any 

difficulties or issues identified by Schools during the process of preparing proposals for approval. In 

addition, more detailed guidance on the practicalities of the approvals process will be provided once the 

appropriate components of the new Student Administration Service (SAS) have been implemented. 

1 

These guidelines focus primarily on approval process for courses; information on discipline and course approval is provided where 

appropriate. 


A. Background to the <strong>Guidelines</strong> 

1. Re-focusing the Approvals Process 

All programmes 2 must be approved by the Undergraduate or Postgraduate Studies Committee on behalf 

of Senate before they can be offered to students. The issues that the Committees consider are formally 

written down in guidance notes and programme template forms (as provided in appendices to these 

guidelines), but not all matters are considered to the same degree of detail and current practices have 

been shaped both by the judgements of the committee members and by the customs of the Faculty 

Boards and Postgraduate Studies Committee (pre-August 2002), which existed before present Studies 

Committees. 

Since the current Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies Committees were established (August 

2002), as part of the restructuring of the institution and its committees, the University has changed 

significantly. The Schools, which were formed as part of the restructuring, are now integrated and wellmanaged 

units, and have generally robust systems in place for managing the approval, monitoring and 

delivery of programmes. Therefore many of the traditional aspects of approval add little value to the 

scrutiny already in place in the Schools. On the other hand, expansion of the number of programmes 

delivered off-campus and the evolving flexible methods of delivery on-campus, both of which are in line 

with the institution’s strategic plan, pose new risks for the University, as these are areas where Schools 

are in general less experienced and so School processes may be less secure. 

It is, therefore, appropriate to refocus the effort of Undergraduate and Postgraduate Committees in its 

programme approval function to consider areas where the Committees could add greatest value and 

where there is greatest risk to the University. 

Restructuring the Academic Year (RAY) provides an opportunity to re-focus approvals processes, 

whereby the more routine, secure aspects are devolved to Schools, while the Committees consider 

areas where there could be a risk to academic quality and standards. There is an additional impetus to 

ensure that approval processes are as efficient as possible ahead of the significant University-wide 

programme changes which Schools will introduce as part of RAY. The streamlining of approvals 

processes will also be integral to the development of the new Student Administration Service (SAS), 

which will be implemented, along with RAY, from September 2008. 

2. Approval in Principle of the Revised Process 

Before preparing the detailed guidelines below, the underlying principles were discussed at the Learning 

and Teaching Board (LTB), Quality Enhancement and Standards Committee (QESC), Undergraduate 

Studies Committee (USC) and the Postgraduate Studies Committee (PSC) in October 2006. There was 

broad agreement on the underlying principles, though recognition that much of the detail needed to be 

agreed. Of particular importance was the need to ensure that, wherever possible, the Committees should 

oversee School processes and only exceptionally review the detailed evidence. 

At the Senate meeting on 25 October 2006: 

1. Senate approved in principle that the approval of courses (content, assessment etc) should be 

devolved mainly and possible entirely to Schools. 

2. Senate approved in principle that the USC and PSC would continue to be responsible for the approval 

of programmes and for ensuring the coherence, currency and completeness of the academic content 

and for academic standards. 

- In addition the Committees will be explicitly responsible for the consistency of programmes, 

alignment with the University strategy and the sufficiency of resources and expertise for the 

modes of study and locations of study being proposed. 

- The additional responsibilities will mainly involve the Committees checking the School 

processes, as was agreed for the approval of new programmes in Dubai. 

2 

Approval of disciplines (where a new discipline is being offered) is the responsibility of the Planning and Management Executive, given 

that a new discipline is likely to require significant levels of start-up costs. 


B. Courses 

1. Approval of Courses 

Much of the business of the U/PSC Committees is currently taken up with checking individual courses. 

Consideration of course content, methods of assessment and approaches to teaching is an activity that 

Schools carry out effectively and efficiently, and the additional scrutiny by the Committees consumes 

considerable effort and time, and frequently adds little value (with the possible exception of highlighting 

areas of inconsistency with SCQF, eg learning outcomes seem to be at a lower level than the level at 

which the courses is being offered). 

1.1 Devolution of Course Approval to Schools 

Under the revised arrangements, approval of courses (content, assessment etc) will be devolved to 

each School under the general oversight of the U/PSC; each School currently has in place its own 

committee structure to provide the requisite oversight and approval. It is intended that U/PSC will 

only be involved in course approval if a specific issue or question arises in which case the 

Committee is the first place for further consideration. An appropriate process will need to be 

developed by Academic Registry*. 

It should be noted that the Planning and Management Executive (PME) has approved a Policy on 

Service Teaching 3 : 

any School can offer any course (or group of courses) where it has the expertise and resources 

to do so for any programme that falls within its discipline area. 

Committees should only consider individual courses where it is not clear that the School has the 

expertise or resources to deliver it. Further discussion is provided in the section on Service 

Teaching. 

For the purposes of approval and publication, Schools should continue to use the University’s 

standard Course Descriptor template (http://www.hw.ac.uk/quality/approval-procedures.htm: see 

Appendix 4). Schools may wish to consider whether they use the existing, adapt or develop their 

own associated coversheets for: 

 

 

 

 

Application for approval of a new course 

Application for approval of modifications to a course 

Notification of modifications to a course 

Application for approval of withdrawal of a course 

*Since the devolution of course approval processes to Schools will be intrinsically linked to the introduction of 

the new Student Administration Service (SAS), online procedures will be developed as part of the overall SAS 

Project. Following the outcome of the SAS business process review and re-design of programme and course 

procedures, full details of the practical application of the online, devolved course approval system will be 

provided. In the meantime, the devolved approach will be supported through ISS. 

1.2 Categories of Course Modifications to be notified to the Academic Registry 

In order to ensure the accuracy of course information on the student records system (and 

consequently on student results letters and transcripts) and to ensure that the University 

Timetablers have the correct semester details for teaching and examination timetables, there are 

certain categories of course modifications which, although can be approved in Schools, must be 

notified to the Academic Registry (via the Clerks to USC and PSC): 

 

Title 

 

Semester 

 

Code 

 

Credit-Rating 

 

Level 

 

If the course modification is part of a wider 

discipline/programme proposal being submitted to the 

Studies Committees 

3 

At its meeting on 26 October 2006, the Planning and Management Executive (PME) approved a policy on service teaching, which was 

supported in principle and subsequently endorsed by the Learning and Teaching Board at its meetings on 12 October 2006 and 15 

February 2007. See Section C. Approval of Programmes for further details of the Service Teaching Policy. 


The Academic Registry must also be notified of: 

 

 

New Courses 

Withdrawn Courses 

- and programmes on which new course will be offered 

- and programmes affected by the withdrawal 

1.3 New Courses - to be notified to the Academic Registry 

In order to ensure that the student and timetabling systems are fully updated with new course 

details, Schools should provide the following information on new courses to the Academic Registry 

via the Clerks of the Studies Committees (the standard course approval form may be used for this 

purpose): 

 

Title 

 

Semester 

 

Code 

 

Credit-Rating 

 

Level 

 

Programmes on which new course will be offered 

 

If the course modification is part of a wider discipline/programme proposal being submitted to 

the Studies Committees (this will enable the Clerk to that new course titles, as presented in 

programme structures, are picked up after having been approved in the School ) 

2. Withdrawal of courses 

This section sets out two procedures for the withdrawal of courses: (1) a short-term, streamlined 

procedure as part of the preparations for RAY; (2) permanent, post-RAY process. 

2.1 Withdrawal of Courses as part of RAY Programme Re-Design 

As a consequence of restructuring and the ongoing review of programmes all courses presently 

being offered will be formally withdrawn (due to the new credit structure). Although it is expected 

that the majority of current courses will continue, albeit in a different format, there may be some 

cases where a course is discontinued (eg for reasons of efficiency). In preference to a complex 

process of requiring Schools to send various proformas to other Schools affected by any such 

withdrawals, the Academic Registry will develop a centrally-accessible spreadsheet whereby each 

School can indicate, for all other Schools to see, any courses being discontinued 4 . 

2.2 Withdrawal of Courses post-RAY 

Within the post-RAY University, when Schools will no longer have to cope with processing 

wholescale programme and course changes and will revert to their standard mechanism of annual 

programme review, the procedures for withdrawing a course will be as follows. 

When a School wishes to withdraw a course, it should write formally to all Schools whose students 

take that course, explaining the reasons for the withdrawal (Schools may wish to use the revised 

Withdrawal of a Course template for such purposes). These other Schools should then consider 

alternative arrangements for the delivery of the courses or else enter into an agreement with the 

original School for the delivery of the course under a financial arrangement that is different from the 

normal service teaching model. Normally, Schools can expect six months’ notice of a course being 

withdrawn. 

Any School has the right not to offer a course that will be taken by students in another School, but 

Schools are expected to co-operate for the greater good of the University. 

4 

Processes to facilitate withdrawal of courses (incl. notification to other Schools) as part of RAY are currently being developed, and will 

be communicated to Schools independently of these <strong>Guidelines</strong>. 


C. Approval of Programmes 

The following information is provided for the purpose of guidance and is not intended to be a prescriptive set 

of rules 5 . 

The Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies Committees are responsible, on behalf of Senate, for all 

aspects of the programmes of study of the University and there is no aspect of any programme that the 

Committees cannot properly consider. However, the time for scrutiny is finite and it is important that this time 

be used for maximum benefit to the University. 

Committee scrutiny should add value to the University in such ways as: 

 

 

 

 

Reducing risk to the University by providing external (to the School) scrutiny 

Alignment with University Strategy 

Advising Schools on University norms and disseminating good practice 

Assuring quality and standards 

1. Understanding Risk 

One of the objectives of Committee scrutiny is to ensure that the programmes offered to students are of 

an appropriate standard or quality and that there is adequate support for students. Experience across 

the HE sector shows that the greatest number of problems occur with activities that are new or remote 

(or both). It is in these areas that there is the greatest risk to the University of a programme failing to 

meet the expected standards or quality, and therefore, it is in those areas where there is the greatest 

need for additional scrutiny by the Committees of Senate. 

1.1 Risk - Committee Scrutiny 

Wherever possible, the Studies Committees should scrutinise the School management of the 

programmes and processes, and form a judgement on any issue based on the process used by the 

School. Where a School does not seem to have a secure and robust process, then the Committee 

may ask to see the evidence used by the School to reach a decision. Such cases may be likely 

where, for example, a mode of study or location of delivery is new for a School, and, in 

consequence, it has not yet developed appropriate internal procedures or else does not have the 

experience to form a sound judgement. 

The Studies Committees should recognise that the risk to the University and the value of scrutiny 

are different for different modes of study and locations of study. 

All Schools have a Home Campus: School of Textiles and Design is at the Scottish Borders Campus 

and for the other seven Schools, this is the Edinburgh Campus. As a general rule, the least risk and 

least value-added from detailed scrutiny concern programmes delivered at the Home Campus by 

conventional teaching methods; in those cases the scrutiny should be a light touch. When a 

programme is delivered at another location, the risk is increased and if different methods of delivery, 

such as blended learning, are adopted, then the risk is increased. 

1.2 Categories of Risk 

The following table provides a categorisation of types of risk, each of which is explained in the 

subsequent sub-paragraphs, vis-à-vis location and mode of delivery: 

5 

The guidance and advice given in this section will apply equally, and where appropriate, to the approval of disciplines (for which 

approval of the Planning and Management Executive is required in the first instance). See Format of Discipline Proposal (Appendix 3) 

for full details. 


Location/Mode 

Conventional 

delivery 

Blended delivery 

Independent study 

Home campus Low risk Medium risk Not permitted 

Other campus Medium risk Medium risk Not permitted 

Collaborative 

Partner 

Medium risk Medium risk Not permitted 

Approved 

Learning Partner 

Not permitted Medium risk Not permitted 

Other Not permitted Not permitted High risk 

1.2.1 Low risk: conventional teaching on the Home Campus poses a low risk to the University and 

therefore approval can be by a light touch. 

1.2.2 Medium risk: the level of scrutiny needs to be more detailed where a programme is to be 

delivered at a different campus or in partnership with another institution, since not only will the 

staff at the Home Campus have a less intimate knowledge of the facilities and resources, but 

also there will be a greater physical distance between the staff responsible for delivery of the 

programme and the staff responsible for managing the delivery. Clearly, as the staff at the other 

campus/institution and the staff on the Home Campus become more experienced, so the level of 

scrutiny will diminish. 

Similarly, when new modes of delivery are introduced, such as blended learning, the level of 

scrutiny will be higher initially as School processes are undergoing development and will reduce 

as the new mode of delivery becomes “conventional”. 

1.2.3 High risk: the highest risk occurs when programmes are designed for independent learners. In 

these cases, there should always be a high level of scrutiny, though that too will vary as Schools 

become more experienced. 

The delivery of programmes in a language other than English (except for languages 

programmes) is also high risk for the University and such programmes should be subject to high 

levels of scrutiny. 

1.2.4 Not permitted: it is explicit in the above table that some forms of delivery are not permitted. 

Thus an Approved Learning Partner which is staffed only by Approved Tutors is not permitted to 

deliver conventional teaching, but only blended learning where the University staff have 

prepared the teaching materials. 

The Studies Committees and Schools should note that if a programme is approved for one location or 

mode of delivery, it is not automatically approved for all locations or modes of delivery. As part of the 

programme proposal, Schools will need to be explicit in modes and locations they are seeking approval 

for and the Committees will need to be explicit in what is being approved. 

It is intended that the University will not offer independent learning programmes to students studying oncampus, 

but this does not preclude independent study on single courses. 

2. Standard Process for Approval: Discipline-Level Submissions 

Wherever possible, approval should be at the highest and most general level, ie at discipline level. This 

is likely to be particularly important for approval of existing programmes that are changing as a result of 

RAY. Since RAY applies to all of the University’s taught provision (with the exception of the Edinburgh 

Business School) a significant volume of modifications will be made to programmes in the run up to 

September 2008. 

Appendices 2 (Programme) and 3 (Discipline) provide details of the short-form proposal which can 

be submitted for programmes being modified as part of RAY where the modifications are related 

primarily to RAY and do not represent a ‘significant change’. 


For low risk situations, the evidence seen by the Committee should comprise a summary of the School 

objectives, activities and processes together with a programme structure. It is therefore likely that for a 

given Discipline (eg Chemistry), the same School processes, internal evidence and management 

structures will apply for all the programmes in Chemistry at UG level and for all the programmes at PGT 

level. 

Where such commonality applies across the discipline, then the Schools will be able to submit one 

narrative text with a series of Programme Structures templates for approval. One structure template, 

which will include courses offered within each stage (as approved by the devolved procedures within 

Schools), should be submitted for each programme within the discipline. If the accompanying 

Programme Description and Programme Notes templates are standard for each programme within the 

discipline, then Schools need submit only one of each template (where differences apply, individual 

Programme Description and Notes templates should be submitted). 

Where there is considerable overlap in the use of courses across a number of programmes, then a grid 

structure may be adopted to describe the various programmes of study. It may be useful for Schools to 

consider such arrangements when preparing restructured programmes for approval, even if the current 

programmes are not so structured. 

3. Service Teaching 

At its meeting on 26 October 2006, the Planning and Management Executive (PME) approved a policy on 

service teaching, which was supported in principle and subsequently endorsed by the Learning and Teaching 

Board at its meetings on 12 October 2006 and 15 February 2007. 

In addition to the part of the policy that relates to courses and is given in an earlier section, PME approved 

the policy that 

 

Schools should deliver only programmes of study which fall within their agreed discipline areas: 

discipline areas within each School being at the approval of PME 

Therefore any issue about whether or not a programme of study can be offered within a School portfolio 

should be referred to PME for consideration. 

PME has also stated that 

 

all Schools must maximise operational efficiency by working with other Schools to deliver courses in 

subject areas where the expertise already exists. 

The judgement of operational efficiency is a management issue made by the School delivering the 

programme and not another School that might deliver any specific course within the programme or the 

Committee. Operational efficiency is a programme level issue, relating to the coherency of the 

programme, and can only be judged by considering the programme as a whole. 

Programme proposals should include a statement about operational efficiency where such matters have 

been considered, including the outcomes of any discussions with other Schools. This statement will help 

inform the rest of the University about efficiency opportunities. 

Where the Studies Committee considers that there are potential efficiencies that have not been 

considered it should inform the Head of School but should not delay approval of a programme that is 

academically acceptable pending further consideration by the School on operational efficiency. 

Any Head of School may, of course, raise matters of operational efficiency at PME. 

4. Aspects of a Programme requiring Approval 

The approval of a programme by the Undergraduate or Postgraduate Studies Committee will include 

consideration and approval of: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

coherence, currency and completeness of the academic content 

consistency of programmes with the University strategy (articulated as the key principles of RAY; 

see Curriculum Structure <strong>Guidelines</strong> for full details) including inter alia transition into first year, 

assessment strategy, skills development, preparation for employment, research-informed learning 

assurance of academic standards 


(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

sufficiency of resources such as staff, space, library etc 

academic, administrative and managerial expertise to support mode of study (conventional, 

blended, distributed and independent, part-time) at the proposed location 

study in a language other than English (except for languages programmes) 

administrative requirements, in the case of non-standard provision 

fees, including differential fees 

Each of these areas of approval is explained in more detail below. 

4.1 Coherence, currency and completeness of the academic content 

The Studies Committees have always had responsibility for considering and approving coherence, 

currency and completeness of the academic content. Under the revised process and in a change to 

current practice, the approval of individual courses will be devolved to Schools; in consequence, the 

Committees will not normally be provided with Course Descriptor templates or associated 

documentation (see Section B. Courses). The focus of both Committees’ efforts will, therefore, be 

directed towards programme and discipline level provision. The Studies Committees will look for 

evidence that the School, in developing the programme, has adopted a robust process which will 

assure the Committee that the programme is properly structured and that appropriate use has been 

made of benchmark statements, advice from Professional and Statutory Bodies and other external 

points of reference, as well as drawing on the expertise of the staff in the School. 

The Committee will also be looking for evidence that the School has in place an internal structure 

(normally a committee structure) which has responsibility for considering the programme as a whole, 

including aspects such as development of skills and the assessment strategy across the programme. 

4.2 Consistency of programmes with the University Strategy, including Restructuring the 

Academic Year 

All programmes of study are expected to conform to the objectives of the University, but these have 

not hitherto been explicitly articulated in terms of submissions for programme approval. However, 

one of the objectives of the RAY project is to provide an opportunity for programmes to be redesigned 

and re-aligned with the University’s core objectives. The Curriculum Structure <strong>Guidelines</strong> 

(for undergraduate and for graduate/postgraduate taught provision) have been produced by the 

Learning and Teaching Board (see Appendix 1 for an overview), and it is expected that the 

Committees will ensure that each School has properly considered the key RAY principles in redesigning 

their programmes. 

Schools should outline, in the narrative text accompanying each submission, how the programme 

has been developed to be consistent with the University strategy. The Curriculum Structure 

<strong>Guidelines</strong> and the accompanying Curriculum Structure Summary (Undergraduate and 

Graduate/Postgraduate Taught) highlight mandatory components, most of which Schools have the 

flexibility to determine their own approaches to implementation, and also offer aspects which are 

optional or for guidance. All core requirements are designed to encourage realisation of the primary 

objective of RAY, namely to enhance student learning. 

The expectation is that for all UG programmes, successful completion of Stages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 will 

allow students to exit with a Certificate, Diploma, Bachelors, Honours and Integrated Masters award 

respectively. Similarly, it is expected that for all PG programmes completion of semester 1, 2 and a 

full year (ie 60, 120 and 180 credits respectively) will lead to exit awards of Certificate, Diploma and 

Masters. Exceptions to the above may be permitted, but will require approval by the appropriate 

Studies Committee. 

4.3 Assurance of academic standards 

The Studies Committees cannot themselves determine the academic standard of programmes from 

the course titles provided, as many topics such as “project management” could be taught at many 

different levels. The Committees are therefore required to look at the School processes for 

establishing the standard of academic work, the location of courses and use levels in accordance 

with the SCQF framework. These processes are likely to be common across all programmes in a 

discipline and may indeed be common across an entire School. 

Assurance of standards requires individual academic members of staff to form a judgement. Each 

School therefore needs to have in place processes to ensure that the judgement of all members of 

staff is approximately the same, perhaps by the use of committees to moderate judgements or 


double marking and to ensure that new staff, whose judgements are likely to be less secure, are 

properly supported. 

In addition, the School should have in place processes for judging standards against other 

institutions by using their External Examiners for advice and for sharing, and learning from, the 

experiences of staff who have been themselves External Examiners at other institutions. 

Professional and Statutory Bodies can also give advice on academic standards, though such advice 

needs to be used with care. 

Where programmes are to be delivered partly or entirely off the Home Campus, then consideration 

must be given to ensuring that the judgements of all staff involved in such programmes are 

consistent. This includes staff at Collaborative Partner Institutions who may be assessing student 

work, staff at ALPs who advise students, external supervisors and tutors giving advice to students on 

placements and staff at institutions receiving exchange students. 

4.4 Sufficiency of resources such as staff, space, library etc 

The sub-sections below outline the ways in which information on resources should be presented to 

the Studies Committees, depending on location and mode of delivery. 

4.4.1 Home Campus: when a programme is to be delivered on the Home Campus, it is unlikely that 

resources are a serious issue and therefore this requirement can be satisfied by a short 

statement in the programme proposal, confirming that the School has, or has access to, the 

necessary resources. The only exception is likely to be where the number of available places 

on a programme is restricted due to a limit on resources (eg staff expertise or lab space) in 

which case such restrictions and limits should be highlighted so as to inform planning 

processes (where, for example, it is otherwise normally assumed that there is no limit to the 

number of PGT students that can be taught on any programme). 

4.4.2 Other campuses/locations: the issue of resources becomes more important for other 

campuses, where the resources may not exist at the time of approval and where it may be 

appropriate for approval to be conditional on a specific list of resources being available. The 

narrative text in the Programme Proposal should demonstrate that the School has considered 

the resources and should confirm that such resources are, or will be, in place. 

4.4.3 Collaborative and Approved Learning Partners: for programmes to be delivered by 

partners, then the School needs to demonstrate that it has considered the required level of 

resource. The Programme Proposal should include a list of the resources required for the 

delivery of the programme (or course as appropriate). This list will be used to inform the 

process of approving partners as a means of ensuring that they have in place the specified 

resources. If a School wishes to expand its collaborative or ALP provision, then the list will 

need to be revised and re-submitted to show that the School has the necessary resources for 

the proposed expansion. 

4.4.4 Independent Learners: for programmes to be delivered to independent learners, the School 

needs to demonstrate in the Programme Proposal that consideration has been given to the 

resources and facilities required by independent learners to study the programme. In addition, 

confirmation should be given that students have access to (or will be provided with) the 

necessary resources, or alternatively, a statement should be included specifying what 

resources a student will need to undertake the programme. 

4.5 Expertise to support the specified mode of study 

The approval of a programme requires the Studies Committees to be assured that the School has 

the academic, administrative and managerial expertise to support the mode of study for which 

approval is being requested. 

For conventional programmes delivered at the Home Campus, this statement of expertise requires 

only a paragraph of confirmation (or a tick in a box on the appropriate coversheet). However, for 

new modes of study (eg blended learning on-campus or off-campus programmes to be delivered by 

an ALP), the School needs to demonstrate that it has the expertise, or has in place staff 

development and other activities which will ensure that the required expertise will be in place when 

the programme is offered to students. 


Common issues which should be considered by Schools include management of staff at remote 

campuses, induction of staff at remote campuses and induction of new staff to different modes of 

teaching and learning. 

4.6 Study in a language other than English (except for languages programmes) 

The MBA programme, as delivered by the Edinburgh Business School, is approved to offer its 

programmes in Arabic, Spanish, Hebrew and Chinese as well as English. The delivery of a 

programme in any language other than in English poses high risk to the University (except in the 

case of language degree programmes) and requires careful consideration of the curriculum, 

programme notes, assessment methods, assessment processes, assurance of discipline quality and 

the assurance of academic standards. 

Most of the University has little experience in delivering programmes in other languages and 

although EBS currently offers such programmes, it does not have consistent practices for all 

languages. Therefore, explicit approval is required from the Studies Committees for all programmes 

to be delivered in a language other than English. Such requirements for approval apply also to any 

programme previously approved for the delivery in one language and subsequently being 

considered for delivery in another language. Schools should submit a full case for consideration, 

with particular emphasis on the matters noted above. 

4.7 Administrative requirements, in the case of non-standard provision 

For conventional programmes delivered at the Home Campus, it is expected that Schools will 

require standard forms of administrative support from the central Support Services, eg registering, 

examining and graduating students within the University’s usual time periods for such processes. 

Confirmation of standard requirements can be provided by ticking the appropriate box on the 

programme proposal coversheet. 

As part of the Programme Proposal, Schools should highlight where there is a requirement for 

central administrative support in different forms and at different times, eg registration events tailored 

to the FE Link Discipline, special arrangements for students on collaborative programmes or 

registration in January as well as September. 

4.8 Programme fees, including fee differentials 

Each year, the Fees Working Group considers and agrees tuition fees for the coming academic 

session. However, since fee details need to be recorded at the time of creating a new programme 

record on the student system, it is appropriate for Schools to specify tuition fees as part of the 

programme proposal. Standard fees can be indicated by a tick box, but Schools will have to provide 

details of any fee differentials (eg where fees differ depending on the mode of delivery). 

5. Documentation for approval of programmes 

The documentation required for approval of programmes is provided in Appendix 2 6 to these <strong>Guidelines</strong> 

(this documentation is required for programmes being submitted as part of RAY, but also for 

submissions post-implementation of RAY). These are guidelines only and Schools should take 

advantage of opportunities to reuse documents such as School-wide policies. When in doubt, Schools 

should consult with the Clerk of the relevant Studies Committee in the first instance. 

Each submission to the Studies Committee should be complete and self-contained. There should be no 

references to other documents (such as those that are available on request from the School or were part 

of a previous programme submission that was approved). Documentation should not be excessively long 

and should not contain irrelevant information. 

Programmes being approved following restructuring or programmes where RAY is being used as an 

opportunity to propose significant changes (other than key principles of RAY; see Appendix 2) will 

require the following documentation for approval purposes: 

(a) Coversheet – with information on the programmes, modes of study, locations of study etc 

(b) Programme Proposal, covering the points described above 

(c) Programme structure (and associated templates) for each programme being considered 

6 

The various coversheets and templates can be accessed at http://www.hw.ac.uk/quality/approval-procedures.htm 


For low risk situations, the Programme Proposal will be typically 5 pages long depending on the 

complexity and the number of programmes being approved. 

For medium risk cases, the Programme Proposal will be longer and more detailed, being perhaps 10 

pages, of which part will be appendices of School-wide processes and policies. 

For high risk cases, the Programme Proposal will be longer still, at perhaps 15-20 pages. 

6. Withdrawal of a Programme 

Proposals for withdrawal of a programme should be submitted to the Studies Committee on the standard 

Application for Withdrawal of a Programme coversheet, which will include such details as rationale, 

date of approval and other Schools affected. 

Proposals for withdrawal of a discipline and its associated programmes must be raised as part of Annual 

Planning Round discussions and formally approved by the Planning and Management Executive. In 

terms of submissions to the Studies Committees, the standard Application for Withdrawal of a 

Discipline coversheet should be used. 

Coversheets can be accessed at: http://www.hw.ac.uk/quality/approval-procedures.htm 

In most cases of either programme or discipline withdrawal, there will be registered students who have 

yet to complete their programme of study. Prior to any formal proposal being made for withdrawal, 

Schools should consult with all students who will be affected and put in place appropriate arrangements 

to ensure that the student learning experience is not compromised and students are able to complete 

their programmes and graduate within the expected timescales. 


Guidance from Learning and Teaching Board on Curriculum Structure 

Appendix 1 

The Learning and Teaching Board has produced a series of guidance notes to assist Schools in the process 

of re-designing programmes to incorporate the key requirements of RAY. These guidance notes are 

provided as various separate documents: 

(1) Graduate and Postgraduate Taught Curriculum Structure <strong>Guidelines</strong> 

(2) Undergraduate Curriculum Structure <strong>Guidelines</strong> 

Both documents provide full details of the mandatory requirements of all taught programmes (except 

EBS), in most cases of which Schools have the flexibility to determine their own approaches to 

implementation. In addition, aspects which are optional or for guidance are included, which Schools may 

wish to consider implementing as part of the overall programme re-design for RAY. 

(3) Curriculum Structure Summary: Mandatory Requirements, Options and Aspects for Guidance: a tabular 

summary, produced for ease of reference, of the key principles outlined in the more comprehensive 

Curriculum Structure <strong>Guidelines</strong>. 

(4) Learning, Teaching and Assessment Toolkits: advice on how to re-design learning, teaching and 

assessment approaches to incorporate the key principles of RAY into programmes. 

RAY Mandatory Requirements, Options and Guidance: Applicability and Implementation 

As part of the move to RAY, several aspects of curriculum structure and re-design will be mandatory, 

although in most cases Schools will have the flexibility to determine how they implement such 

requirements. With the exception of EBS, the same structural framework will apply to all forms of taught 

provision, irrespective of mode or location of delivery (including Dubai, ALPs, independent DL, 

collaborative provision). 

If a School is experiencing difficulty in incorporating the mandatory requirements within its programme 

provision, these should be highlighted clearly on the programme proposal for consideration by the 

Undergraduate or Postgraduate Studies Committee, as appropriate. 

Likewise, if a School wishes to request exemption from a mandatory requirement, then this request 

should be highlighted clearly on the programme proposal for consideration by the appropriate Studies 

Committee. 

Programme Proposals: Completed Examples for Reference 

Sample completed programme proposals, templates and coversheets (see Appendices 2-4) will be issued 

shortly, to provide Programme Teams with examples of the types of information to be submitted to the 

Studies Committees. 


Appendix 2 

Format of Programme Proposal: Rationale and Templates 2007 

E-versions of the Proforma for a Programme Proposal, associated Coversheets and Templates are available 

at: http://www.hw.ac.uk/quality/approval-procedures.htm 

A. Guidance Notes on Type of Programme Proposal 

1. Proposal Type 1: Full Proposal 

A full proposal, as detailed below, is required for a new programme or where modifications involve 7 

Adding additional modes of study 

Adding additional locations of study 

Adding a new language of instruction or assessment in cases of “non-languages” programmes 

Programmes involving Approved Learning Partners for the first time 

Programmes involving Collaborative Partners for the first time 

Programmes leading to joint or dual awards for the first time 

Programmes/courses which do not result in a formal award, but are to be credit-rated and 

students to be provided with a transcript. 

2. Proposal Type 2: Short-Form Proposal 

A short-form proposal will be sufficient, and need only describe the specific changes, where the 

modifications relate to: 

 

 

 

Changes to one or more categories of information in the Programme Description (aims; learning 

outcomes; approaches to teaching and learning; assessment policies) which have been created 

by new, withdrawn or modified courses (programme structure/description/notes templates must be 

provided) 

Changes to the standard entry requirements (not changes to the qualifications that meet the 

standard) 

Changes in programme title 

3. Proposal Type 3: Restructuring the Academic Year 

Restructuring the Academic Year: Submission of Programme Proposals 

 

 

 

all programmes will need to be submitted for re-approval as a result of RAY. In the interests of 

efficiency, Schools may wish to submit proposals at the discipline level (see section C2. 

Standard Process for Approval: Discipline Level Submissions). 

if programme modifications are restricted primarily to incorporation of the key principles of RAY, 

it will be sufficient for Schools to provide a shorter Programme Proposal (see below) in the case 

of all sections except Section 4. 

If Schools have used RAY as an opportunity to introduce ‘significant changes’ to the programme 

(ie in addition to RAY-related modifications), a full proposal (see Proposal Type 1 above) will be 

required. ‘Significant changes’ include modifications to: mode of delivery; location of study; 

programme objectives and programme syllabus. 

B. Programme Proposal 

This section sets out the information which Schools should provide to the Studies Committees when 

submitting new or substantially modified programmes for approval. 

1. Origin of Proposal 

The purpose of this section is to allow the programme to be placed in a wider context. It is not intended 

that this should exceed half a page and may be a single sentence if a set of programmes is being 

approved as part of a discipline or the programme is largely unchanged due to RAY. 

7 Where modifications are being applied to a range of programmes within a discipline, then a discipline level submission is required (see 

Appendix 3). 


1.1 Historical context, how was the proposal initiated 

1.2 Reasons for introduction or modification (perceived market, staffing opportunity etc.) 

1.3 Details of market research and future trends. 

2. Aims and Objectives 

The aim of this section is to explain the overall objectives of the programme and how it fits with the 

School and University objectives. There should be references to School strategies, forward plans etc. 

For programmes that are being revised as part of RAY, this may be a short section and should not 

normally exceed 1 page. 

2.1 Clear statement of aims and expected learning outcomes 

2.2 Compatibility with overall School strategic plans 

2.3 Alignment with University’s mission statement and strategy 

2.4 Target student numbers 

2.5 Target employment sector(s) 

2.6 Statement on equal opportunities (race, gender and disability) and identification of related issues. 

3. Programme management and general information 

The purpose of this section is to explain how the programme is managed. All aspects of management 

should be covered including: recruitment of students; curriculum development, monitoring and 

evaluation; relationships with Professional and Statutory Bodies; management of academic standards. 

This section may be common for all programmes in a discipline or even across the School as a whole, in 

which case a standard section may be appended to the Programme Proposal. 

It is likely that this section will not exceed 2 pages for conventional programmes running on the Home 

Campus. Where other modes of delivery or locations of study are being considered for approval, then 

this section will be longer and include issues such as the management of quality in partners (Approved 

Learning Partners, Collaborative Partners), induction and ongoing support for Approved Learning 

Partner staff and monitoring of the progress of off-campus students. 

3.1 Recruitment policy and entry qualifications 

3.2 Programme management structure including committee(s), industrial or business input 

3.3 Accreditation by professional and other bodies 

3.4 Proposed publicity methods 

3.5 External examiners 

3.6 Quality assurance, including Collaborative and Approved Learning Partners, Approved Teachers & 

Tutors, managing off-campus students 

3.7 Timetabling and staff- student contact if not standard (eg block teaching). 

Requirements for Approved Learning Partners relating to staff competences, facilities etc should be 

produced on a separate page so that the information can be included as part of the documentation 

required for approval of an Approved Learning Partner. 

4. Programme Description 

The purpose of this section is to ensure that the programme curriculum is at present, and likely to 

remain, current, coherent and complete, and that the programme meets the University expectations as 

set out in the RAY Curriculum Structure <strong>Guidelines</strong>, particularly research-informed learning and 

employability & professional career readiness (EPCR) (objectives at 2007). It is likely that this section will 

be about 2-4 pages long. Where aspects of the curriculum such as the development of researchinformed 

learning or the development of EPCR skills are common across a discipline or even across the 

School as a whole, then they may be prepared as a separate Appendix so that they can be reused for 

other programmes. 

4.1 Outline of the programme 

4.2 Processes for developing the programme and for ongoing evaluation to ensure that the 

programme curriculum is current, coherent and complete. References to Benchmark Statements 

and other external reference points should be included. There should be an explicit statement of 

the compliance of the programme and its awards with the credit and level requirements of the 

Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) 

4.3 Activities to ensure effective transition to University for new students 

4.4 Development of research-informed learning skills throughout the programme 

4.5 Development of employment-related skills (inc PDP) throughout the programme 


4.6 Consideration of the international dimension to student learning, the curriculum and wider 

experience 

5. Resource Implications and Costing 

The purpose of this section is to ensure that the School has the resources and academic, administrative 

and managerial expertise to deliver the programme. Where this is a conventional programme delivered 

at the Home Campus, then this section may be short. Where the programme is to be delivered by nonconventional 

methods or outside the Home Campus, then this section needs to be more substantial. 

5.1 Staffing skills necessary for the delivery of the programme. This is mainly intended for 

programmes to be delivered outside the Home Campus or by non-traditional methods (e.g. 

blended learning) 

5.2 Special staff development that will be required to deliver the programme (e.g. development of VLE 

skills) 

5.3 Likely involvement of external staff 

5.4 Any necessary additional staffing (academic, part-time, support, administrative) and confirmation 

that these staff costs are included in forward School budgets 

5.5 Operational efficiency (including, where appropriate, service teaching requirements) 

5.6 Issues concerning funded numbers, research studentships 

5.7 Requirements for, and any limitations arising from restrictions in, physical space, teaching room 

and laboratory availability 

5.8 Special facilities (e.g. labs - not computers and library) required at any Approved Learning Partner 

or Partner where the programme is to be delivered outside the Home Campus. 

5.9 Concerns or special issues regarding Library and computing facilities 

5.10 Fees (including any fee differentials) as at time of submission 

5.11 Costing analysis, anticipated net income 

5.12 Sources for start-up costs (if first year(s) in deficit) 

5.13 Compliance with financial outline in School strategic plan. 

6. Any Other Relevant Information 

Schools should identify here any additional information that might be relevant. 

7. Programme Structure 

7.1 A clear outline (with diagrams if helpful) of discipline of which the programme is part and of 

courses, electives etc. 

7.2 The Standard Programme Structure/Notes/Description templates should be included (Note: 

there are different forms for undergraduate and postgraduate programmes) 

8. A Summary of the Proposal for Senate 

8.1 A one or two paragraph summary of the programme proposal to be forwarded to Senate if 

proposal is approved. 


Appendix 3 

Format of Discipline Proposal: Rationale and Templates 2007 

E-versions of the Proforma for a Discipline Proposal, associated Coversheets and Templates are available 

at: http://www.hw.ac.uk/quality/approval-procedures.htm 

A. Guidance Notes on Type of Discipline Proposal 

Prior to submission to the Studies Committees for consideration, all proposed new disciplines must be 

approved by the Planning and Management Executive in the first instance and discussed through the 

Annual Planning Round process. Proposals should be submitted to the Studies Committees only after 

development of the new discipline has been endorsed by PME. 

1. Proposal Type 1: Full Proposal 

A full proposal, as detailed below, is required for a new discipline or where modifications involve 8 

Adding additional modes of study 

Adding additional locations of study 

Adding a new language of instruction or assessment in cases of “non-languages” disciplines 

Involving Approved Learning Partners for the first time 

Involving Collaborative Partners for the first time 

Leading to joint or dual awards for the first time 

2. Proposal Type 2: Short-Form Proposal 

A short-form proposal will be sufficient, and need only describe the specific changes, where the 

modifications relate to: 

 

 

 

Changes to one or more categories of information provided on the Discipline Description which 

have been created by new, withdrawn or modified courses across a range of programmes 

(discipline description and accompanying programme structures must be provided) 

Changes to the standard entry requirements for the discipline (not changes to the qualifications 

that meet the standard) 

Changes in discipline title 

3. Proposal Type 3: Restructuring the Academic Year 

Restructuring the Academic Year: Submission of Discipline Proposals 

 

Since all programmes will need to be submitted for re-approval as a result of RAY, it is 

recommended that, in the interests of efficiency, Schools should submit proposals at the 

discipline level (see section C2. Standard Process for Approval: Discipline Level Submissions). 

 

See ‘Format of Programme Proposal’ section for documentation required for RAY submissions. 

B. Discipline Proposal 

This section sets out the information which Schools should provide to the Studies Committees when 

submitting new or substantially modified disciplines for approval. 

1. Origin of Proposal 

The purpose of this section is to allow the discipline to be placed in a wider context. It is not intended that 

this should exceed half a page and may be a single sentence if a set of programmes is being approved 

as part of a discipline or the discipline is largely unchanged due to RAY. 

8 

Discipline submissions are required in cases where these modifications affect two or more programmes within a discipline. If it is a 

single programme, then a Programme Proposal submission (see Appendix 2) should be used. 


1.1 Historical context, how was the proposal initiated 

1.2 Reasons for introduction or modification (perceived market, staffing opportunity etc.) 

1.3 Details of market research and future trends. 

2. Aims and Objectives 

The aim of this section is to explain the overall objectives of the discipline and how it fits with the School 

and University objectives. There should be references to School strategies, forward plans etc. For 

disciplines that are being revised as part of RAY, this may be a short section and should not normally 

exceed 1 page. 

2.1 Clear statement of aims and expected learning outcomes 

2.2 Compatibility with overall School strategic plans 

2.3 Alignment with University’s mission statement and strategy 

2.4 Target student numbers 

2.5 Target employment sector(s) 

2.6 Statement on equal opportunities (race, gender and disability) and identification of related issues. 

3. Discipline management and general information 

The purpose of this section is to explain how the discipline is managed. All aspects of management 

should be covered including: recruitment of students; curriculum development, monitoring and 

evaluation; relationships with Professional and Statutory Bodies; management of academic standards. 

This section may be common for all programmes in the discipline or even across the School as a whole, 

in which case a standard section may be appended to the Discipline Proposal. 

It is likely that this section will not exceed 2 pages for conventional disciplines with programmes running 

on the Home Campus. Where other modes of delivery or locations of study are being proposed for two 

or more programmes, then this section will be longer and include issues such as the management of 

quality in partners (Approved Learning Partners, Collaborative Partners), induction and ongoing support 

for Approved Learning Partner staff and monitoring of the progress of off-campus students. 

3.1 Recruitment policy and entry qualifications 

3.2 Discipline management structure including committee(s), industrial or business input 

3.3 Accreditation by professional and other bodies 

3.4 Proposed publicity methods 

3.5 External examiners 

3.6 Quality assurance, including Collaborative and Approved Learning Partners, Approved Teachers & 

Tutors, managing off-campus students 

Requirements for Approved Learning Partners relating to staff competences, facilities etc should be 

produced on a separate page so that the information can be included as part of the documentation 

required for approval of an Approved Learning Partner. 

4. Programme Description 

The purpose of this section is to ensure that the curriculum of the various programmes within the 

discipline is at present, and likely to remain, current, coherent and complete, and that the discipline 

meets the University expectations as set out in the RAY Curriculum Structure <strong>Guidelines</strong>, particularly 

research-informed learning and employability & professional career readiness (EPCR) (objectives at 

2007). It is likely that this section will be about 2-4 pages long. Where aspects of the curriculum such as 

the development of research-informed learning or the development of EPCR skills are common across 

the discipline or even across the School as a whole, then they may be prepared as a separate Appendix 

so that they can be re-used for other programmes. 

4.1 Outline of the discipline (eg programme titles, awards) 

4.2 Processes for developing the discipline and for ongoing evaluation to ensure that the curriculum of 

the various programmes within the discipline is current, coherent and complete. References to 

Benchmark Statements and other external reference points should be included. There should be 

an explicit statement of the compliance of the discipline, its programmes and associated awards 

with the credit and level requirements of the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) 

4.3 Activities to ensure effective transition to University for new students 

4.4 Approach to the development of research-informed learning skills 

4.5 Approach to the development of employment-related skills (inc PDP) 

4.6 Consideration of the international dimension to student learning, the curriculum and wider 

experience 


5. Resource Implications and Costing 

The purpose of this section is to ensure that the School has the resources and academic, administrative 

and managerial expertise to support the discipline and deliver the various programmes within the 

discipline. Where this is a conventional discipline, with programmes delivered at the Home Campus, then 

this section may be short. Where several of the programmes within the discipline are to be delivered by 

non-conventional methods or outside the Home Campus, then this section needs to be more substantial. 

5.1 Staffing skills necessary for the delivery of the discipline and its associated programmes. This is 

mainly intended for programmes to be delivered outside the Home Campus or by non-traditional 

methods (e.g. blended learning) 

5.2 Special staff development that will be required to deliver the programmes within the discipline (e.g. 

development of VLE skills) 

5.3 Likely involvement of external staff 

5.4 Any necessary additional staffing (academic, part-time, support, administrative) and confirmation 

that these staff costs are included in forward School budgets 

5.5 Operational efficiency (including, where appropriate, service teaching requirements) 

5.6 Issues concerning funded numbers, research studentships 

5.7 Requirements for, and any limitations arising from restrictions in, physical space, teaching room 

and laboratory availability 

5.8 Special facilities (e.g. labs - not computers and library) required at any Approved Learning Partner 

or Partner where the programmes are to be delivered outside the Home Campus. 

5.9 Concerns or special issues regarding library and computing facilities 

5.10 Fees (including any fee differentials) as at time of submission 

5.11 Costing analysis, anticipated net income 

5.12 Sources for start-up costs (if first year(s) in deficit) 

5.13 Compliance with financial outline in School strategic plan. 

6. Any Other Relevant Information 

Schools should identify here any additional information that might be relevant. 

7. Discipline Structure 

7.1 A clear outline (with diagrams if helpful) of the discipline and programmes within it etc. 

7.2 The Standard Discipline Description template should be included 

7.3 The Standard Programme Structure/Notes/Description templates should be included for any 

new or substantially modified programmes (Note: there are different forms for undergraduate and 

postgraduate programmes) 

8. A Summary of the Proposal for Senate 

8.1 A one or two paragraph summary of the discipline proposal to be forwarded to Senate if proposal 

is approved. 


Appendix 4 

Approvals Procedures: Coversheets and Templates 2007 

The various coversheets and templates required for the approval of new, modified and withdrawn disciplines 

and programmes are provided in a separate document. 

In addition, although course approval has been devolved to Schools, various course templates have been 

included which Schools may wish to use, or adapt, for their own internal committees or for communicating 

changes to other Schools or to the Academic Registry. 

Summary of Approvals Procedures and List of Actions for Schools documents are also available and are 

designed to provide quick reference guides (to be issued in due course). 

All new coversheets and templates, together with these guidelines and the summary of the approvals 

process, will be available on the Academic Registry website at http://www.hw.ac.uk/quality/approvalprocedures.htm 

9 

9 The 2004-2006 Approvals Procedures will be archived, and the new procedures located on this website.

Guidelines on the Approval of Disciplines, Programmes and Courses

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?