Academic Quality Assurance Manual

Academic Quality Assurance Manual
Table of Contents
Preface ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Section 1:
University Governance & Management ........................................................................ 3
Section 2:
Boards & Committees - Constitution & Terms of Reference ......................................... 17
Section 3:
Quality Assurance of Teaching & Learning - Validation, Accreditation, Review &

Monitoring Procedures ................................................................................................. 35
Section 4:
Modular Scheme Framework ....................................................................................... 63
Section 5:
Assessment Regulations, Procedures & Moderation .................................................... 97
Section 6:
Management & Quality Assurance of Research ........................................................... 120
Section 7:
Responsibilities of Academic Staff & Students ............................................................. 139
Section 8:
Collaboration with Partner Organisations - Quality Assurance & the Maintenance of

Standards..................................................................................................................... 150
Annexes .......................................................................................................................................... 167

Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................................................................ 168
(August 2014)
Page 1 of 170
Preface
The mission of Harper Adams University is higher education and research for the delivery of
a sustainable food chain and rural economy. The University has the authority to grant its
own taught and research degrees. Harper Adams therefore has primary responsibility for
assuring the standards and enhancing the quality of its entire academic provision. This
manual is intended to serve as a definitive reference source on the arrangements through
which this responsibility is discharged.
Harper Adams University, Academic Quality Assurance Manual

Approved: Academic Board, December 2010
Revised: August 2013
Page 2 of 170
Preface
Section 1
University Governance and Management
Table of Contents
1.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5
1.2
The Relationship Between the Academic Board and Board of Governors ..................... 6
1.3
The Role of the University Executive and the Board of Governors ................................ 6
1.4
Management Structure ................................................................................................. 7
1.5
Staff Representation in Decision Making....................................................................... 10
1.6
Student Representation in Decision Making .................................................................. 10
1.7
Planning Systems ......................................................................................................... 11
1.8
Risk Management ......................................................................................................... 12
1.9
Performance Development Review Academic Staff ................................................... 13

Revised: May 2014
Section 1
Page 3 of 170
Annexes to Section 1
1.01
Terms of Reference of the University Executive
1.02
Terms of Reference of the IS/IT Group
1.03
Terms of Reference of the Course Managers and Senior Tutors Group
1.04
Terms of Reference of the Students Academic Group

Revised: May 2014
Section 1
Page 4 of 170
Section 1
1.1
Introduction
1.1.1
Harper Adams University is a registered charity with a Board of Governors

who act as trustees. The University is governed by the University
Instrument of Government and University Articles of Government
approved by the Privy Council, and by a Charity Commission Scheme
approved in 1988. The Instrument and Articles set out procedures for the
conduct of meetings, the role and responsibilities of the Chairman of the
Board, and the duties of the Vice-Chancellor and Clerk. In addition, the
relevant provisions of the Instrument, the Articles and the Charity
Commission Scheme have been drawn together in terms of reference for
the Board. The relationship of the Board of Governors and the Academic
Board is illustrated in Figure 1.1.
1.1.2
Subject to the Articles of Governance, to the overall responsibility of the

Board of Governors, and the responsibilities of the Vice-Chancellor,
Harper Adams Academic Board (Section 2) is responsible for determining
the academic policy of the University and for monitoring academic quality
and standards. The responsibility for ensuring the implementation of the
policies and procedures determined by these boards and committees and
for giving advice to their members on resources and other issues lies with
the University management whose activities and discussions are coordinated through various executive groups. Management therefore has
an important function in developing policies and plans and in managing
resources which are important to the quality and standards of the
academic provision.
In this section the management structure, the constitution and
responsibilities of the various management groups, the annual review and
planning processes and the arrangements for resource provision and
evaluation are summarised.
Board of
Governors
University
Executive
Academic
Board
Academic Board SubCommittees including

Programme Approvals
Committee
Finance & General

Purposes
Committee
Health & Safety

Committee
Nominations
Committee
Remuneration
Committee
Staffing
Committee
Audit & Risk

Management
Committee
Animal Ethics
Committee
GM Ethics
Committee
Farm Strategy
Committee
Broken line indicates shared Executive memberships rather than direct reporting line
Figure 1.1 The Board Committee Structure

Revised: May 2014
Section 1
Page 5 of 170
1.2
The Relationship Between the Academic Board and Board of Governors

1.2.1
The responsibilities of the Academic Board are set out in the Articles of
Government. Subject to the provisions of the Articles and the overall
responsibility of the Board of Governors and the responsibilities of the
Vice-Chancellor, the Academic Board is responsible for:
1.3
General issues relating to the research, scholarship, teaching and

courses at the University, and related procedures as set out in the
Articles.
Considering the development of the academic activities of the
University and resources needed to support them and for advising
the Vice-Chancellor and the Board of Governors thereon.
Advising on such matters as the Board of Governors or the ViceChancellor may refer to the Academic Board.
1.2.2
The Articles of Government empower the Academic Board to establish

such committees as it considers necessary to carry out its responsibilities
provided that each committee is first approved by the Vice-Chancellor and
the Board of Governors. The committees are expected to report to the
Academic Board. The number of members and the terms on which they
hold and vacate office may be determined by the Academic Board.
1.2.3
The structure of the Academic Board and its standing boards and
committees are set out in Figure 2.1 at Section 2, including the role of the
Programme Approvals Committee in supporting Academic Board to
maintain an oversight of the shape of the taught curriculum and its
associated resource demands.
1.2.4
The Vice-Chancellor chairs the Academic Board and is an ex-officio

member of the Board of Governors. The University's Deputy ViceChancellor and Director of Learning & Teaching are also members of both
bodies. Since 1999, a non-executive governor has been nominated by the
Board of Governors to attend Academic Board meetings, in order to
improve information flow between the Boards. The Board of Governors
receives reports on the work of the Academic Board on a routine basis.
The Role of the University Executive and the Board of Governors

1.3.1
The University Executive (Annex 1.01) is authorised by the Board of

Governors to deal with operational matters relating to the management of
the University and the management of the University's relationship with
HEFCE and other external agencies. The Committee is also charged with
the responsibility for the preparation and implementation of the
Universitys strategic plan, related sub-strategies and associated resource
management.
1.3.2
The University Executive is chaired by the Vice-Chancellor and has a core

membership that includes the senior management team. This core group
meets twice a month. The meetings ensure that there is a wider
opportunity for debate and information flow on key operational issues.
1.3.3
Although the University Executive does not routinely report to the Board of
Governors, its activities are directed towards steering policy towards
implementation and acting as a first point of internal discussion on the
development of new policies. The work of the University Executive is

Revised: May 2014
Section 1
Page 6 of 170
presented to the Academic Board and/or Board of Governors (or their

relevant sub-committees) in the form of briefing papers and reports on
major issues of concern to the University and the senior management
team.
1.4
1.3.4
The University Executive organises the production of major planning

documents and assesses them in their early stages of development to
ensure that they can be put into operation and are consistent with other
University activities and objectives. These documents include the
University's Strategic Plan and associated sub-strategies. The University
Executive also meets with the Finance & General Purposes Committee to
consider the development of annual/strategic plans and as a means to
help set the strategic priorities of the University to inform later debate on
these issues at the Academic Board and Board of Governors.
1.3.5
The Information Systems and Information Technology (IS/IT) Group

(Annex 1.02) reports to the University Executive on the development of
the IS/IT strategy and on the progress of major IS/IT projects.
Management Structure
1.4.1
The University Vice-Chancellor is identified in the Instrument of

Government as the Chief Executive Officer of the University. The ViceChancellor has general responsibility to the Board of Governors for
ensuring that the object of the University is fulfilled and for maintaining and
promoting the efficiency, discipline and good order of the University. The
Board of Governors may entrust to the Vice-Chancellor such powers and
duties as are required to fulfil the above requirements, a number of which
are spelt out in the Articles of Government. These include the
organisation, direction and management of the University and leadership
of the Staff, and the appointment, assignment, grading, appraisal,
suspension, discipline, dismissal and determination, within the framework
set by the Board of Governors, of the pay and conditions of service of
staff. The Vice-Chancellor is responsible and accountable to HEFCE (and
ultimately to Parliament) for ensuring that the University uses HEFCE
funds in ways that are consistent with the purposes for which those funds
were given, and complies with the conditions attached to them.
1.4.2
The management structure immediately below the Vice-Chancellor is set

out in Figure 1.2.
1.4.3
The Articles of Government require the Board of Governors to appoint a

Clerk to the Board. This position is held by the University Secretary and
carries with it general responsibility for corporate governance systems and
arrangements for the University. The University Secretary also has overall
responsibility for the Universitys administration, and particular
responsibility for strategic planning and personnel, estates, general office
services, catering, and conferences operations.
1.4.4
The Director of Finance reports directly to the Vice-Chancellor on matters

of concern to the Vice-Chancellors role as designated officer under the
HEFCE Financial Memorandum, and otherwise on financial operations
and the allocation of resources. The Director of Finance also works
closely with the University Secretary on financial matters, financial
planning and other financial issues, including liaison with the finance team
at HEFCE. The Director of Finance takes the lead role in matters

Revised: May 2014
Section 1
Page 7 of 170
Responsibilities for Strategies
1.4.5
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor has a co-ordinating role for all academic

matters concerning the Universitys five academic departments. The
Heads of Academic Departments report to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor also develops research strategy and coordinates the implementation of teaching and reach-out strategies and
their development.
1.4.6
The Director of Learning & Teaching is responsible for co-ordination of

activities with regional agencies and DEFRA, as well as a series of other
developmental projects. They play a leading role in the Universitys reachout work and the development of reach-out strategies and systems. The
Director of Learning & Teaching also leads on the Universitys
international strategy.
University Executive
[*staff resource allocation]
Vice-Chancellor*
University
Secretary*
(US)
US
Strategic
Plan (with
ViceChancellor)
AMS/CPS
Deputy
ViceChancellor*
(DVC)
Director of
Finance*
(DF)
Director of
Learning &
Teaching
(DLT)
Director of
Academic
Services
(DAS)
Heads
of
Departments
(HoDs) (5)
Head of
Educational
Development
& Quality
Enhancement
(HEDQE)
Enterprise
Development
Director
(EDD)
Educational
Developer
(ED)
DVC
Research &
Knowledge
Transfer
Strategy
DF
Financial
Strategy
IS Strategy
DLT
International
Strategy
HEDQE
Learning &
Teaching
Strategy
(with DVC)
Director of
Marketing and
Communications
(DMC)
University Executive
Management Team
concerning superannuation and, with the Head of IS/IT, the development

of the Universitys information systems.
DMC
Communications/
Marketing
Strategy
HR Strategy
Estate
Strategy/
sub-strategy
Integration
Farm Devt
(with DF)
Figure 1.2 The Structure of the Senior Management Team and University Executive
1.4.7
The Director of Academic Services is responsible to the Vice-Chancellor

for the management of the University Registry and academic support
services. The Director of Academic Services is secretary to the Academic
Board. The team of the Director of Academic Services includes the Head

Revised: May 2014
Section 1
Page 8 of 170
of Educational Development & Quality Enhancement, who takes the lead

on such matters as the Universitys quality assurance systems and
compliance with external guidance.
1.4.8
The relationship between the University's Academic Departments,

functional roles and related committees was established as part of a
review of the line management structure in 2002.
1.4.9
The five Academic Departments function as departments in terms of

resource allocation and management but are expected to work in a
multidisciplinary approach to deliver teaching, research and reach-out
activities. Each department has a lead member of staff responsible for its
provision of courses (the Course Manager) and may also have a senior
tutor who works with the Course Manager to support students and the
general management of the Departments courses. The Departments also
have staff assigned to take lead roles for research and reach-out work.
Lead personnel are brought together in Course Management, Research
and Knowledge Transfer committees to assist cross-University work and
to co-ordinate activities with other support services and general University
planning arrangements.
1.4.10
A number of academic departments have research or reach-out centres

which, alongside the Business Clubs, are aimed at developing and
maintaining external contracts with industry, commercial partners or
appropriate government agencies. These centres include the Crop and
Environment Research Centre and ruralconsultancy.com.
1.4.11
The Universitys main administrative sections, and sub-sections, are

arranged as follows:
-
University Secretary
o Personnel Office
Staff Development
o Estates and Facilities Office
Maintenance
Domestic Services
Grounds
Security
o Office Services
Reprographics
Procurement
Reception and Telephones
o Catering
o Alumni and Development
Director of Finance
o Management and Project Accounting
o Payroll and Accounts Office
o IS/IT
o Conferences and Short Courses Office
Director of Academic Services

o Registry
o Examinations and Timetabling Office
o Educational Development & Quality Enhancement
o Learner Support Services

Revised: May 2014
Section 1
Page 9 of 170
1.4.12
1.5
1.6
Student Services
Student Accommodation
Careers and Placement
Student Financial Support
Director of Marketing & Communications

Marketing and Liaison
Press and Publications
Schools and Colleges Liaison
Web-site Development
Corporate Communications
The Vice-Chancellor has appointed a number of academic staff to

lead and develop specific cross-University initiatives. These
include the development and implementation of the Universitys
sustainability strategy and the development of specific educational
projects. The Vice-Chancellor is also responsible for the Farm
Manager and oversight of the University Farm and its commercial
and educational activities.
Staff Representation in Decision Making

1.5.1
The constitution of the Board of Governors provides for a number of staff

representatives. The Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and
Director of Learning & Teaching hold ex-officio positions. Two other
members of academic staff are elected to a four year appointment, and
are eligible for election for a further term of office of four years, following
which they retire from the Board.
1.5.2
The Academic Board includes five elected members of academic staff and
is chaired by the Vice-Chancellor.
1.5.3
Two members of staff are appointed to the Governors Staffing Committee.

One has been appointed from amongst the academic staff and one from
amongst support staff, in order to provide views from these groups of staff
in the determination of University personnel policies and systems.
1.5.4
A termly meeting is held between Course Managers, Senior Tutors and

other key personnel to deal with operational issues and to facilitate
communication between course teams (Annex 1.03).
Student Representation in Decision Making

1.6.1
In addition to representation on the Board of Governors and Academic

Board, students are engaged in many other committees within the
University. These include, for example, course committees. The purpose
of this representation is so that students, as members of the University
community, are able to take part in decision making in relation to
academic matters.
1.6.2
The Students Union is consulted on many University decisions via the

President of the Students Union and regular contact is maintained
between other members of the Students Union Executive and University
officers. Open meetings of the Students Union are held once a term and
are attended by the Vice-Chancellor, University Secretary and other

Revised: May 2014
Section 1
Page 10 of 170
University officers in order to gain feedback from students on issues of

concern.
The Students Academic Group (Annex 1.04) provides a link between
student course representatives and the Academic Board and its
committees, to prompt discussion and comment on issues relevant to the
academic policies of the University.
1.6.3
1.7
Planning Systems
1.7.1
The Universitys strategic planning system is maintained by the University

Secretary (US). The US is responsible for the preparation of a threeyearly strategic plan and for the preparation of annual monitoring and
corporate planning statements required by HEFCE in July each year to
monitor the implementation of the plan and provide a statement of planned
direction in the intervening period between the production of strategic
plans. The Director of Finance compiles annual financial forecasts that
accompany the strategic plan in relevant years, or the annual submissions
to HEFCE in other years. The University Executive is responsible for
ensuring that the Universitys strategic plan, annual monitoring and
corporate planning statements and financial forecasts take into account
relevant considerations from across the University.
1.7.2
The Universitys range of sub-strategies is produced by senior University

staff according to the area in which the strategy is required and their
management responsibilities. Many sub-strategies must be submitted to
HEFCE on a regular basis. It is important for sub-strategies and the main
strategic plan to be co-ordinated, so a system of integrated planning has
been adopted by the University. Figure 1.2 outlines staff responsibilities
for the compilation of sub-strategies.
1.7.3
The Universitys planning structure is outlined in Figure 1.3.
Performance
indicators
Strategic
Plan
Supporting
strategies
and major
linkages
QAA assessments
contract numbers
student retention
mgt of teaching load
HE Fellowships
Learning &
Teaching
Learning &
Teaching
Strategy
RAE grade
grant income
publications
PGR students
KT targets
grad employment
external funding
CPD provision
Research &
Knowledge
Transfer
Research &
Knowledge
Transfer
Strategy
contract numbers
intl stdt numbers
nos at Uni events
press etc cover
website use
3% overall surplus
farm to break-even
1% expend savings
inc in NP funding
finance PIs
investments
staff development
staff performance
better management
better recruitment
equal opportunities
prog & budget

est mgt stats
satisfaction rate
Human
Resources
College Estate
External
Relations
Finance
HR Strategy
Estate Strategy
Marketing &
Communication
Strategy
Financial
Strategy
Annual
Marketing
Plan
Costing &
Pricing
HEFCE audit
internal audit
improved MIS
health & safety
Governance &
Planning
Annual
Operating
Statement
IS/IT Strategy
Widening
Participation
Farm
Strategy
Risk
Management
Subject
Development
Plan
Figure 1.3 The Universitys Planning System

Revised: May 2014
Section 1
Page 11 of 170
1.8
1.7.4
The Universitys planning cycle typically involves the production of a

planning framework statement at the start of each calendar year. This is
intended to take into account academic developments and plans within the
University and external developments from a review of the external
environment. This document is circulated within the University and
considered at relevant committees of the Board of Governors and
Academic Board. The framework is also used by Academic Departments
to develop their academic plans for the next academic year and to inform
them of University priorities over that same period. The framework can
also then be used in staff development reviews, held in the spring/early
summer each year, during which staff can be guided on the contribution
that they can make to help deliver the Universitys priority developments.
Feedback from staff development reviews can be submitted by Academic
Departments to inform the University planning process. The Universitys
plans for the following academic year is considered by the University
Executive and then by the Academic Board and Board of Governors in the
summer term before being submitted to HEFCE in late July.
1.7.5
The Universitys planning cycle is intended to provide opportunity for

academic issues (with appropriate financial considerations) to be at the
forefront of the Universitys planning priorities. The Academic Department
Plans are an extremely important bridge in this respect, and should be
informed by general University priorities as well as providing direction for
staff within the departments on their teaching, research and reach-out
activities. Academic Departments are encouraged to think about the future
direction and development of their subject area, and to look at novel ways
of combining subjects to build new discipline areas. The Board of
Governors appoints one of its members to the Academic Board to monitor
academic developments and concerns of the Academic Board and to relay
these to the Board of Governors as required.
1.7.6
From time to time, the University organises joint planning sessions

involving Heads of Academic Departments, senior managers and
members of the Board of Governors. These have taken the form of
meetings involving the whole Board on occasion, but more often they
include the members of the Finance & General Purposes Committee,
because this committee has oversight of the planning function within the
University.
Risk Management
1.8.1
The University has a comprehensive system of risk management

developed in accordance with the recommendations of the Turnbull
Committee and subsequent HEFCE accounting directions. The Audit
Committee oversees the operation of the Universitys Risk Management
Policy approved by the Board of Governors. The Universitys Disaster
Recovery and Business Continuity Plan sets out systems for dealing with
a wide range of emergencies that the University might experience. The
Universitys Risk Management and Action Plan sets out the Universitys
assessment of major risk items, graded in terms of their potential impact
and likelihood.
1.8.2
The Risk Management and Action Plan is updated annually to take

account of the Universitys changing priorities and perceived risks. The
Plan forms one element of the internal audit plan each year. The Plan
assigns responsibility for dealing with risks to key members of staff, and

Revised: May 2014
Section 1
Page 12 of 170
responsibility for monitoring action to a range of committees of the Board

of Governors and to the Academic Board. Regular reports on risk items
are made to these committees so that progress can be overseen. These
are consolidated in a regular risk management report to the Board of
Governors.
1.8.3
1.9
The Risk Management system is supported by numerous procedures

within the University that aim to ensure that major risks are prevented
insofar as this is possible. The aim of the system is not to eliminate risk,
but to understand and manage it as part of regular processes and
procedures, so that risk management becomes embedded in normal
University activities. These include, for example, routine practices of risk
assessment (for activities and events), health and safety requirements and
the financial assessment of major University developments and projects.
Performance Development Review Academic Staff

1.9.1
The changes occurring in the organisation of higher education, and Harper

Adams in particular, emphasise the need for a skilled, knowledgeable staff
that is able to respond to the challenges of the future.
The Performance Development Review Scheme has been compiled to
help the University monitor the progress and development of its staff and
identify training and professional development needs. Both aspects shall
be approached within the context of the University's strategic and
operational plans. It is an integral part of the quality assurance process
and seeks to ensure that training and development are related to both
individual and institutional needs. The process is a fundamental part of
the University's strategy for continuous improvement and will be properly
resourced.
1.9.2
1.9.3
The scheme has the following aims:

to enhance the quality of the service provided by Harper Adams to
its client and customer groups and, in particular, to its students;
to develop and improve the effectiveness of staff both as members
of the organisation and as individuals;
to prepare staff to undertake changing duties, roles and

responsibilities;
to give staff a clearer picture of their role within the University and
to encourage them to work towards agreed goals and objectives;
to facilitate the identification of training and development needs for

the individual and for the University;
to relate individual review to personal career development;
to identify staff skills and potential.
The performance development review interview provides an opportunity

for staff to discuss:
their role within the University in the context of its mission, strategic
aims and annual operating plan;
their role within the Academic Department in the context of its

strategic aims and annual operating plan;
module evaluation and feedback from students, colleagues and

external examiners;

Revised: May 2014
Section 1
Page 13 of 170
1.9.4
their individual needs in order to fulfil this role;
their views on the procedures and structures of the University

which relate to them;
their career progression and aspirations;
other matters pertinent to the member of staff's position in the

University.
For these aims to be achieved it is essential that for both parties involved
in the review there is:
adequate preparation for the interview;
mutual trust and understanding.
The development review is essentially developmental and is therefore

separate from the Universitys remuneration, promotion and disciplinary
procedures.
1.9.5
The annual performance development review (Figure 1.4) is an integral

part of the systematic institutional review process which also includes
course review and development and Academic Department review and
audit.
1.9.6
The review will take place once each year but that does not exclude
continuing dialogue to assist the developmental nature of the process and
the achievement of objectives.
1.9.7
The review will take place between the member of staff and his/her
immediate Line Manager.
1.9.8
To ensure that maximum benefit is obtained from the review process it is

vital that both the member of staff and his/her Line Manager prepare
adequately for the interview. Guidance notes are available for members of
staff on preparation for the interview.
1.9.9
The interview provides an opportunity for open, two-way discussion of all

issues which the member of staff and Line Manager wish to raise. It
should be conducted in a positive forward looking vein aimed at enhancing
individual and department performance and contribution to the overall
objectives of the University. The essential elements of the review will
include:
communication by line managers of University mission, strategic

objectives and annual operating plans to promote a greater degree
of understanding of the overall business aims;
discussion in relation to the role and contribution of the individual

towards achievement of departmental and institutional objectives;
review of performance in relation to duties and responsibilities;
review attainment/progress against previously agreed goals/key

tasks;
set mutually agreed clear and precise developmental objectives for
the future;
agree the research and related activities (e.g. liaison with industry)
pursued in self-managed time by the member of staff;

Revised: May 2014
Section 1
Page 14 of 170
review training and professional development activities undertaken

in the previous twelve months and the benefits gained;
agree training and professional development activities for the year
ahead;
discuss career aspirations or interests/potential areas for

professional development in the longer term;
discuss other matters pertinent to the individual e.g. opportunities,

constraints.
The interview should conclude with an agreed review of the previous year
against objectives set for that year and an action plan for the forthcoming
year, signed by both parties. This outcome might include mutually
recognised and accepted items which it has not been possible to resolve.
Where, however, there is a major item of dissent unacceptable to either
the Line Manager or the member of staff, recourse can be made to resolve
the issue to a more senior manager.
1.9.10
Individual development needs identified during the review process will be

recorded and brought together with needs identified by other methods to
form Academic Department and across University Staff Development
Plans.

Revised: May 2014
Section 1
Page 15 of 170
External
Influences/
Factors
University
Training/Development
Plan
Generic
Needs
Functional
Plans/Objectives
(Executive)
Functional
Plan
Dept
Plans/Objectives
(Line Management)
Dept
Plan
Team Objectives
(Supervisors)
Team Training/
Development Plan
(Where applicable)
(where applicable)
Individual
Review/Objectives
Individual Training/
Development needs
May
May
June
April
March
Feb
(for next Academic Year)
Annual
Operating
Statement
July
Jan
Strategic Plan
Major University
Targets
Delivery
August
Vision
Mission
Strategic Aims
Figure 1.4 Harper Adams University staff development review process

Revised: May 2014
Section 1
Page 16 of 170
Section 2
Boards and Committees:
Constitution and Terms of Reference
Table of Contents
2.1
Responsibility for Academic Policy and Quality Assurance ................................... 19
2.2
Quoracy of, and Attendance at, Boards and Committees........................................ 19
2.3
Academic Board ......................................................................................................... 19

2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.4
Academic Standards Committee ............................................................................... 21

2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.5
Academic Board terms of reference ............................................................................19

Constitution of the Academic Board ............................................................................20
Academic Board tenure, appointments and elections .................................................20
Academic Standards Committee terms of reference ...................................................21
Constitution of the Academic Standards Committee ...................................................22
Academic Standards Committee tenure, appointments and elections ........................23
Academic Standards Committee reporting ..................................................................23
Programme Approvals Committee ............................................................................ 23

2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3
Programme Approvals Committee terms of reference ................................................23

Constitution of the Programme Approvals Committee ................................................24
Programme Approvals Committee reporting ...............................................................24
2.6
Taught Award Subject and Course Assessments Boards ....................................... 24
2.7
Course Teams and Committees................................................................................. 24

2.7.1
2.7.2
2.7.3
2.7.4
2.8
Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee ........................................................ 26

2.8.1
2.8.2
2.8.3
2.8.4
2.9
Constitution of the Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee ............................26

Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee membership, appointment and
elections .......................................................................................................................26
Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee terms of reference ............................27
Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee reporting ...........................................27
Research Degrees Standards Committee ................................................................. 28

2.9.1
2.9.2
2.9.3
2.10
Course managers and course teams ..........................................................................24

Constitution of course committees ..............................................................................25
2.7.2.1
Credit bearing courses, excluding workforce development courses and
Master of Research courses ......................................................................25
2.7.2.2
Workforce development courses committee .............................................25
Course Committees terms of reference .......................................................................25
Course Committee reporting........................................................................................26
Constitution of the Research Degrees Standards Committee.....................................28

Research Degrees Standards Committee terms of reference ....................................28
Research Degrees Standards Committee reporting ...................................................29
Research Degrees Awarding Board .......................................................................... 29

2.10.1
2.10.2
2.10.3
2.10.4
2.10.5
Constitution of the Research Degrees Awarding Board ..............................................29

Research Degrees Awarding Board tenure and appointments ...................................29
Research Degrees Awarding Board terms of reference ..............................................30
Procedures of the Research Degrees Awarding Board ..............................................30
Research Degrees Awarding Board reporting .............................................................31

Revised: May 2014
Section 2
Page 17 of 170
2.11
Collaborative Programmes Management Committee ............................................... 32

2.11.1
2.11.2
2.11.3
2.12
Constitution of the Collaborative Programmes Management Committee ...................32

Collaborative Programmes Management Committee terms of reference ...................32
Collaborative Programmes Management Committee reporting ..................................32
Research Ethics Committee....................................................................................... 33

2.12.1
2.12.2
2.12.3
2.12.4
2.12.5
2.12.6
Scope and status .........................................................................................................33

Guiding principles ........................................................................................................33
Activities .......................................................................................................................33
Membership .................................................................................................................33
Quorum ........................................................................................................................34
Frequency of meetings ................................................................................................34

Revised: May 2014
Section 2
Page 18 of 170
Section 2
Boards and Committees:
Constitution and Terms of Reference
2.1
Responsibility for Academic Policy and Quality Assurance

The responsibility for determining the academic policy of Harper Adams University
and for monitoring academic quality and standards is assigned to the Academic
Board and its committees and to assessment boards (Figure 2.1). The responsibility
for ensuring the implementation of the policies and procedures determined by these
boards and committees, and for giving advice to their members on resources and
other issues, lies with the University management whose activities and discussions
are co-ordinated through various executive groups described in Section 1. The
constitution and terms of reference of the Academic Board and its boards and
committees is set out in Section 2.3.
2.2
Quoracy of, and Attendance at, Boards and Committees

In order to ensure the proper authority of the University boards and committees,
decisions shall not be made unless at least half of the members are present. All
examiners shall be present at each Subject Assessments Board unless the Chair has
given prior approval and subject to the module(s) concerned being represented by
another tutor. All members of Course Assessment Boards must be present at
meetings unless prior approval for absence is given by the Chair who must ensure
that all subject areas and constituencies are appropriately represented. The Chair of
the Assessment Boards shall determine in each case whether sufficient members are
present to properly progress the agenda.
In order to develop transparency and good communication on policy and quality
issues, all meetings of the Academic Board, its boards and committees shall be open
to academic staff who are not members as non-contributory observers, providing that
the permission of the Chair has been obtained at least two days before the meeting.
2.3
Academic Board
2.3.1
Academic Board terms of reference

The Academic Board is responsible for:
a. determining the direction of academic policy at the University;
b. developing academic plans that will inform the corporate planning
process;
c. approving the academic elements of the Strategic Plan and the
annual Corporate Planning Statement;
d. ensuring that the resource implications of academic planning and
policy making are fully considered in relation to programme
development and teaching, research and knowledge transfer
activities;
e. maintaining oversight of the size and shape of the academic
portfolio and, where appropriate, to take action to suspend or
terminate recruitment to programmes;
f.
considering the recommendations of the Programme Approvals

Committee in relation to new course developments or revisions to
existing programmes, in excess of 80 credits, and accepting,
deferring or rejecting proposals as appropriate;

Revised: May 2014
Section 2
Page 19 of 170
g. approving and monitoring the Learning and Teaching Strategy,

Research and Knowledge Transfer Strategy, the International
Strategy and the Access Agreement with the Office of Fair Access
(OFFA);
h. approving new collaborative partners, involved in programmes in
excess of 80 credits, and annual approval of the register of all
collaborative partners;
i.
maintaining oversight of the student experience;
j.
determining criteria for the admission of students and approval of

the Admissions Policy;
k. considering nominations for the award of Honorary Degrees and

University Fellowships and making recommendations to the Board
of Governors;
l.
determining procedures for students to submit complaints;
m. advising on such other matters as the Governing Body or the ViceChancellor may refer to the Academic Board.
2.3.2
Constitution of the Academic Board

There shall be an Academic Board of no more than 27 members,
comprising the Vice-Chancellor (who shall be Chair) and such other
numbers of staff and students as may from time to time be approved by
the Governing Body. The membership shall be as follows:
Ex-officio (8)
Vice-Chancellor (Chair)
Director of Academic Services (Secretary)
Deputy Vice-Chancellor
Director of Learning & Teaching
Head of Educational Development & Quality Enhancement
Board of Governors representative
Chair of the Academic Standards Committee
In addition to:
2.3.3
Heads of Academic Departments (2)

Elected representatives of academic staff (5)
Elected representatives of students (3)
The Principal of Reaseheath College
Elected member of non-academic staff (1)
Co-opted members in line with current strategic imperatives,
within the maximum membership limit
Academic Board tenure, appointments and elections

The period of appointment of members and the selection or election
arrangements shall be subject to the approval of the Governing Body.
Members representing the academic staff and non-academic staff shall be
nominated and elected by members of their constituency who are not exofficio members of the Academic Board and shall serve for a period of

Revised: May 2014
Section 2
Page 20 of 170
three years and are eligible for re-election for one further three year period
only.
Co-opted members shall be nominated by the Chair for the approval of the
Board.
The Vice-Chancellor may nominate a Deputy Chair from among the
members of the Academic Board to take the Chair in the absence of the
Vice-Chancellor.
Academic Board*
Research &
Knowledge
Transfer
Committee*
Academic
Standards
Committee*
Programme
Approvals
Committee
Collaborative
Programmes
Management
Committee
Research
Degrees
Standards
Committee*
Research Ethics
Committee
Research Degrees
Awarding Board
Course
Committees*
Denotes student membership

Large arrowhead denotes delegated responsibility for policy
development
Small arrowhead denotes reporting line either through
minutes or Chairs reports
Course
Assessments
Boards
Review and approval

sub-committees:
Validation Panels
Subject
Assessments
Boards
Figure 2.1 Academic Board and its standing boards and committees
2.4
Academic Standards Committee

2.4.1
Academic Standards Committee terms of reference

The Academic Standards Committee is empowered by the Academic
Board to:
a. pursue continuous improvement in the quality of the academic
provision of the University and to evaluate the academic standards
and the progress and development of new and existing courses;
b. ensure appropriate arrangements for the validation of proposed
new courses and revisions to existing courses;
c. undertake periodic reviews of all courses;
d. receive and consider all reports of review and validation events,
agree recommendations of Panels or request modification and/or
addition to any conditions of approval;

Revised: May 2014
Section 2
Page 21 of 170
e. agree assessment regulations for all taught courses and awards;

f.
determine policies for student appeals;
g. maintain oversight of approved nominations for the appointment of

external examiners;
h. maintain oversight of a register of professional, statutory and
regulatory body accreditation arrangements;
i.
ensure appropriate consideration and action is taken in response to

external examiners and professional, statutory and regulatory
bodies reports at subject, course and University level;
j.
supervise the annual course monitoring process and ensure that

appropriate action is taken on issues identified and that examples
of exemplary good practice are disseminated;
k. monitor the adequacy of resource provision for courses through

annual course monitoring reports;
l.
keep under review the teaching, learning and assessment methods

and their contribution to the quality of learning opportunities and
student achievement;
m. collate and report to the Academic Board information of strategic

importance arising from course monitoring;
n. establish a panel to deal with cases of student plagiarism, cheating
and collusion as specified in the assessment regulations;
o. keep under review elements of the QAA academic infrastructure
and other external academic reference points, to ensure that
learning opportunities and academic standards are informed by
external good practice and expectations.
2.4.2
Constitution of the Academic Standards Committee

There shall be an Academic Standards Committee comprising academic
staff, students and representatives of partner institutions as may from time
to time be approved by the Academic Board. The membership shall be as
follows:
Chair
Ex-officio (6)
- Chair of Research Degrees Standards Committee (Vice Chair)
- Director of Academic Services
- Head of Educational Development & Quality Enhancement
- Educational Developer
- Deputy Vice-Chancellor
- Partnership Co-ordinator
Members of the academic staff (7)
- two elected representatives of Course Managers
- two members of academic staff elected by members of their
constituency
- three Heads of Academic Departments
Representatives from UK-based Partner Colleges with Harper
Adams awards in excess of 80 credits (2)
- Askham Bryan College
- Reaseheath College
Student representatives (2)
Secretary
- Assistant Registrar (Accreditation & Validations)

Revised: May 2014
Section 2
Page 22 of 170
2.4.3
Academic Standards Committee tenure, appointments and elections

The Chair shall be nominated by the Chair of Academic Board from
amongst academic staff members. The Chair of the Academic Standards
Committee shall serve for a period of three years and may normally be renominated for one further three year period only.
Elected members of the Academic Standards Committee shall serve for a
period of three years and are eligible as candidates for re-election for one
further three year period only. Members elected to represent the
academic staff shall be nominated and elected by members of their
constituency.
The Chair shall nominate a Deputy Chair from amongst the ex-officio and
academic staff members of the Committee.
Members from partner institutions shall be nominated by the Principal of
the institutions they represent.
2.4.4
2.5
Academic Standards Committee reporting

The minutes of each meeting of the Academic Standards Committee shall
be submitted to the next meeting of the Academic Board.
Programme Approvals Committee

2.5.1
Programme Approvals Committee terms of reference

The Programme Approvals Committee is empowered by the Academic
Board to:
a. consider proposed changes to validated courses, including
amendments to course outcomes and to programme specifications,
as well as the deletion or addition of more than 15 credits worth of
modules at any one level in any one academic year;
b. consider proposed changes to validated modules, including the
credit value and level of modules, intended learning outcomes, and
learning, teaching and assessment strategies;
c. consider development approval proposals, in excess of 80 credits,
for new course developments and revisions to existing
programmes, resulting from periodic critical appraisal reports, for
Harper Adams based awards, those at partner colleges and those
developed with external organisations, with a view to make
recommendations to the Academic Board to accept for referral to a
validation panel, defer or reject development approval proposals as
appropriate, taking account of the fit of proposals with the mission
of the University, the resources required to deliver the programme
and compliance with the curriculum framework (and as set out in
Section 3);
d. consider the approval of modules or programmes which comprise
no more than 80 credits, including those developed with external
organisations, and determine the appropriate volume and level of
credit to be assigned;
e. consider Professional Studies Framework route proposals,
irrespective of credit volume, ensuring that no excluded module
combinations are proposed, that credit is work relevant (ie
achieved through, at or for work), proposals satisfy appropriate
award level outcomes, have a clear rationale and clearly set out
the operational responsibilities for constituent parts of the award;

Revised: May 2014
Section 2
Page 23 of 170
f.
consider the approval of Master of Research programmes and

component modules, when no more than 30 credits of new taught
modules are proposed;
g. note the approved programmes of students registered on Studies

by Negotiation awards and Negotiated Master of Research
programmes, which have previously been approved by a subgroup of the committee.
2.5.2
Constitution of the Programme Approvals Committee

The membership shall be as follows:
Ex-officio (14)
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Chair)
(Vice-Chair)
Chair of the Academic Standards Committee
Management Accountant or Director of Finance
Director of Communications
Educational Developer
Heads of Academic Departments (5)
Research Degrees Awarding Board representative
In addition to:
One elected representative of the academic staff (1)
Two elected representatives of Course Managers (2)
Assistant Registrar (Accreditation and Validations) (Secretary)
Laboratory Manager
Library Services Manager
2.5.3
Programme Approvals Committee reporting

The Committee will report on its activities and make recommendations
(costed where necessary) to the Academic Board.
2.6
Taught Award Subject and Course Assessments Boards

Each subject area and each course shall have an associated assessments board with
delegated powers to act on behalf of Academic Board, following procedures laid
down by Academic Board or the Academic Standards Committee acting on behalf of
Academic Board. The constitution, terms of reference and procedures of subject and
course assessment boards are set out in Section 5.7 and Section 5.8 respectively.
2.7
Course Teams and Committees

2.7.1
Course managers and course teams

A Course Manager shall be appointed for each group of courses leading to
cognate awards and for non-award bearing short courses. Each Course
Manager will normally be assisted in his or her duties by Senior Tutors
appointed from the staff teaching these courses. The Course Manager and
Senior Tutors will constitute the course team: their responsibilities are set
out in Section 7.6.

Revised: May 2014
Section 2
Page 24 of 170
2.7.2
Constitution of course committees

Courses leading to cognate groups of awards and the courses in the short
course programme shall be managed by a course committee. The
committee which oversees workforce development courses (ie those
based on learning achieved through, at or for work) including nonaccredited short courses, accredited courses that are no greater than 80
credits in volume, and programmes within the Professional Studies
Framework of any credit volume, will be known as the Workforce
Development Courses Committee (as Section 2.7.2.2). The membership
of each course committee shall include the following.
2.7.2.1
Credit bearing courses, excluding workforce development

courses and Master of Research courses
Membership shall be as follows:
Course Manager (Chair)
Senior Tutors (one of whom shall act as secretary)
A placement manager for sandwich courses
Up to three members of staff from each subject board
which contributes modules to the course suite
A representative of Harper Adams Library Support
Services
Student representatives elected by students from each
year
2.7.2.2
Workforce Development Courses Committee

Educational Developer (Chair)
Workforce Development Administrative Officer
(Secretary)
Short Course and Conferences Manager
A representative from each subject board
Representative of Harper Adams Academic Support
Services
Representative of Harper Adams Information Services
Up to four representatives from delivery partners
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Head of Educational
Development & Quality Enhancement have right of attendance
as advisors/observers but are not committee members.
2.7.3
Course Committees terms of reference

Course Committees are empowered by the Academic Board to:
a. meet at least once per term to review the progress of all aspects of
the courses and to plan future programmes;
b. monitor the implementation of course aims, outcomes, structure
and content;
c. consider the Annual Course Monitoring Report and to initiate and
monitor necessary action;
d. consider and, where necessary, initiate and develop revisions of
the curriculum;
e. monitor recruitment and selection of students;

Revised: May 2014
Section 2
Page 25 of 170
f.
provide assistance and advice to the Course Manager/Chair and

the Short Course and Conference Manager;
g. set up specialist sub-committees or working parties as required

and to consider action recommended by these committees;
h. consider and respond to matters relating to the courses raised by
the Academic Board or the Academic Standards Committee;
i.
ensure that contact is maintained with employers and industry.
Additionally, the Workforce Development Courses Committee is also

empowered to undertake the following:
j. develop, for consideration and approval by the Programme
Approvals Committee, methods and data flows to facilitate
feedback from employers and student participants, and support
regular monitoring and reporting arrangements for flexible,
workforce development programmes.
2.7.4
2.8
Course Committee reporting

The minutes of each course committee shall be submitted to the
Examinations Office for archiving purposes and to the Head of Educational
Development & Quality Enhancement who shall report issues of concern
or of University-wide importance to the Academic Standards Committee.
Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee

2.8.1
2.8.2
Constitution of the Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee

There shall be a Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee
responsible for:
advising on strategic planning of research in the University;
advising on strategic planning of knowledge transfer activity of the

University.
Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee membership,

appointment and elections
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Chair) (Ex-officio)
Research Co-ordinator (Ex-officio)
Knowledge Transfer Co-ordinator (Ex-officio)
Lead on Research and Knowledge Transfer from each Academic
Department (five in total)
Chair of the Research Ethics Committee
Knowledge transfer active members of staff (two in total)
Up to two additional co-opted research/knowledge transfer active
staff
One elected postgraduate research student
The Assistant to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Research Students
Administrator will be the Committee secretary.
Nominations for the Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee shall
be made by members of academic staff. Staff members shall normally
serve for a three year period but are eligible for two consecutive full
periods of membership. Leads on Research and Knowledge Transfer for

Revised: May 2014
Section 2
Page 26 of 170
each Academic Department shall normally serve for a three year period
and the post is subject to election within the Department. Provision shall
be made for periodic (staggered) replacement of members. Research
students will elect representatives annually and those elected shall be
eligible for re-nomination.
2.8.3
Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee terms of reference

The Committee is empowered by the Academic Board to:
a. Take a lead in advising on the strategic direction for research
including:
priorities for research activity and funding;
priorities for Quality Research expenditure;
multidisciplinary research activities;
resources required for research;
effective communication of research opportunities;
collaborative arrangements with other institutions;
monitoring and evaluating the research activity and output
of the University.
b. Take a lead in advising on the strategic direction of knowledge
transfer including:
priorities for knowledge transfer activity and funding;
effective communication of research and scholarly activity
outputs;
monitoring the contribution of research to the taught
curriculum;
provide advice on resources required for knowledge
transfer;
receive, report and monitor the knowledge transfer activities
taking place within academic departments.
c. Receive reports from the Research Degrees Standards Committee
and the Research Degrees Awarding Board.
The committee will meet three times annually.
2.8.4
Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee reporting

The Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee shall inform Academic
Board by:
submitting Committee minutes to the next meeting of the Board,

including recommendations and advice to the Board;
submitting an annual report to the Spring Board meetings which

shall include an evaluation of the research and knowledge transfer
work of the University over the past 12 months informed by agreed
performance indicators, together with annexes listing publications,
research degree completions, registrations for higher degrees and
knowledge transfer activities.

Revised: May 2014
Section 2
Page 27 of 170
2.9
Research Degrees Standards Committee

2.9.1
Constitution of the Research Degrees Standards Committee

There shall be a Research Degrees Standards Committee responsible for
overseeing the development, co-ordination, monitoring and evaluation of
research degrees in the University with members appointed by the
Academic Board.
The membership of the committee, appointed by Academic Board, is as
follows:
Chair (The Chair shall be appointed for a three year period from
amongst experienced Directors of Study, by and on behalf of the
Deputy Vice-Chancellor)
Research co-ordinator
Postgraduate Research Administrator (Secretary)
Chair of Research Degrees Awarding Board
Chair of Academic Standards Committee
Master of Research Award Manager
Elected Postgraduate Representative
The committee will meet at least twice per year.
2.9.2
Research Degrees Standards Committee terms of reference

The Research Degrees Standards Committee is empowered by the
Academic Board to:
a) pursue continuous improvement in the quality of the research
degrees provision and to evaluate the existing standards, including
higher degrees by research and by publication;
b) undertake periodic reviews of the research degree process,
including reference to the QAA Code of Practice, section 1;
c) receive and consider all reports of external reviews;
d) determine policies for the admission of postgraduate research
students and arrangements for student appeals;
e) agree assessment regulations for all awards;
f)
approve nominations for the appointment of external examiners for

note by the Academic Standards Committee through the minutes;
g) ensure proper consideration of external examiners reports;

h) ensure appropriate action is taken in response to external
examiners reports;
i)
consider items of note for postgraduate research degree

programmes, arising from the Research & Knowledge Transfer
Committee and Research Degrees Awarding Board and the
Programme Approvals Committee;
j)
keep under review postgraduate training courses and other

professional development support for postgraduate research
students;
k) collate and report annually to the Academic Standards Committee

the outcomes of annual monitoring of the research degrees

Revised: May 2014
Section 2
Page 28 of 170
provision, with reporting through the Academic Standards

Committee minutes information of strategic or corporate
importance arising from monitoring to Academic Board;
l)
2.9.3
2.10
work with the academic misconduct panel to deal with cases of

postgraduate research student plagiarism, cheating and collusion
as specified in the assessment regulations.
Research Degrees Standards Committee reporting

The minutes of each meeting of the Research Degrees Standards
Committee shall be submitted to the next meeting of the Academic
Standards Committee.
Research Degrees Awarding Board

2.10.1
Constitution of the Research Degrees Awarding Board

There shall be a Research Degrees Awarding Board responsible for
overseeing the monitoring and ratification of research degree awards in
the University with members appointed by Academic Board.
The membership of the Research Degrees Awarding Board shall be not
less than six and no more than 12 in number, and consist of external and
internal members. The membership should be such as to ensure that it
includes individuals with:
experience of completed research degree supervision, especially

at PhD level;
experience of examining research degree candidates, especially at

PhD level;
research experience, research-based publications and current

research activity;
subject expertise to reflect the range of disciplines in which

students are registered as research degree candidates.
No person who is currently registered for a research degree either at the

institution itself, or at another institution of higher education, should serve
as a member. The Chair of the Research Degrees Standards Committee
and the Postgraduate Research Administrator shall be ex-officio members.
2.10.2
Research Degrees Awarding Board tenure and appointments

Nominations for the Research Degrees Awarding Board will be endorsed
by members of Academic Board. The membership will:
be for a period of three years;
include a rolling annual programme of replacement.
Retiring members shall be eligible for reappointment and Academic Board
may co-opt members onto the committee for a period of no more than one
academic session.
Research active staff from Partner Colleges and new supervisors at
Harper Adams are encouraged to attend Research Degrees Awarding
Board meetings as observers. Each Academic Department should be
represented on the Research Degrees Awarding Board, to embed a wider
understanding of the decision making processes and administration of
research degrees within the University. At the end of a period of
appointment, elections within each Academic Department will be held to

Revised: May 2014
Section 2
Page 29 of 170
ensure representation. Other academic staff may attend as observers,

following request to the Chair, in advance of the meeting.
Ex-officio members:
Research Co-ordinator
Postgraduate Research Administrator (Secretary)
Chair of the Research Degrees Standards Committee
Master of Research Award Manager
In addition to:
Up to seven internal members representing all subject areas
At least one and up to two external members
The Board shall elect a Chair for a fixed term of three years from amongst
its membership. The Chair of the Research Degrees Standards
Committee should not be eligible for election to the Chair of the Research
Degrees Awarding Board.
2.10.3
Research Degrees Awarding Board terms of reference

The Research Degrees Awarding Board will meet at least twice per year
to:
a. ensure that the Research Degree Regulations of the University are
complied with;
b. consider registration documents and progress reports on each
research student prepared by the Director of Studies and second
supervisor(s) to monitor progress in relation to agreed targets and
milestones on an annual basis;
c. receive notification of approved student registrations for Master of
Research programmes and consider progress in relation to agreed
targets;
d. receive examination panel reports and subject assessment board
reports and ratify research degree awards;
e. receive reports arising from the agreed complaints and appeals
procedures as they apply to postgraduate research students and
agree any necessary action;
f.
make proposals to the Research Degrees Standards Committee to

enhance the quality of research degree study at the University;
g. monitor the implementation of the QAA Code of Practice for

students and supervisors.
2.10.4
Procedures of the Research Degrees Awarding Board

The Board will:
a. approve candidates for registration;
b. approve programmes of work from all applicants registering for an
MPhil or PhD and to receive notification of approvals for Master of
Research programmes from the Programme Approvals Committee;
c. Master of Research programmes;

Revised: May 2014
Section 2
Page 30 of 170
d. approve the appointment of a Director of Studies for the

candidates programme of work and to approve the appointment of
a second supervisor(s) and/or adviser(s);
e. monitor the appointment of supervisors for candidates undertaking
a Master of Research programme;
f.
ensure that the general arrangements under which each students

research is carried out meets the University requirements;
g. approve those applications for specific degree registration for MPhil

or PhD;
h. approve applications for progression;
i.
approve change or modification to the arrangements originally

approved;
j.
approve the suspension of registration of candidates for research

degrees;
k. approve the extension of the period of registration of candidates for

research degrees;
l.
approve changes in the mode of study of research degree

candidates;
m. oversee all other responsibilities concerning registration,

supervision, suspension and extension of registration;
n. ratify the award of Master of Research, MPhil or PhD.
Where the Board has considered an application and is satisfied that,
subject to the verification of particular matters, the application may be
approved, the Board may authorise the Chair, taking such advice as s/he
or the Board may consider appropriate, to act on behalf of the Board in
granting approval.
If there is no meeting of the Research Degrees Awarding Board scheduled
for some time to consider the examiners recommendation for award, the
examiners report and recommendation will be approved by Chairs action
for reporting at the next scheduled meeting. If the examiners report and
recommendation are not straightforward, they will be posted to all
members of the board requesting comments. All members of the board
will be invited to attend an extraordinary meeting to consider all comments
received before making the decision regarding the award. Quoracy for
such an extraordinary meeting is at least three members who have no
research input, supervision or examination role with the candidate.
2.10.5
Research Degrees Awarding Board reporting

Matters arising from the Research Degrees Awarding Board shall be
submitted to the next meeting of the Research Degrees Standards
Committee and the Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee for
information. An annual report on the research degree provision will be
approved by the Research Degrees Awarding Board for submission to the
Research Degrees Standards Committee.

Revised: May 2014
Section 2
Page 31 of 170
2.11
Collaborative Programmes Management Committee

2.11.1
Constitution of the Collaborative Programmes Management

Committee
There shall be a Collaborative Programmes Management Committee
which has the aims of:
informing and sharing information on award bearing collaborative

programme activities;
overseeing, via monitoring and review, effective and appropriate

quality assurance and enhancement procedures.

Head of Educational Development & Quality Enhancement (Chair)
Partnerships Co-ordinator
Legal Advisor
Assistant Registrar (Accreditation and Validations) (Secretary)
2.11.2
Collaborative Programmes Management Committee terms of

reference
The Collaborative Programmes Management Committee is empowered by
Academic Board to:
a. maintain the registrar of collaborative arrangements;
b. keep under review the arrangements for collaborative provision, as
outlined in Section 8, in keeping with good practice in the HE
sector;
c. monitor Memoranda of Co-operation or Understanding and
contracts with each partner, including operational annexes, and
update on an annual basis or when appropriate;
d. consider and implement the actions arising from annual partnership
reviews;
e. review the progress of on-going programmes, identify outstanding
issues arising and establish timed action plans to deal with them,
including referrals to other committees or individuals;
f.
2.11.3
advise the Academic Boards of the University and partner

institutions of relevant issues, including any points of note arising
from partners HE strategies.
Collaborative Programmes Management Committee reporting

The Collaborative Programmes Management Committee will report to
Academic Board via the minutes.

Revised: May 2014
Section 2
Page 32 of 170
2.12
Research Ethics Committee

2.12.1
2.12.2
2.12.3
2.12.4
Scope and status
Ethical considerations and conduct will include, but not be limited

to, research involving human participants, research using animals,
scientific integrity and the sources of research funding;
To include research undertaken by staff, undergraduate and

postgraduate students;
The Committee is a sub-committee of the Research and

Knowledge Transfer Committee and reports to the Research
Committee via the minutes.
Guiding principles
The Committee shall:
operate procedures no less rigorous than those suggested or

required by relevant statutory or professional bodies;
be impartial, supportive, developmental and dedicated to the

promotion of ethical standards in research;
ensure that proposals are scientifically sound without making

judgements on quality as many projects are undertaken within a
learning environment;
consider, taking specialist advice where required, on the insurance,

liability and other legal implications of activities.
Activities
The Committees activities are to:
recommend to the Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee

and Academic Board policies and procedures for the ethical
conduct of research;
advise University staff and students, as appropriate, on all matters

pertaining to the ethics of research;
issue guidelines and codes of practice, where appropriate on any

matter pertaining to research ethics;
recommend the necessary administrative arrangements for

operating the policies and procedures;
approve the terms of reference, membership, policies and

procedures of delegated committees;
approve procedures for dealing with research ethics matters;
liaise with external research ethics committees, in particular those

established by professional bodies;
subject its own activities to continuous review and present an

annual report on its activities to the Research and Knowledge
Transfer Committee.
Membership
The Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee, taking advice as may
be appropriate, shall appoint members to the Research Ethics Committee,
which shall include:
a Chair who shall have knowledge and experience of both research
ethics and at least one of the areas of research likely to be

Revised: May 2014
Section 2
Page 33 of 170
considered by the Committee. The Chair will be an ex-officio

member of the Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee;
two representatives from active researchers with knowledge of
research ethics;
one member of staff of the University who has knowledge and
experience of moral, philosophical or related issues;
one person who is independent of the University, with knowledge
and experience of moral, philosophical or related issues;
a secretary.
2.12.5
Quorum
Four members, including the Chair, have to be present.
2.12.6
Frequency of meetings
The Committee shall meet three times a year in cycle with meetings of the
Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee.

Revised: May 2014
Section 2
Page 34 of 170
Section 3
Quality Assurance of Teaching & Learning:
Validation, Accreditation, Review & Monitoring Procedures
Table of Contents
3.1
Overview...................................................................................................................... 38
3.2
Development Approval for New Courses .................................................................. 40
3.3
Documentation for the Validation of a Proposed New Course ................................ 40

3.3.1
Contents of the statement of supporting resources and activities .................. 42
3.3.2
Contents of the course handbook.................................................................. 42
3.3.3
Catalogue of module descriptors ................................................................... 42
3.4
Periodic Review of Existing Courses ........................................................................ 42
3.5
Approval of Changes in Resource Requirements for Courses Under Review ....... 43
3.6
Documentation for Periodic Course Review ............................................................. 43

3.6.1
Contents of a critical appraisal report ............................................................ 43
3.7
Validation and Review Procedures ............................................................................ 44

3.7.1
Approval by Academic Standards Committee ............................................... 44
3.7.2
Submission of documentation to validation panel members .......................... 44
3.7.3
Philosophy of validation and review events ................................................... 44
3.7.4
Right of attendance ....................................................................................... 45
3.7.5
Criteria for approval of courses ..................................................................... 45
3.7.6
Programme of a validation event ................................................................... 46
3.7.7
The role and responsibilities of the Chair of panels ....................................... 46
3.7.8
Outcome of validation and review events ...................................................... 47
3.7.9
Responses to validation and review .............................................................. 48
3.8
Changes to Courses in Validation ............................................................................. 48

3.8.1
Revisions to modules .................................................................................... 49
3.9
Approval of Studies by Negotiation Programmes .................................................... 49

3.9.1
Responsibility and timing of meetings ........................................................... 49
3.9.2
Documentation: The programme proposition................................................. 50
3.9.3
Criteria for approval of Studies by Negotiation programmes and awards ...... 50
3.9.4
Outcome of the approval process.................................................................. 51
3.9.5
Changes to validated programmes ................................................................ 51
3.10
Procedures for Validating and Credit Rating Short Courses, Collaborative

Workforce Development Provision and Master of Research Degrees ................... 51
3.10.1
Responsibility ................................................................................................ 51
3.10.2
Outline process and documentation for each category of proposal ............... 52
3.10.3
The principle of proportionality ...................................................................... 52
3.10.4
Criteria for credit rating and validating workforce development short
courses and external qualifications ............................................................... 54
3.10.5
Outcome of the validation and accreditation process .................................... 54
3.11
Course Monitoring ...................................................................................................... 54

Approved: Academic Standards Committee, October 2011
Revised: December 2013
Section 3
Page 35 of 170
3.11.1
3.11.2
Monitoring of award-bearing courses in excess of 80 credits ........................ 54

Monitoring of credit-rated workforce development programmes, short
awards no greater than 80 credits and non-credit rated short courses .......... 57
3.12
Monitoring of Modules and Subjects......................................................................... 58

3.12.1
Responsibility for module and subject monitoring .......................................... 58
3.12.2
Monitoring student perceptions of modules ................................................... 58
3.12.3
Peer perception of teaching and learning ...................................................... 58
3.12.4
Module monitoring......................................................................................... 59
3.12.5
Subject monitoring ........................................................................................ 61
3.13
Annual Course and Subject Monitoring .................................................................... 61
3.14
Withdrawal of Courses ............................................................................................... 62
3.15
Review of Administrative and Academic Support Services .................................... 62

Section 3
Page 36 of 170
3.01
Application for Development Approval form
3.02a
Programme specification template and guidance
3.02b
Workforce development programme specification template and guidance
3.03
Harper Adams University review and revalidation programme
3.04a
Annual course report template
3.04b
Placement Managers (Work-based Learning Tutors) annual report template
3.04c
Workforce development annual course monitoring of partner provision template
3.05
New student survey form
3.06
Course monitoring annual survey of student opinion
3.07
Student placement feedback form
3.08
Short course participant survey form
3.09
Intentionally blank
3.10
Professional Studies Framework Route Proposal form
3.11
Student perception of modules survey form
3.12
Peer observation of teaching form
3.13
Application for Approval Studies by Negotiation Award
3.14
Learning Contract for Independent Study or Work-based Learning module
3.15a
Critical appraisal report template
3.15b
Combined annual monitoring and critical appraisal report template
3.16
Module descriptor template
3.17
Validation panel report template
3.18
Programme approval form

Section 3
Page 37 of 170
Section 3
3.1
Overview
The Academic Board policy of continuous improvement in quality and the
maintenance of academic standards in course programmes and subjects is
discharged through a series of processes defined in Figure 3.1. The processes and
procedures involved in assessment are set out in Section 5. Those relating directly
to course design, teaching and learning are considered in the sequence set out below
except that, because the procedures are similar, validation and review are considered
together (Figure 3.2).
Approval
Development:
the process of establishing whether course proposals

match mission, strategic plan and resources.
Validation &
Professional
Accreditation:
the process through which the quality of a course

proposal or individual student programme is
evaluated and improved.
Accreditation:
the procedure through which an appropriate amount

and level of credit is allocated to qualifications.
Moderation:
the procedures through which the standards of

assessment methods and outcomes are assured.
Assessment:
the process through which student achievement of

outcomes is measured against criteria and standards.
Monitoring:
the continuing process of course and module

evaluation and improvement.
Review:
the periodic (3-6 year) critical evaluation and

revalidation of a course.
Figure 3.1 Quality assurance processes for teaching and learning

Sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.7 outline the arrangements for evaluating and approving the
majority of new course proposals. There are special arrangements for the
consideration of an individuals Studies by Negotiation programme, as set out in
Section 3.9. For courses up to 80 credits in value, that are run in conjunction with
partners, the arrangements set out in Section 3.10 normally apply. The Programme
Approvals Committee (PAC) Chair and Academic Standards Committee Chair may,
exceptionally, approve alternative arrangements for awards of any value, where the
proposal warrants such, whilst ensuring sufficient levels of impartial, yet relevant
academic and professionally-oriented, input into decision-making.

Section 3
Page 38 of 170
New Course Proposal
Periodic Critical Review & Revalidation
Project Team
Course Committee
Application for Development

Approval Proposal
Application for
Development
Approval
recommended for
approval (or
rejection) by
Academic Board
Project Team
Critical Appraisal Report and Application for

Development Approval
Referral to
Academic Board
for rejection &
withdrawal of
award(s)
Programme
Approvals
Committee
[Course
Committee
established for
new courses]
Response to
conditions &
recommendations
Critical Appraisal Report and Application for Development

Approval recommended for approval by Academic Board
Fully
Documented
Proposal
Fully
Documented
Proposal
Registry
Course Team
through Course
Committee
Confirmed reports
and definitive
course documents

Documentation amended as necessary
Approval and
Validation Panel
Critical Review and

Validation Panel
Outcomes
(rejection;
Academic Standards
deferred;
Committee
conditions;
recommendations)
Figure 3.2 Approval, validation and review processes

Section 3
Page 39 of 170
3.2
Development Approval for New Courses

The first stage in the development of a new course is the submission of an
Application for Development Approval, using the approved template at Annex 3.01,
to the PAC. The normal timetable and subsequent stages in validation and course
review, is set out in Table 3.1. Course teams may complete the work at a faster rate
than indicated in Table 3.1. This schedule indicates latest deadlines in relation to
course promotion and student recruitment activities. For new courses the PAC
should approve schedules where the usual UCAS and prospectus listings do not
apply, with an agreed start date.
The PAC will evaluate each Application for Development Approval, in relation to the
University mission and the provisions of the corporate plan, and against the following
criteria:
a) Sufficient student demand;
b) Sufficient employer demand for the skills of award holders;
c) Availability of resource requirements;
d) Robustness of financial analysis, as advised by the Director of Finance or
nominee.
The PAC will recommend to Academic Board whether development approval should
be granted. If the Academic Board agrees to further development, detailed course
planning can proceed, which should culminate in the production of the documents
described in Section 3.3, to the agreed schedule.
In granting development approval the Board devolves full responsibility for validation
and for setting conditions and recommendations to the appointed validation panel
(Section 3.7). Only in those circumstances in which the panel is deemed by the
Academic Board to have contravened the Boards policies or agreed procedures will
the panel be asked to reconsider its decisions.
3.3
Documentation for the Validation of a Proposed New Course

The documents to be submitted for the validation of a proposed new course, following
the granting of development approval include:
a) Application for Development Approval (using the approved template at
Annex 3.01).
b) Course Handbook (as Section 3.3.2).
c) Programme Specification for each final award (prepared to the approved
template at Annex 3.02).
d) Catalogue of Module Descriptors (prepared to the approved template at
Annex 3.16) to be used by the course.
e) Statement of supporting resources and activities (as Section 3.3.1 and which,
for Harper Adams University based courses can draw on the annual statement
of Activities and Resources Supporting Learning and Teaching, maintained by
the Deputy Vice-Chancellors office).
f) A copy of the memorandum of co-operation, where a course is run in
conjunction with a partner (new or existing).
In addition, validation or review panel members should be issued with Section 4,
which outlines the Modular Scheme Framework.
For a foundation degree, the validation documents must include details of the
articulation with at least one honours degree to which foundation degree graduates
may progress.

Section 3
Page 40 of 170
Table 3.1 Approval, validation and critical review schedule deadlines

Promotion &
recruitment
schedule
Oct
Nov
Dec
UCAS entry
prospectus
New course proposal &

validation
Critical Appraisal Report, and

Approval to course committee
then to PAC, to consider and
approve revised outline
programme(s) and associated
resources demands
(Section 3.6.1)
Academic Board ratifies the
granting (or rejection) of
development approval

Approval to PAC (Section 3.2),
which makes recommendations
to Academic Board
Development work
Submission of Critical Appraisal
Report, programme
specification(s), module
descriptor(s), course
handbook(s), and statement of
supporting resources and
activities, to ASC for scrutiny,
prior to consideration by
validation panel
Jan
Feb
Mar
Critical review & revalidation
Website,
paper
promotional
material
Resubmission of revised
documentation to ASC, where
necessary (with most recent
external report(s) and
collaborative agreements
additional items provided to the
validation panel)
Apr
May
Validation event
Confirmed report to ASC
Jun
Panel Chair signs off

responses to conditions for
reporting to ASC
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Promotion:
shows,
career fairs,
open days
Students enrol
Course committee responds to
recommendations through
annual monitoring
Academic Board ratifies the

granting (or rejection) of
development approval
Further development work
Resubmission of Application for

Development Approval (as
Section 3.2), statement of
supporting resources and
activities, programme
specification(s), module
descriptor(s) and course
handbook(s) for ASC scrutiny,
prior to consideration by
validation panel
Resubmission of revised
documentation to ASC, where
necessary
Validation event
Confirmed report to ASC
Panel Chair signs off
responses to conditions
reporting to ASC
11 mths
Oct
Students enrol
Course teams may complete the work at a faster rate than indicated here. This schedule
indicates latest deadlines in relation to course promotion and student recruitment cycles. For
new courses, the PAC should approve schedules where the usual UCAS and prospectus
listings do not apply, with an agreed start date.

Section 3
Page 41 of 170
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.4
Contents of the statement of supporting resources and activities

Evidence of supporting resources and activities should include:
the curricula vitae of staff to act as module leaders for core elements of
the new curriculum and managing the course, including their research and
scholarly activities and outputs;
details of specialist teaching accommodation provision and additional

requirements;
details of specialist equipment and other facilities available and additional

requirements (e.g. land-based enterprises, laboratory experiments,
textbooks and journals) for the course together with data on usage of
these by the proposed course and the level of use by other courses.
Contents of the course handbook
The course(s) handbook will be presented to students at the start of the
course for their information and guidance. It should, therefore, provide all
necessary course-specific information (including that contained in the
programme specification document) in accessible format and language.
The contents would typically include the following:
a personal introduction from the course manager and team;
names and photographs of course team members;
a summary of course(s) data;
a general statement of the philosophy of the course;
course management and monitoring arrangements, including

guidance on sources of academic and personal advice;
a description and explanation of the course structure and teaching

programme, including a course structure diagram and guidance on
access to the full programme specification and module descriptors
(either electronically or in hard copy);
details of the placement period;
the University assessment regulations and progression

requirements together with guidance on deadlines, assessment
criteria and academic misconduct;
personal development planning guidance;
external examiner arrangements.
Catalogue of module descriptors

All proposed modules for the course(s) should be presented using the
format shown at Annex 3.16. All the proposed modules, whether existing
or new, should be considered for their fitness for purpose for the specific
course proposals.
Periodic Review of Existing Courses

All courses are subject to a progress review, normally on a six year cycle for courses
with a normal duration of three years or longer, and a five year cycle for courses of
fewer than three years normal duration. The current review programme is set out in
Annex 3.03.
A periodic course review is a searching and systematic evaluation of the operation of
an existing course and the career success of graduates to ensure that it remains
academically and vocationally valid and continues to meet the needs of students and
employers. The review process provides an opportunity to assess the quality and

Section 3
Page 42 of 170
academic health of a course, and in particular, the maintenance of standards of

teaching and assessment, the adequacy of resource support, the extent and
development of underpinning research and scholarly activity, and the implementation
of Academic Board policies. It also offers the course team an opportunity to reflect on
changes that could be made to improve the quality of students learning experiences
and respond to changing needs and demands. The review by the course team
should culminate in the production of the documentation described in Section 3.6, for
consideration, in the first instance, by the PAC.
3.5
3.6
Approval of Changes in Resource Requirements for Courses Under Review

The PAC will consider the following documents before granting approval for existing
courses to progress to further consideration by a validation panel reporting to the
Academic Standards Committee:
Critical Appraisal Report, which sets out the case for the resource
requirements of the courses under review, using the approved template at
Annex 3.15.
An Application for Development Approval, using the approved template at

Annex 3.01.
Documentation for Periodic Course Review

Following the approval by PAC of the resources proposed for a reviewed programme,
(and as ratified by Academic Board), the documents required for the next stage in the
periodic review of an existing course, for scrutiny by the Academic Standards
Committee, prior to detailed consideration of a validation panel, are as follows:
Critical Appraisal Report using the approved template at Annex 3.15.
Proposed Programme Specification(s) (using the approved template at

Annex 3.02).
Course Handbook (Section 3.3.1 and 3.3.2).
Module descriptor (Annex 3.16) catalogue.
Statement of supporting resources and activities (as Section 3.3.1).
The validation panel will, additionally, be provided with:
Most recent external examiner, professional advisor and professional body

report(s).
A copy of the memorandum of co-operation, where a course is run in

conjunction with a partner (new or existing).
The Application for Development Approval that was approved by the PAC (as ratified
by Academic Board) will also be made available to the panel Chair and Secretary to
help ensure that proposals align with those approved by the PAC.
3.6.1
Contents of a critical appraisal report

a) A Critical Appraisal Report that represents the agreed position of
the whole course team should be prepared using the template
provided at Annex 3.15, to include the following items: a summary
of the changes made to the structure, content and organisation of
the course and to the resource provision since the previous
validation or review.
b) Responses to the most recent external examiner, professional
advisor or professional body reports for the period under review.
c) Core statistics including an analysis of and commentary on:

Section 3
Page 43 of 170
application and admission data;

numbers enrolled and cohort progression, cohort
completion and non-completion rate;
final results and class/grade of award;
first (and as far as is possible, subsequent) career
destinations for each cohort.
d) An evaluation of the views of current and recent students on the

outcomes, content and organisation of the course.
e) An analysis of the views of employers and professional bodies on
the outcomes and content of the course.
Drawing upon this information, the Critical Appraisal Report should
conclude with an analysis of the extent to which the stated course
outcomes have been achieved, a summary of strengths and weaknesses,
and a list of changes proposed to build upon the former and overcome the
latter. This analysis, once approved, should be reflected in a revised
programme specification for each named award.
3.7
Validation and Review Procedures

3.7.1
Approval by Academic Standards Committee

The Academic Standards Committee is responsible for ensuring that
documentation is of a sufficiently high standard to present to a validation
or review panel but must be alert to the danger of usurping the
responsibilities of that panel.
Documents for the validation or review of courses, after approval by the
course planning team or, in the case of periodic course reviews, the
course committee, shall be submitted for approval by the Academic
Standards Committee. Normally a small panel of members will review the
papers and submit recommendations to the full Committee. The panels
primary responsibility is to determine whether all required documentation
has been prepared and that it is fit for purpose, and not make judgements
based on the strength of the proposal itself. However, where the scrutiny
panel identifies issues that may be of concern or interest to the validation
panel, it is encouraged to advise the presenting team accordingly.
3.7.2
Submission of documentation to validation panel members

Documentation for validation and review events should be submitted to
panel members at least 20 working days before the event.
3.7.3
Philosophy of validation and review events

The Assistant Registrar (Validations & Accreditation) is responsible for
assembling validation and review panels, whilst the Academic Standards
Committee is responsible for monitoring the composition of panels when
considering their reports, and advising the Assistant Registrar (Validations
& Accreditation) on future membership. Panels will consist of both internal
and external members, chosen to provide an appropriate range of
expertise, experience and awareness of the institutional and national
context, and the nature of the course, and will normally include:
at least two external members chosen to provide subject expertise,

knowledge of comparable courses in other institutions and
experience of commerce, industry, practice or the professions as
appropriate;

Section 3
Page 44 of 170
3.7.4
3.7.5
representatives of the professional body, where appropriate;
at least two internal members of staff including one from the

Academic Standards Committee (excluding the panel Chair);
a Chair from amongst University staff or, exceptionally, from

outside the University, with appropriate standing, who has
previously acted in this capacity or as a panel member.
Right of attendance
The following will normally have the right of attendance at all review and
validation meetings, including those designated private panel meetings,
as observers or advisors.
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor;
The Head of Educational Development & Quality Enhancement;
The Chair of Academic Standards Committee;
At least one, but not normally more than two members of staff, as
observers for staff development purposes.
Criteria for approval of courses

In considering new course proposals, major modifications and reviews of
existing courses, all panels should seek assurance on the following
general criteria.
The appropriateness of course-specific aims and outcomes to the

personal and vocational needs of the students.
For foundation degrees, the extent to which sector skills council

information on workforce needs and relevant published
occupational standards have been considered in planning the
course.
The degree to which the course outcomes and curriculum reflect

the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications, relevant QAA
benchmarking statements and Code of Practice.
The extent to which the modules satisfy Harper Adams levelspecific generic outcomes and course design specifications
outlined in Section 4.
The appropriateness of the choice of core and optional modules to

the achievement of course outcomes.
The degree of course coherence and progression.
The currency of the contents and their relevance to good

professional practice.
The role and effectiveness of industrial training and its relationship

to the curriculum.
The appropriateness of module teaching and learning strategies in

achieving module outcomes and developing key skills.
The appropriateness of module assessment strategies in testing

module outcomes and key skills.
The students experience of the course: the quality of the learning

environment, the destinations of students and the appropriateness
of their skills and abilities to prospective employers.

Section 3
Page 45 of 170
3.7.6
The appropriateness of resource provision, including staff support

and specialist facilities.
The quality and appropriateness of the staff as demonstrated by

qualifications and relevant scholarly activity, research, reach-out
activity, short course teaching and staff development.
The quality of the course leadership and management and the

ability of the course team to monitor, critically evaluate and
maintain the standard of the course.
The contributions of external examiners, professional advisors and

professional bodies and actions taken to address issues identified
by them.
The proposed course(s) provide(s) equality of opportunity to all

suitably qualified students, regardless of their background.
For Foundation Degrees, the identification of an articulating

Honours Degree programme on to which successful foundation
graduates might progress, either from within Harper Adams
awards or those awarded by other institutions.
Programme of a validation event

In order to fulfil their responsibilities, validation panels have rights of
access to staff, resources and facilities as required. A provisional
programme for the event will be discussed by the Chair with the Assistant
Registrar (Validations & Accreditation) but this is subject to modifications
at the request of the Chair after the first private meeting of the panel.
Normally the programme will include:
Private meetings of the panel;
A presentation by the leader of the course planning team;
Meetings with the course team and with resource managers, visits
to inspect resources, and in the case of periodic review, a meeting
with current or former students, and, if requested, examples of
students work.
The programme will normally conclude with an oral report on the decision
of the panel, by the Chair.
3.7.7
The role and responsibilities of the Chair of panels

The Chair has a key role in determining the effectiveness of the review
and validation process for the proposal under scrutiny. It is the Chairs
responsibility in collaboration with the Assistant Registrar (Validations &
Accreditation) and in consultation with the Course Manager/Course
Manager designate, to structure the event in such a way that an
appropriate level and type of scrutiny is given to all aspects within the
remit of the panel.
An effective Chair need not be an expert in the area under consideration.
It is more important that the Chair has a broad grasp of quality issues, has
the respect and trust of the panel and has well developed interpersonal
and communication skills. A good Chair:
ensures that all panel members are encouraged to contribute fully

to the debate;
is adept at steering a wandering debate back on course;

Section 3
Page 46 of 170
3.7.8
exercises tactful control over more vociferous panel members;
encourages a genuine dialogue between the panel and the course

team and avoids confrontational sessions;
sums up from time to time and articulates decisions as they are

reached;
ensures that proper decisions are reached that are within the
panels remit and are fair and reasonable;
summarises the main judgements of the review and/or validation

panel;
articulates conditions of approval and recommendations in plain

and intelligible language and ensures that the mechanisms and
time scale for achieving unqualified approval are reasonable and
are stated.
Outcome of validation and review events

The secretary of the panel shall normally submit a draft report of the
review and/or validation event to the Chair within one week of the event, or
within an agreed alternative time (see Annex 3.17 for an indicative report
template). The report should include a list of panel and presenting team
members, a summary of the programme of events, and a succinct account
of the discussion of the issues raised and a summary of the panels
judgements on each of the following:
overview of the main characteristics of the course(s) covered by

the review;
evaluation of quality of learning opportunities and standards

achieved for current courses;
identified innovation or good practice in the current or proposed

course(s);
assessment of whether the proposed course(s) remain current and

valid in the light of developments in subject knowledge,
professional or vocational application of that knowledge and
approaches to teaching, learning and assessment.
It should conclude with the decision of the panel which will be one of:
unconditional approval;
qualified approval (approval qualified by recommendations);
conditional approval;
deferred decision with a recommendation for a further meeting;
rejection.
Conditions are mandatory. They must be fulfilled either for the course to
begin or for it to continue. When setting conditions for approval the panel
should:
a) state clearly exactly what must be done, by whom and when;
b) set realistic and meaningful deadlines;
c) specify how the panel will assure itself that the conditions have
been met.

Section 3
Page 47 of 170
Recommendations are not mandatory but should be seriously considered

by the course team. There will be a response to the panels
recommendations either by some date specified by the panel or as part of
annual monitoring, or also as part of the next periodic critical review.
Recommendations are intended to be helpful to the course team and to
assist in developing and monitoring the course. They should be as clearly
expressed as the conditions.
Where a recommendation has been inappropriately expressed as a
condition the Academic Standards Committee may change the condition
to a recommendation, normally after prior consultation with the panel
chair.
The panel should state the next review date for the record, stating
precisely the latest month and year in which a new cohort might enrol, and
may exceptionally recommend an earlier review than the six-year cycle
(Section 3.4).
Where the panel remains concerned about some aspect of the course but
wants to allow the course team a reasonable period of time for it to be
addressed, it may specify, as a condition of approval, that the issue
receives special attention and that a satisfactory response be produced as
part of the annual monitoring exercise of a particular year. The Academic
Standards Committee will be responsible for determining whether the
condition has been fulfilled.
When the Chair has reviewed the draft and revised it where necessary, it
shall be sent to all panel members for comment and agreement. The final
confirmed outcomes of the considerations should be submitted to the
Academic Standards Committee for ratification on behalf of the Academic
Board, with the full report also made available to members for their
scrutiny. A copy of the full report, together with the Programme
Specification, should be lodged with the Assistant Registrar (Accreditation
& Validations) as the definitive course documentation.
3.7.9
3.8
Responses to validation and review

Action required in response to validation depends on the nature of the
decision and whether approval is conditional or qualified by
recommendations. If conditions are to be met the Academic Standards
Committee must assure itself that this happens before the course starts.
Changes to Courses in Validation

Periodic changes to validated courses may be required in response to course
monitoring, external examiners comments, changes in the vocational context, and
experience in delivery after approval. Authority for agreeing such changes is vested
in the PAC and its approval must be obtained for any change which:
involves a change in course outcomes;
affects the overall structure of the course such as a change in the timing of the
industrial placement period;
involves a change in the level of validated modules;
contradicts any conditions or recommendations set by a validation panel;
involves the deletion or addition of more than 15 credits worth of modules at

any one level in any one academic year.

Section 3
Page 48 of 170
The authority for approving more limited changes should be delegated by the PAC to
the appropriate course committee. However, this authority should be tempered by
the need to ensure that other courses affected by any change and those responsible
for resource management give their consent. All proposed changes to any course
which may impact upon another (eg changes to modules) shall be proposed to the
relevant Course Manager(s), with a request for their consent and copied to the Vice
Chair of the PAC. The latter will ensure that proposed changes are consistent with
the effective operation of the modular scheme and alert resource managers to issues.
Changes to programme specifications made by course committees, following
consultation, must be forwarded for ratification by the Vice Chair of the PAC, to
ensure that definitive course documents are maintained.
New modules that may be added within the 15 credit rule should be considered by
the appropriate Subject Assessment Board and submitted for approval to the PAC.
3.8.1
Revisions to modules
Proposals for changes to module descriptors can arise from either
Academic Departments or Course Committees and each party must
discuss and agree any proposed changes. After discussion and
agreement, requests for changes to module descriptors should be agreed
by the appropriate Chair of Subject Assessment Board and forwarded to
the Vice Chair of the PAC by the Subject Board Chair. Requests for
changes to module descriptors, presented with proposed changes clearly
tracked within the extant module descriptor, should be accompanied by a
rationale for the changes proposed and evidence of confirmation of the
agreement of all Course Managers whose courses are affected. The Vice
Chair of the PAC will consider all proposals that meet this requirement
and, where the changes are minor, sign off the changes. The Chair will
inform subsequent Programme Approval Committee meetings of the
module descriptors that have been revised, in this way, so that members
have an oversight of the extent of minor changes,
For more significant changes, involving any of the following, the full PAC
membership will consider the proposals:
a) credit value and level intended learning outcomes;
b) learning and teaching strategy.
The PAC Secretary will record all approved change(s) on the definitive
module descriptor, and make it available to all via the University network.
3.9
Approval of Studies by Negotiation Programmes

3.9.1
Responsibility and timing of meetings

Programmes of study may be negotiated by individual students who wish
to gain taught postgraduate awards through the Harper Adams Studies by
Negotiation Scheme. The Taught Postgraduate Programmes Manager is
responsible for the negotiation of such programmes with each student,
with the exception of the Master of Research awards which are negotiated
by the Master of Research Award Manager, and the PAC (Section 2.5) is
responsible for validating individual awards before commencement of the
study programme. The Programme Approvals Committee will convene a
working group to meet at least twice a year, before programmes are due
to commence to consider and approve applications and report the
outcomes of these considerations in summary format (as Section 3.9.4).

Section 3
Page 49 of 170
3.9.2
Documentation: The programme proposition

For each proposed programme, the Taught Postgraduate Programmes
Manager shall present to the PAC a programme proposition form
(Annex 3.13) for each candidate to include:
a brief academic biography;
a summary programme specification with proposed award title,

award aims and outcomes and a schedule of associated modules
that the candidate wishes to study to satisfy the award outcome;
learning contract forms (Annex 3.14) for any work-based or

negotiated modules together with the names of agreed
supervisors;
the signature of the Taught Postgraduate Programmes Manager,

the student and the resource manager responsible for supportive,
negotiated or work-based modules.
For each proposed Master of Research programme, the Award Manager

shall present to the PAC a programme proposition form (Annex 3.13) for
each candidate to include:
a brief academic biography;
a summary programme specification with proposed award title,

award aims and outcomes and a schedule of associated modules
that the candidate wishes to study to satisfy the award outcome;
learning contract forms (Annex 3.14) for any work-based or

negotiated modules together with the names of agreed
supervisors;
the signature of the Master of Research Award Manager, the

student and the resource manager responsible for supporting,
negotiated or work-based modules.
Approvals of Negotiated Master of Research programmes are not

synonymous with the acceptance of individual students on to that
programme; existing application procedures outlined at Section 6 must
still be followed.
3.9.3
Criteria for approval of Studies by Negotiation programmes and

awards
Each programme must:
a) satisfy the course design specifications set out in Section 4;
b) satisfy the generic outcomes for the award;
c) represent an educationally and vocationally valid programme that
would enable the student to demonstrate achievement of the
outcomes;
d) show evidence of coherence and progression;
e) offer sufficient credits from core, optional and elective modules at
an appropriate level to satisfy the requirements of the award;
For Master of Science Degrees each programme must include:
f)
Research Information Skills (or equivalent) in all taught

postgraduate awards in excess of 60 credits and include no more
than a maximum of 30 credits or 25% of total credits from

Section 3
Page 50 of 170
independent or negotiated modules, at level 5 (intermediate level),

level 6 (honours level) and level 7 (masters level), in addition to the
major independent project.
For Master of Research Degrees each programme must include:
g) modules that purposefully support the research component of the
award, including preparation in research methods, and will include
no more than a maximum of 15 credits or 25% of the total credits
for the taught component from independent or negotiated modules.
3.9.4
3.9.5
3.10
Outcome of the approval process

The outcome of the approval process shall be reported in the PAC
minutes and will be one of:
qualified approval (approval qualified by recommendations);
a deferred decision with a recommendation for a further meeting;
rejection.
Changes to validated programmes

Changes to approved programmes (with the exception of changes to the
range of elective modules selected) shall be restricted to a maximum of
25% of the total credit value, must not affect approved award outcomes or
title and must be agreed by the Programme Manager and the Vice Chair
of the PAC and reported to the subsequent committee meeting. Proposed
changes which fall outside of these criteria must be referred to the PAC for
wider consideration, usually through its working group established for
Studies by Negotiation proposals.
Procedures for Validating and Credit Rating Short Courses, External

Qualifications and Master of Research Degrees
3.10.1
Responsibility
The PAC shall be responsible for:
Assigning credit value and level to short courses.
Validating workforce development provision that fits within the

parameters defined by category one (see below).
Considering development approval for provision that fits within

category two (see below).
Delegating the approval of category two proposals to a Review

Group.
Category one provision must meet all of the following criteria:

a) Has a combined credit value of less than 80 credits;
b) Does not lead to a recognised University award;
c) Supports an annual student headcount less than 100;
d) Supports less than 40 FTE per annum.

Section 3
Page 51 of 170
Category provision two will have a combined credit value of 80 credits or

less and will have one or more of the following features:
a) Leads to a recognised University award;
b) Supports an annual student headcount 100 or more;
c) Supports 40 FTE or more per annum.
In discharging this responsibility, the committee may co-opt internal or
external members who have expertise appropriate to the subject of the
submissions, not otherwise represented by the membership.
3.10.2
Outline process and documentation for each category of proposal

Section 3.7 outlines approval arrangements for long courses in excess of
80 credits (see Table 3.1).
Category one proposals
For category one proposals there is a one-stage approval through PAC
requiring:
Brief Rationale for the proposal, including proposed sponsoring

organisation(s) where applicable, numbers of estimated
participants and forecast budget statement, as agreed with the
Director of Finance or their nominee.
Module Descriptor(s) outlining the key features of each

accredited module that stands alone, using the template available
at Annex 3.16.
A statement of support for the proposal from the sponsoring

Head of Department.
Outline Statement of Resources in which the proposed names

and associated qualifications of each module leader and key,
specialist facilities and resources to support learning are listed.
Additionally, for proposals which include collaborative elements:
A completed Programme Approval Form, as at Annex 3.18. Part

1 only of the form is normally required, unless there are aspects of
the proposed arrangements on which the PAC seeks more
information.
A statement from either Harper Adams in-house legal team, or

University Secretary, which confirms that a suitable Contractual
Agreement has been drawn up.
A statement of support for the presented documentation from

any collaborating organisation(s).
Category two proposals

For category two proposals there is a three stage approval process:
The first stage in the development of a new course is the submission of an
Application for Development Approval, and where an external partner
is involved in supporting the provision, section one of the Programme
Approval Form. The PAC will evaluate each application for development
approval, in relation to the University mission and the provisions of the
corporate plan, and against the following criteria:
a.
Sufficient student demand;

Section 3
Page 52 of 170
b.
Sufficient employer demand for the skills of award holders;
c.
Availability of resource requirements;
d.
Robustness of financial analysis, as advised by the Director of

Finance or nominee;
e.
Perceived risk as determined by due diligence checks.
The PAC will decide whether development approval should be given. In

granting development approval the PAC devolves full responsibility for
validation and for setting conditions and recommendations to the
appointed validation panel.
The second stage of the process is scrutiny of the validation paperwork by
a subgroup of ASC using the processes set out in Section 3.7.1.
The documents required are:
The approved Application for Development with any changes to

the original document noted in an accompanying note;
Module Descriptor(s) outlining the key features of each

accredited module that stands alone, using the template available
at Annex 3.16;
For awards, a Programme Specification outlining key features of

an accredited award, using the appropriate template available at
Annex 3.02b.
Additionally, for proposals which include collaborative elements:
a fully completed Programme Approval Form, as at Annex 3.18;
draft contract approved by either Harper Adams in-house legal

team, or University Secretary; and the
a statement of support for the presented documentation from any

collaborating organisation(s).
The third stage is a validation event which considers the robustness of the
proposal against the criteria in Section 3.10.4.
The validation panel will comprise:
A PAC representative (who shall act as Chair);
An ASC representative;
A suitably qualified external academic (who may contribute to the

review by correspondence, via video or voice link or in person).
The panel will consider the documentation and thereafter meet with the
proposing team to explore issues arising and seek clarity where required.
Finally, private panel meeting will then be held and an approval decision
made. The proposing team will be notified immediately of the decision.
3.10.3
The principle of proportionality

These arrangements are underpinned by the principle of proportionality.
In the event that existing provision, approved under category one
arrangements, is enlarged incrementally, and in so doing evolves in to
category two provision, the Chair or Vice Chair of PAC shall determine the
arrangements for approval. Where a partner organisation is involved in

Section 3
Page 53 of 170
delivery or assessment, this process will always require the presentation

of a Programme Approval Form.
3.10.4
Criteria for credit rating and validating workforce development short

courses and external qualifications
In credit rating short courses or external qualifications the PAC must
determine:
the extent to which the courses or qualifications satisfy Harper

Adams criteria for amount and level of credit set out in Section 4;
the extent to which the proposal aligns with the normal

expectations for managing standards and enhancing the quality of
learning opportunities, as outlined in the Framework for Higher
Education Qualifications, and the Quality Code published by the
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
In those cases in which the design of the teaching and learning, or the
assessment programme, of external courses or qualifications do not fully
match the criteria set out above then additional learning and/or
assessment may be proposed.
3.10.5
Outcome of the validation and accreditation process

The proceedings and outcome of the validation and accreditation process,
which shall be final, should be recorded.
It will conclude with a decision of the PAC which will be one of:
unconditional, conditional or qualified approval for a module or

programme of a particular volume and level of credit for a fixed
period of time or number of cohorts;
a request for additional information;
rejection of the claim.
Definitive documents shall be maintained by the Assistant Registrar

(Validations & Accreditation).
Any accredited module or programme will be entered on the Harper
Adams Module Registration system.
3.11
Course Monitoring
3.11.1
Monitoring of award-bearing courses in excess of 80 credits

The management and quality assurance of validated courses is the
responsibility of the course team under the leadership of the course
manager. It is the responsibility of course teams to continuously monitor
and improve the quality of each course and the deliberations and
decisions of those involved are formalised in the meetings and minutes of
the course committees and course assessment boards. A schematic
representation of the processes involved is given at Figure 3.3.
For programmes in excess of 80 credits in value, this process of
monitoring culminates in the compilation by the course team of an annual
monitoring report which includes statistical data on entry, progression,
performance, careers and the views of staff and students involved in the
course (Annex 3.04a).

Section 3
Page 54 of 170
The views of students concerning recruitment and induction (Annex 3.05)

course, modules, resources, student services (Annex 3.06) and work
placement (Annex 3.07) shall be canvassed by the course team through
the use of the students appraisal forms and course and year group
meetings as appropriate.
The course report is discussed at the annual course monitoring meeting of
the course committee. At this meeting, the outcome of the previous years
action plan is reported and a new action plan and list of items of good
practice is agreed. Most issues in the action plan are earmarked for action
by the course manager or other members of the course team. Issues
outside the jurisdiction of the course committee are identified for carrying
forward by committee members, for consideration by individuals or, where
institutional policy is involved, by the appropriate committee
(Section 3.13).

Section 3
Page 55 of 170
INFORMATION
Student perceptions
pre university:
contacts
induction
modules
placement
learning resources
course organisation
student services
Peer perception of
above
METHOD
PRODUCT
ASC
(via course monitor)
Questionnaire
discussion
groups
External
examiner/
professional
advisor/
professional
body reports &
responses
REVIEW &
FEEDBACK
Annual
Course
Report
Course
Committee
Reports:
course manager
placement manager
(incl employer feedback)
student representative
Course team
monitoring
meeting
Staff feedback
Statistical data:
recruitment data
module grades
placement data
progression rates
first destination data
Module
review
request
Module
review
response
Academic
Department Leader
Diagram adapted from The Centre for Learning & Teaching, University of Technology,
Sydney (2001). UTS Evaluation Guide: Why evaluate teaching and courses (online).
Available from www.iml.uts.edu.au (accessed on 8th February 2005).
Figure 3.3: Schematic representation of procedures for monitoring award bearing
courses

Section 3
Page 56 of 170
3.11.2
Monitoring of credit-rated workforce development programmes,

short awards no greater than 80 credits and non-credit rated short
courses
Non-credit rated short courses, credit-rated short courses of up to 80
credits in value, and all Professional Studies Framework awards,
irrespective of credit value, are monitored through the Workforce
Development Course Committee (Section 2.6).
To uphold its terms of reference the Workforce Development Course
Committee shall meet to:
a) Consider the minutes of the annual partnership reviews undertaken
with collaborative partners. In so doing the committee will:
Identify any common issues amongst the annual
partnership reviews which would benefit from an
institutional response or wider consideration;
Recommend changes to course documentation, curriculum
or partnership arrangements to reflect emergent ways of
working between the university and the partner;
Note specific action plans arising from the APR.
b) Review the approaches used to gather and consider student and
sponsor feedback.
Link tutors will be required to submit the minutes of the annual partnership
review to the Course Committee Secretary by no later than two weeks
before the meeting.
The Chair of the Workforce Development Course Committee will provide a
report of this meeting to the Collaborative Programmes Management
Committee.
For annual monitoring, the Workforce Development Course Committee will
receive a series of short reports, as follows:
a) A short report on the quality of learning opportunities and
associated supporting environment covering the non-credit rated
short course provision is prepared by the Short Courses and
Conference Manager. Participant feedback is the primary source
of evidence, although may be augmented with sponsor feedback,
where available.
b) Each Link Tutor or manager of a credit-rated short course, will
prepare a brief report, covering the following matters related to
both the quality of learning opportunities and academic standards:
Any aspects of enrolment, pass rates / progression or

achievement identified for action by the Academic Board;
Items arising from consideration of external examiner or

professional advisor reports and the proposed responses to
these;
Items arising from consideration of candidate feedback and

the proposed responses to these. Where there are multiple
partners involved, candidate feedback should be
considered in relation to each partner.
A template for annual course monitoring is available at Annex 3.04c.

Reports must be submitted two weeks prior to the meeting.
Section 3
Page 57 of 170
Following discussion the committee will agree a response to any external

examiner or professional advisor reports and an overview action plan, for
reporting to the Academic Standards Committee.
The Workforce Development Course Committee Chair will prepare the
action plan synthesis. The report will confirm the responses to external
examiner or professional advisor reports, activities to enhance provision,
and identified exemplary practice for onward dissemination, with timebound action point responsibilities assigned to identified individuals.
The agreed action plan, in conjunction with external examiners /
professional advisors reports, and the preceding report to Academic
Board, will be used, by the Head of Educational Development & Quality
Enhancement, to prepare a brief summary report to the Academic
Standards Committee.
The Workforce Development Course Committee will review progress
against actions arising from the Annual Partnership Meetings and Annual
Monitoring Reports.
3.12
Monitoring of Modules and Subjects

3.12.1
Responsibility for module and subject monitoring

The management and quality assurance of individual modules is the
responsibility of each member of academic staff involved with the module
under the leadership of the Head of Academic Department concerned. It
is the responsibility of teaching staff to continuously monitor and improve
the quality of teaching, learning and assessment in their subject and
modules. The outcome of this process shall be audited through the
annual staff review processes (Section 1.4.3) and the meetings of subject
assessment boards (Section 5.8) and, where appropriate, through the
module monitoring process (Section 3.12.4).
The responsibility for review of the whole subject area lies with the Head
of Department and, if different, with the Chair of the relevant subject
assessment board. A schematic representation of the processes involved
is given at Figure 3.4.
3.12.2
Monitoring student perceptions of modules

Student perceptions of the quality of modules are most effectively
gathered informally by staff during delivery so that responses can be made
where appropriate. This may be done through questionnaires
(Annex 3.11), focus groups or whole class discussion as appropriate. In
addition, students are asked to score all modules in the annual course
monitoring survey (Section 3.11.1) and any that score below 2.6 shall be
subject to a module review process and reported as part of the annual
subject review, to the Academic Standards Committee (Section 3.12.5),
course committees (for annual course reports as Section 3.11.1) and
Head of Educational Development & Quality Enhancement (for producing
the overview report as Section 3.13).
3.12.3
Peer perception of teaching and learning

All module leaders and tutors are expected to provide students with a
scheme of work at the beginning of each module. This scheme shall be
available for moderation by the relevant Head of Department. In addition,
it is Academic Board policy that each member of staff shall reflect at least

Section 3
Page 58 of 170
annually upon their teaching and learning with evidence gained from peer
observation of teaching, with frequency depending on experience.
Guidance on the implementation of this policy is provided in the peer
perception of teaching form at Annex 3.12.
3.12.4
Module monitoring
Module monitoring may form part of the annual staff development review
process. Reflection on student and peer perceptions of the module, data
on student results, and any feedback from moderation of assessment and
external examiners reports (Section 5) may form the basis for discussion
at the review.
More formally, any module that scores below 2.6 in the annual course
monitoring survey of student opinion shall be subject to a more formal
review so that feedback can be given to the course committee. This
review is the responsibility of the Head of Department concerned, in
consultation with the module leader who needs to feel ownership of the
outcome if it is to be successful. The purpose of the exercise is to identify
issues of concern and to agree action to ameliorate as appropriate. It may
involve inter alia:
discussion with the module leader and course manager or senior
tutor;
research on student perceptions through survey or discussion;
a review of external examiners reports, student results and subject
board minutes;
discussion with peers who have observed teaching.
The outcome of the review should be agreed with the module leader and
should be incorporated into the annual subject review report
(Section 3.12.5), which is copied to appropriate course managers for
reporting at the next course committee meeting.

Section 3
Page 59 of 170
INFORMATION
Student
perception of
teaching
METHOD
PRODUCT
Course Team
Monitoring
Meeting
Questionnaire
discussion
groups
Personal
perception of
teaching
Reflection
Peer
perception of
teaching
Teaching
observation &
moderation of
scheme of
work
Student
development
Personal
research &
scholarship
Peer
perception of
assessment
Moderation &
external
examiner
reports
Student
performance
Assessment
data
REVIEW &
FEEDBACK
Module
review
request
Staff
development
review
Module
review
response
Academic
Department
Leader Subject
Monitoring
Report
ASC
Diagram adapted from The Centre for Learning & Teaching, University of Technology,
Sydney (2001). UTS Evaluation Guide: Why evaluate teaching and courses (online).
Available at www.iml.uts.edu.au (accessed 8th February 2005).
Figure 3.4: Schematic representation of procedures for monitoring subjects and
modules

Section 3
Page 60 of 170
3.12.5
Subject monitoring
After receipt of the subject external examiners reports, each Head of
Department, having consulted with department members, shall prepare a
short Subject Review Report for submission to the Academic Standards
Committee, Course Managers and Head of Educational Development &
Quality Enhancement. It shall include, inter alia:
evaluation of, and responses to, the external examiners reports;
information on changes made or proposed in response to the

external examiner reports or to module reviews;
an evaluation of student achievement (especially at level 6

[honours level] and level 7 [masters level]) as indicated by
moderation procedures, external examiners reports and student
results;
significant developments in the subject arising out of personal

research, scholarship or external developments;
exemplary practice for dissemination;
any other matters arising from subject assessment board

considerations for University-wide consideration.
In doing so, Course Committees can be advised of good practice or issues

identified through course surveys, at the module level; subject
developments across the curriculum; and responses to the subject board
external examiners reports. Each of these aspects may feed into annual
course reports prepared by the respective Course Managers.
3.13
Annual Course and Subject Monitoring

Early in each academic year the Academic Standards Committee shall hold an
annual course and subject monitoring meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to
develop an overview of the courses and subjects and to assure standards and
identify good practice. It also ratifies the responses to external examiner reports that
are prepared by course committees.
As context, members of the Committee shall be provided with University-wide data,
which has previously been considered by the Academic Board, prepared by the
Director of Academic Services, including:
an analysis of student recruitment;
a new-student profile together with an equal opportunities analysis;
an analysis of student progression for each taught course;
an overview of student perceptions on induction and course provision.
Members shall also be provided with:
collated action plans arising from the course monitoring process;
an annual overview report prepared by the Head of Educational Development

& Quality Enhancement in which issues on quality and standards of
University-wide importance are drawn to the attention of the committee,
(incorporating external examiners reports and responses; subject review
reports; annual course reports, validation and accreditation reports; student
progression and achievement data; aspects arising from student surveys).
The Committee shall determine what action shall be taken as a result of this review.
Such action may include recommendations to Academic Board or to any other
Section 3
Page 61 of 170
committees or boards responsible to it. The annual overview report, once considered
by the Academic Standards Committee, is also made available, upon request, to
Harper Adams appointed external examiners. External examiners are also provided
with the response(s) to their individual reports, arising from course committee or
Academic Standards Committee consideration, by the Head of Educational
Development & Quality Enhancement.
3.14
Withdrawal of Courses
The Academic Board determines, having consulted with appropriate Course
Managers and Heads of Department, when courses should be withdrawn from the
University portfolio. Such consideration is normally given in reviewing the draft UCAS
Directory submission in the Autumn term preceding the subsequent years intake and,
exceptionally, in the Spring for the same years intake.
3.15
Review of Administrative and Academic Support Services

The University needs to be assured that its support services are aligned to the needs
of the institution and its customers and that they offer value for money.
The University Executive will recommend to the Academic Board any administrative
or academic support service(s) to be reviewed, as and when this is necessary, taking
into account of the Universitys strategic needs as well as operational issues within
the administrative and academic support services. The review may be of an
administrative or academic support unit or a functional area of activity that cuts
across individual units.
The review will seek to ensure that the administrative or academic support service is
in touch with the needs of its stakeholders and responsive to those needs by
identifying services which can be improved, enhanced, refocused or discontinued,
according to terms of reference recommended by the University Executive and
approved by the Academic Board.
The review panel will be organised as determined by the University Executive or
Academic Board, and as specified by the Vice-Chancellor, depending on the nature
of the review.

Section 3
Page 62 of 170
Section 4
Modular Scheme Framework
Table of Contents
4.1
4.2
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 66
Aims of the Modular Scheme ..................................................................................... 66
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.3
Awards and Generic Outcomes ................................................................................. 68

4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.4
The definition of credit .................................................................................................71

The amount of credit ....................................................................................................72
The level of credit and its contribution to award classification .....................................72
Criteria for the allocation of levels to modules .............................................................72
Requirements for awards.............................................................................................73
Validation of awards ....................................................................................................73
Access, Progression, Transfer and Registration ..................................................... 75

4.5.1
4.5.2
4.5.3
4.5.4
4.5.5
4.5.6
4.5.7
4.5.8
4.5.9
4.5.10
4.5.11
4.6
Awards of Harper Adams University ............................................................................68

Generic outcomes of Harper Adams awards...............................................................68
Award-specific outcomes .............................................................................................71
Credit Definition of Awards ........................................................................................ 71

4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.4.5
4.4.6
4.5
Generic aims of undergraduate modular awards ........................................................66

Generic aims of the Graduate Certificate and Graduate Diploma ...............................67
Generic aims of postgraduate awards .........................................................................67
Award-specific aims .....................................................................................................67
General academic requirements for access to Foundation Degree courses ..............75

General academic requirements for access to Certificate of Higher Education,
Diploma of Higher Education, Ordinary Degree and Honours Degree .......................75
General academic requirements for access to University Foundation Certificate,
University Certificate, Graduate Certificate and Graduate Diploma ............................76
General academic requirements for access to the Postgraduate Certificate or
Diploma ........................................................................................................................76
General academic requirements for access to a Masters Degree (excluding Master
of Research) ................................................................................................................76
Preferred and required subjects and grading ..............................................................76
Personal qualities and experience ...............................................................................77
Admission to full-time courses .....................................................................................77
Admission with academic credit to Harper Adams courses ........................................77
Progression and transfer arrangements ......................................................................77
Registration ..................................................................................................................79
Course Design, Structure and Requirements ........................................................... 79

4.6.1
4.6.2
4.6.3
4.6.4
4.6.5
4.6.6
4.6.7
4.6.8
4.6.9
Programme specifications and award titles .................................................................79

Principles of course design ..........................................................................................79
Modes of study ............................................................................................................80
Course duration and outline structure .........................................................................80
Modules: Definition, contact time and delivery mode ..................................................80
Module assessment .....................................................................................................81
Core, optional and elective modules ...........................................................................81
Pre-requisites ...............................................................................................................82
Other sources of credit ................................................................................................82

Section 4
Page 63 of 170
4.6.10
4.6.11
4.7
Harper Adams Professional Scholarship Programme ............................................. 84

4.7.1
4.7.2
4.7.3
4.7.4
4.7.5
4.8
Requirements ..............................................................................................................86
Aims of the placement period ......................................................................................86
Outcomes of the placement period ..............................................................................86
Duration, value and timing of the placement period ....................................................86
Preparation for the placement period ..........................................................................87
Placement of students .................................................................................................87
Support and guidance..................................................................................................87
Assessment of the placement period ..........................................................................88
Submission dates for written work and final deadlines ................................................88
Assessment regulations for the placement period ......................................................89
Management of the Modular Scheme ........................................................................ 89

4.9.1
4.9.2
4.9.3
4.9.4
4.9.5
4.9.6
4.9.7
4.9.8
4.9.9
4.10
Introduction ..................................................................................................................84
Aims of the Professional Scholarship Programme ......................................................85
Delivery of the Professional Scholarship Programme .................................................85
Elements of the Professional Scholarship Programme ...............................................85
Assessment of the Professional Scholarship Programme ..........................................85
Placement Period ........................................................................................................ 86

4.8.1
4.8.2
4.8.3
4.8.4
4.8.5
4.8.6
4.8.7
4.8.8
4.8.9
4.8.10
4.9
The Harper Adams Studies by Negotiation Scheme ...................................................83

International awards ....................................................................................................83
Responsibility for the scheme ......................................................................................89

Management of the module scheme ...........................................................................89
Course managers and senior tutors ............................................................................89
Module leaders ............................................................................................................89
Course committee membership and terms of reference .............................................89
Management of partnership courses ...........................................................................90
Course evaluation ........................................................................................................90
Learner support ...........................................................................................................90
Other University-wide support .....................................................................................90
Professional Studies Framework............................................................................... 90

4.10.1
4.10.2
4.10.3
4.10.4
4.10.5
4.10.6
4.10.7
4.10.8
4.10.9
4.10.10
4.10.11
Outline of the Professional Studies Framework ..........................................................90

Glossary for Professional Studies Framework ............................................................91
Aims of the Professional Studies Framework ..............................................................91
Outcomes of the Professional Studies Framework .....................................................91
Sources of credit ..........................................................................................................93
Individual accreditation of prior learning claims ...........................................................94
Route proposal form and award titles ..........................................................................94
Partnership approval procedure ..................................................................................95
Professional Studies Framework module suite ...........................................................95
Professional Studies Framework module scaling and reuse .......................................95
Management of the Professional Studies Framework .................................................96

Section 4
Page 64 of 170
4.01
Independent Study Module

Section 4
Page 65 of 170
Section 4
4.1
Introduction
The Harper Adams University modular scheme provides a framework within which
individual programmes and courses may be designed. It is intended to be flexible and
permissive whilst ensuring consistency and standards. It is also intended to promote
efficiency of resource use through the sharing of modules between courses, where it
is educationally sound to do so. Undergraduate and postgraduate courses and
programmes that do not comply with this framework and regulations will not be
developed or offered except with the express permission of the Academic Board.
The framework has been established within the context of the Harper Adams mission
of providing, Higher Education for the delivery of a sustainable food chain and rural
economy and is defined by:
generic educational aims of the Harper Adams courses (Section 4.2);
generic outcomes for each type of award (Section 4.3);
the amount and level of credit for awards (Section 4.4);
access, transfer and registration requirements (Section 4.5);
programme design, structure and requirements (Section 4.6) including the

Harper Adams Professional Scholarship Programme (Section 4.7).
This section also provides guidance on course management arrangements

(Section 4.9) and throughout this section the terms that follow have the meanings
ascribed to them here.
Award
A qualification (eg diploma, degree etc).
Award title The desciptor used to indicate the subject of the qualification (eg
Foundation Degree Agriculture etc).
Programme The core and optional modules students follow to qualify for a
named award.
Course
4.2
Curriculum for a group of cognate awards managed by one Course

Manager.
Aims of the Modular Scheme

4.2.1
Generic aims of undergraduate modular awards

To develop in each student subject knowledge and understanding
appropriate to individual interests and developing vocational needs.
To develop each student's intellectual powers, their understanding and
judgement, their ability to see relationships within what they have learned
and to examine the field of study in a broader perspective.
To develop the personal effectiveness and employability of students, in
particular their ability to learn, to communicate, to work with others and to
solve problems.
To develop those skills of professional scholarship required for career
management, lifelong learning and innovation.

Section 4
Page 66 of 170
To inculcate an awareness of the wider consequences of economic

activity and a determination to minimise harmful effects on the
environment and on people.
To provide a lively, stimulating and challenging educational experience.
4.2.2
Generic aims of the Graduate Certificate and Graduate Diploma

To develop an understanding of principles which provide the conceptual
and analytical framework for existing knowledge and experience.
To develop the ability to apply knowledge, principles and experience to the
analysis and solution of problems not previously encountered.
To reinforce and extend sensitivity to the wider political, social,
environmental and economic implications of economic activity in the
countryside.
To develop the higher intellectual skills of evaluation, synthesis and
generalisation through reflection upon experience.
4.2.3
Generic aims of postgraduate awards

To deepen knowledge and understanding of facts, concepts and principles
in a specialist area beyond that acquired in undergraduate studies.
or
To develop knowledge and understanding of facts, concepts and
principles in a specialist area which is different to that studied at first
degree level.
and
To develop the skills required to deal with complexity and uncertainty in
the application of concepts and principles to the solution of management,
scientific, technical or economic problems.
To provide a sound basic research training to underpin a further degree or
research in a professional context.
To develop personal autonomy, initiative and responsibility and to evaluate
the work of others.
For the 2004-entry cohorts and onwards, the Master of Engineering
generic award aims embrace both undergraduate and postgraduate
generic award aims.
4.2.4
Award-specific aims
Each award offered by Harper Adams is defined both by the general
educational aims set out above and by award-specific aims set out in each
programme specification.

Section 4
Page 67 of 170
4.3
Awards and Generic Outcomes

4.3.1
Awards of Harper Adams University

The list of awards offered by Harper Adams University is as follows:
Level 3 (FE3 level)
No level 3 awards are currently made, although students on the Extended
Foundation Degree study level 3 modules.
Level 4 (Certificate level)
University Foundation Certificate
Certificate of Higher Education
Level 5 (Intermediate level)
University Diploma
Diploma of Higher Education
Foundation Degree
Level 6 (Honours level)
Graduate Certificate
Graduate Diploma
Ordinary Degree
Honours Degree
Level 7 (Masters level)
Postgraduate Certificate
Postgraduate Diploma
Masters Degree (including Master of Engineering for 2004 entry cohorts
and onwards)
Master of Research Degree
Interim awards can be awarded to eligible students if they do not proceed
to or complete their intended programmes. Qualifications are awarded for
achievement of specified outcomes and credits and will not be offered as
compensation for failure at another level. Interim awards and their
requirements are specified in relevant programme specifications.
4.3.2
Generic outcomes of Harper Adams awards

Level 3 (FE3 level) awards:
On successful completion of level 3 (FE3 level) awards, students will be
able to:
a. collect and interpret data from a range of prescribed sources, to
complete defined tasks;
b. communicate familiar information using an appropriate format;
c. use standard information and communication technology tools;
d. relate given principles to an understanding of current practices in
the field of study;
e. make judgements within criteria set by others, including on
themselves.
Level 4 (Certificate level) awards:
On successful completion of level 4 (Certificate level) awards, (including
University Foundation Certificate and Certificate of Higher
Education), students will be able to:
a. collect and evaluate information from a range of sources;

Section 4
Page 68 of 170
b. communicate clearly and concisely using an appropriate format;

c. use information and communication technology effectively;
d. manipulate and interpret sets of data, assess their reliability and
present them in an appropriate format;
e. demonstrate knowledge and understanding of current practices in
the field of study;
f. under guidance, relate knowledge to relevant principles and theory;
g. respond appropriately to evaluation by others.
Level 5 (Intermediate level) awards:
On successful completion of level 5 (Intermediate level) awards (including
University Diploma, Diploma of Higher Education or Foundation
Degree), students will be able to:
a. communicate clearly, concisely and confidently, using an
appropriate format;
b. collect, select and critically evaluate information from a range of
sources;
c. manipulate and interpret complex sets of data, assess their
reliability and present them in an appropriate format;
d. learn independently and display the skills of professional
scholarship required for personal development, career
management and lifelong learning;
e. use information and communication technology effectively;
f. select and apply knowledge and principles to the solution of well
defined problems;
g. demonstrate familiarity with, and understanding of, the important
facts and principles in a broad field of study and an awareness of
the provisional nature of knowledge and theory;
h. assess the ethical dimensions and wider consequences of human
activities, to optimise economic, community and environmental
sustainability;
For the Diploma of Higher Education or Foundation Degree students
will, in addition, be able to:
i. define criteria and use them to plan, allocate and evaluate the work
of self, individuals and teams;
j. organise and administer the human and physical resources
required to develop and maintain a sustainable enterprise or
organisation, after further experience;
For the Foundation Degree students will, in addition, be able to:
k. display the transferable skills and ability to acquire new
competencies required for career progression, including the
acquisition of applied workplace skills;
l. demonstrate the ability to establish effective working relationships
with others, defining, sharing and delegating responsibility within a
group;
For sandwich awards, students will, in addition, be able to:
m. display the attributes, behaviour and attitudes required in working
life, in the work place;

Section 4
Page 69 of 170
Level 6 (Honours level) awards:

On successful completion of the Ordinary Degree, Honours Degree and
Master of Engineering Degree, students will, in addition, be able to:
n. marshal evidence, by reference where appropriate to primary
sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline, and apply
it in a balanced way in an argument;
o. select and apply appropriate scientific, economic or business
principles and techniques to the diagnosis, analysis and solution of
complex and unpredictable problems;
For the Honours Degree and Master of Engineering Degree, students
will, in addition, be able to:
p. formulate hypotheses or research questions, plan and execute
research or development work, evaluate the outcomes and draw
valid conclusions.
In addition to outcomes a-p above, a holder of a Master of Engineering
Degree will also be able to demonstrate the generic Level 7 (Masters
level) award outcomes listed below.
Graduate Certificate and Graduate Diploma
On successful completion of a Graduate Certificate or Graduate
Diploma students will be able to:
a. communicate clearly, concisely and confidently, using an
appropriate format;
b. use information and communication technology effectively;
c. derive principles and theories from knowledge acquired in the
workplace;
d. select and apply knowledge, experience and principles to the
diagnosis, analysis and solution of complex problems derived from
professional contexts;
e. marshal evidence, by reference where appropriate to primary
sources or knoweldge at the forefront of the discipline, and apply it
in a balanced way in an argument;
f. define criteria and use them to plan, allocate and evaluate the work
of self, individuals and teams.
Level 7 (Masters level) awards
On successful completion of a Masters level award (Postgraduate
Certificate, Postgraduate Diploma and Masters Degree, including
Master of Engineering), students will be able to:
a. communicate clearly, concisely and with authority, orally and in
writing, using an appropriate format, to specialist and non-specialist
audiences;
b. demonstrate familiarity with, and understanding of, a specialist
area of study or work and an ability to deal with complexity,
lacunae and contradictions in the knowledge base;
c. exercise judgement, in problem solving, based on incomplete or
confused information;
d. marshall evidence, by reference where appropriate, to primary
sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline, and use it
in a balanced way in an argument;
e. define criteria and use them to justify evaluations of the work of self
or others and actual or predicted outcomes of a course of action;
Section 4
Page 70 of 170
f.
critically evaluate new or existing concepts and propose solutions

to problems and develop an appropriate research or development
proposal to test them;
g. plan and execute research or development work, evaluate the
outcomes and draw relevant conclusions;
On successful completion of a Masters Degree, including Master of
Engineering, award holders will, in addition, be able to:
h. critically review the existing knowledge of a topic, accurately
identify problems or areas for investigation and derive or refine an
hypothesis which will advance understanding;
i. select and rigorously apply appropriate principles and techniques
to the solution of problems and identify areas where further
research or novel approaches are required;
j. design, execute, analyse and evaluate a series of hypothesis tests
with minimal supervision.
On successful completion of a Master of Research Degree, award
holders will be able to:
a. Use relevant research to demonstrate a critical and purposeful
engagement with a specialist subject area;
b. Discriminately use relevant literature to frame a research issue,
devise appropriate action and inform an analytical approach;
c. Critically evaluate key research techniques and select appropriate
methodologies;
d. Locate their research within a wider disciplinary, cross-disciplinary
and professional context;
e. Design and manage a significant research project and in so doing
demonstrate decision making capabilities, autonomy and the ability
to work with others;
f. Assess the rigour of their research, in terms of its reliability, validity
and generalizability;
g. Critically review their personal efficiency, effectiveness and
development within the research process;
h. Disseminate research findings in ways that are appropriate to both
the field of study and the intended audience.
4.3.3
4.4
Award-specific outcomes
Each award offered by Harper Adams is defined both by the generic
outcomes set out above and by award-specific outcomes appropriate to
the subject-related educational or vocational needs of the students. These
are set out in individual programme specifications. To achieve an award,
students must demonstrate achievement of both generic and awardspecific outcomes.
Credit Definition of Awards

4.4.1
The definition of credit

In the Harper Adams Modular Scheme, appropriate and valid learning is
given academic credit. Credit rating provides a means of quantifying
learning outcomes achieved and reflects both the amount and level of
study.

Section 4
Page 71 of 170
4.4.2
The amount of credit

The amount of study is measured as the notional learning time an
average student requires to achieve agreed learning outcomes, and
includes contact hours, in-course work and private or directed study. Ten
hours of such learning time represents one credit point.
4.4.3
The level of credit and its contribution to award classification

Individual modules are allocated a level according to the criteria set out in
Section 4.4.4 as follows. Modules differ in the contribution they make to
the classification of awards as specified in the assessment regulations
(Annex 5.01).
Level 3 preparatory year (FE3 level) modules are normally taken in
Harper Adams University Extended Foundation Degree programmes,
the second year of NVQ level 3 or ND courses or equivalent.
Level 4 (Certificate level) modules are normally taken in the first part
(first year) of undergraduate courses, and a number may also be taken
in the second part (second or third year) of Foundation Degree
courses.
Level 5 (Intermediate level) modules are normally taken in the
second part (second or third year) of undergraduate courses.
Level 6 (Honours level) modules are normally taken in the third part
(final year) of degree and honours degree courses.
Level 7 (Masters level) modules are normally taken in postgraduate
courses.
4.4.4
Criteria for the allocation of levels to modules

The level of study indicates the relative demand, complexity, and depth of
study and of the degree of learner autonomy. Criteria by which level may
be judged are therefore needed by those designing and validating course
modules, as follows.
a. Level 3 or 4 (FE3 or Certificate level) modules require students to
display knowledge, understanding, skills and experience beyond
that reflected in access requirements (Section 6).
b. Each level subsumes and extends knowledge, understanding and
skills at the level below.
c. The level of individual modules reflects at least some of the
outcomes for the corresponding award level (Section 4.3.2).
d. Ab-initio study is permissible where the intended learning
outcomes of a module satisfy the relevant level descriptor
requirements and learning and teaching strategies support ab-initio
study.
e. The England, Wales and Northern Ireland (EWNI) generic credit
level descriptors1 are used as a reference point.
See page 19 of the QAAs Higher Education framework for England: guidance on academic credit arrangements in higher
education in England (August 2008), accessible at www.qaa.ac.uk/england/credit/creditframework.asp
Section 4
Page 72 of 170
4.4.5
Requirements for awards

Table 4.1 details the total credit requirements, the range of credit levels,
the maximum permissible lowest level credit value and the minimum
permissible highest level credit value for each award. The final column
indicates the maximum general credit contribution that an interim award
may make to a higher level or final award. Only where specific credit,
based on interim and higher awards sharing module provision, is
advanced to the higher award, may credit advancement be in excess of
these norms.
Within these credit parameters, a Master of Research award requires twothirds of the minimum credit to come from research project(s) and onethird from taught modules. All of the research element(s) must be at level
seven.
In addition to meeting minimum credit requirements as specified in
Table 4.1, students must also achieve the learning outcomes associated
with each award title.
The award of sandwich qualifications
The assessment of the industrial placement period(s) does not contribute
to the class of the degree or the overall grade of the foundation degree.
However, this (these) period(s) is (are) regarded as an integral part of the
course and 120 P credits must be obtained before a sandwich award can
be made.
Contribution of accredited prior learning
Table 1 of Annex 5.08, section 3.6, details the limits that may be derived
from accredited prior learning (APL) for both undergraduate and
postgraduate awards, including specific limits for accredited prior
experiential learning (APEL). In outline, for undergraduate awards, no
more than two-thirds of the credit may be derived from APL and for
postgraduate awards no more than one half may be derived from APL.
Within APL limits, APEL may not contribute more than half of the total
credit value of the award.
4.4.6
Validation of awards
Awards offered within the Harper Adams modular scheme must satisfy
the credit requirements set out in addition to specific requirements laid out
in relevant programme specifications. Most named awards are for
foundation degree, ordinary degree, honours degree or masters degree
qualifications but students registered on them who do not proceed to - or
complete - subsequent stages may be offered interim awards
(Section 4.3.1).

Section 4
Page 73 of 170
Table 4.1 Credit values of Harper Adams qualifications
Award
Minimum
total
credits
Range of
levels
Maximum
lowest level
credit
Minimum
highest level
credit
Maximum
general credits
to advance
Level 4 (Certificate)
University Foundation
Certificate
60
2, 3, 4
(FE2, FE3, C)
20 at level 2
(FE2)
40 at level 4 (C)
60 at level 4 (C)
Certificate of Higher
Education
120
3, 4
(FE3, C)
30 at level 3
(FE3)
90 at level 4 (C)
120 at level 4 (C)
Higher National
Certificate
150
3, 4, 5
(FE3, C, I)
90 at level 3
(FE3), 90 at
level 4 (C)
60 at level 5 (I)
Total 150
60 at level 5 (I)
60
3, 4, 5
(FE3, C, I)
15 at level 3
(FE3)
45 at level 5 (I)
60 at level 5 (I)
Higher National
Diploma / Foundation
Degree
240
3, 4, 5
(FE3, C, I)
30 at level 3
(FE3), 120 at
level 4 (C)
90 at level 5 (I)
Total 210
90 at level 5 (I)
Diploma of Higher
Education
240
3, 4, 5
(FE3, C, I)
30 at level 3
(FE3), 120 at
level 4 (C)
90 at level 5 (I)
Total 240
120 at level 5 (I)
Level 6 (Honours)
40
6
(H)
Not applicable
40 at level 6 (H)
Total 40
at level 6 (H)
Graduate Diploma
80
6
(H)
Not applicable
80 at level 6 (H)
Total 80
at level 6 (H)
Ordinary Degree
300
3, 4, 5, 6
(FE3, C, I, H)
30 at level 3
(FE3), 105 at
level 4 (C)
60 at level 6 (H)
Total 300
60 at level 6 (H)
Honours Degree
360
3, 4, 5, 6
(FE3, C, I, H)
30 at level 3
(FE3), 105 at
level 4 (C)
90 at level 6 (H)
n/a
Level 7 (Masters)
Postgraduate
Certificate
60
6, 7
(H, M)
20 at level 6 (H)
40 at level 7 (M)
60 at level 7 (M)
120
6, 7
(H, M)
30 at level 6 (H)
90 at level 7 (M) 120 at level 7 (M)
Masters Degree
(including Master of
Research Degree)
180
6, 7
(H, M)
30 at level 6 (H) 150 at level 7 (M)
Master of Engineering
480
3, 4, 5, 6, 7
(FE3, C, I, H, M)
Level 5 (Intermediate)
University Diploma

30 at level 3
(FE3), 105 at
level 4 (C)
120 at level 7 (M)
n/a
n/a
Section 4
Page 74 of 170
4.5
Access, Progression, Transfer and Registration

4.5.1
General academic requirements for access to Foundation Degree

courses
Candidates should possess proficiency in English and mathematics
equivalent to passes in GCSE (A-C grades), in addition to the equivalent
of either (a) a minimum of three passes (grade C or above) in other GCSE
subjects or (b) an Intermediate level Specialised Diploma, as well as one
of the following:
One GCE A2-level.
One Vocational A level.
GSCE Vocational Double Award (grade EE or above).
Advanced level Specialised Diploma, which should normally
include the Extended Project.
A pass grade in an appropriate National Diploma.
Passes (grade C or above) in at least five separate subjects of the
Scottish Certificate of Education, of which at least two must be at
Higher grade.
An Irish Leaving Certificate with at least two grades C or above at
the Higher level.
A Harper Adams Foundation/University Access Course Certificate
of Achievement.
4.5.2
General academic requirements for access to Certificate of Higher

Education, Diploma of Higher Education, Ordinary Degree and
Honours Degree
Candidates should possess proficiency in English and mathematics
equivalent to passes in GCSE (A-C grades), in addition to the equivalent
of either (a) a minimum of three passes (grade C or above) in other GCSE
subjects or (b) an Intermediate level Specialised Diploma, as well as one
of the following:
Advanced GCE, which must include two passes at A2-level.
Two passes at Vocational A-level.
Pass grades CC or better for the Vocational Double Award.
Advanced level Specialised Diploma, which should normally
include the Extended Project.
A National Diploma or Higher National Diploma or Certificate with
an overall meritorious performance.
Passes (grade C or above) in at least five separate subjects of the
Scottish Certificate of Education of which at least four must be at
Higher grade.
An Irish Leaving Certificate with a least four grades C or above at
the Higher level.
A full International, European or French Baccalaureate.
A recognised appropriate Access course.
Harper Adams Foundation/University Access Course Certificate of
Achievement with an appropriate number of distinction or merit
grades.
Any other qualification deemed by the University to be equivalent
to the above. The International Guide to Qualifications in

Section 4
Page 75 of 170
4.5.3
Education will normally be used as a reference when considering

the equivalence of qualifications.
Mature candidates (over 21 years of age) without formal academic
qualifications may be admitted provided that in the opinion of the
admissions tutor they can benefit from the course and have the
intellectual ability to attain the necessary standard for success.
General academic requirements for access to University Foundation

Certificate, University Certificate, Graduate Certificate and Graduate
Diploma
Candidates should possess one of the following:
a. At least five GCSEs at grade C or above or equivalent. These
should normally include English, Mathematics and a Science or
their equivalent.
b. Evidence of a sufficient standard of core educational skills to
benefit from, and succeed in higher education and substantial
industrial and professional experience and responsibility or an NVQ
at Level 2, 3 or 4, as appropriate. For candidates with no higher
education qualifications, such experiences should normally be of
five years or more.
4.5.4
General academic requirements for access to the Postgraduate

Certificate or Diploma
Candidates should posses one of the following:
a. An honours degree.
b. A good HND or Foundation Degree, together with related industrial
or professional experience of at least two years.
c. A Graduate Diploma or Graduate Certificate or equivalent.
Where a candidates honours degree (or equivalent) was not assessed in
English, their English language skills will, typically, be evaluated by
interview and/or through demonstration of IELTS scores of 6.5 or above
(or equivalent).
4.5.5
General academic requirements for access to a Masters Degree

(excluding Master of Research)
Candidates should posses one of the following:
a. An honours degree.
b. A Postgraduate Diploma or Graduate Diploma
English language skills are evaluated as in Section 4.5.4.
Entrance requirements for a Master of Research programme are
described in Section 6.
4.5.6
Preferred and required subjects and grading

All courses normally require a pass grade (grade C or above) in
mathematics and English at GCSE level. In addition, different preferred or
required subjects for entry are specified for different courses and
programmes and these are set out in individual programme specifications
and University prospectuses. UCAS tariff point requirements may also
differ between courses.

Section 4
Page 76 of 170
4.5.7
Personal qualities and experience

In addition to the qualifications listed above, the suitability of candidates
for particular programmes is assessed by interview, by considering reports
from referees and by evaluating previous experience. For some courses a
minimum amount of practical experience is required before entry while
others recommend or require such experience before the start of the work
placement period.
4.5.8
Admission to full-time courses

Candidates for undergraduate courses with at least two years appropriate
work experience relevant to the aims and outcomes of the course, or with
an appropriate vocational qualification which includes a period of work
placement, may be admitted on to a full-time degree course at the
discretion of the admissions tutor.
Candidates will not normally be admitted to full-time courses unless:
a) they have at least two years appropriate work experience relevant
to the aims and outcomes of the course on which may be based
studies associated with the work-based project and learning
associated with submission of the portfolio requirements to achieve
the outcomes of placement (see Section 4.8.4).
or
b) the programme includes a work placement of at least ten weeks
which allows students to demonstrate achievement of the
outcomes of of placement (see Section 4.8.4).
or
c) the programme includes credit bearing modules based on learning
derived directly from the workplace with at least 15 credits for each
full-time year of study or part-time equivalent.
4.5.9
Admission with academic credit to Harper Adams courses

Certificated learning that has occurred as a result of study towards an
award at another institution may be given general or specific credit
towards a Harper Adams award if it matches the agreed award outcomes.
This may allow entry with advanced standing to a later stage of a course
and may be granted for a whole award (such as a Foundation Degree) or
for individual modules. Academic credit may also be derived from the
assessment of experiential learning. Guidelines for the accreditation of
prior achievement are set out in Annex 5.08.
4.5.10
Progression and transfer arrangements

Admission with academic credit provides a flexible range of opportunities
according to the needs of individual students. Progression opportunities
for Foundation Degree, HND and HNC students to Honours Degrees
normally involve the following arrangements.
Transfer at the end of the Preparatory Year of the Extended
Foundation Degree For transfer to part 1 of a matching Honours Degree,
students must satisfactorily pass the Preparatory Year with an overall
minimum mean mark, as specified in the relevant Programme
Specification (typically 60-65% minimum), and satisfy the admissions tutor
of their suitability to transfer.

Section 4
Page 77 of 170
Transfer at the end of part 1 For transfer between courses, matching

awards facilitate transfer at the end of part one. Students who achieve a
high standard in part one modules (meritorious perfomance in all
modules or a mean mark of 60%) and satisfy the admissions tutor of their
suitability following interview may transfer to the start of part 2 of a
matching degree course.
Entry with advanced standing Holders of a matching HNC or
HND/Foundation Degree who display a high standard of achievement
(minimum of overall merit grade or, for some programmes, a higher profile
requirement or minimum mean mark as specified in the relevant
programme specification) may be admitted to an Honours Degree course.
In such cases students will normally have to achieve the minimum credit
requirements for the award specified in Section 4.4, in addition to meeting
all award outcomes. In the case of degrees accredited by professional
bodies students may be required to achieve additional level 5 and 6
(intermediate and honours level) credits up to a maximum of 240.
Students who have achieved the award at a lower level of performance
may be admitted to an Ordinary Degree course.
The advanced entry programmes for holders of HNDs and Foundation
Degrees to Ordinary Degrees is based on an additional minimum credit
requirement of 90 credits, with a minimum of 60 at level 6 (honours level).
The advanced entry programme for holders of HNDs and Foundation
Degrees to Honours degrees is based on an additional minimum credit
requirement of 150 credits (typically 30 at level 5 [intermediate level] and
120 at level 6 [honours level]). Awards, may however, involve a core
programme of additional credits for award specific outcomes to be
achieved. A programme would typically be studied over 1.3 academic
years (or four terms). However, by prior agreement, the candidate may
elect to complete the award within one academic year, or up to a
maximum of two academic years, if the nature of the Honours Research
Project (or equivalent) requires an extended period for data collection.
Candidates who successfully complete a Harper Adams Ordinary Degree
conversion programme, may be admitted to an Honours Degree
conversion course, which typically would be studied over one academic
year, with a minimum credit requirement of 60 credits (with a minimum of
30 at level 6 [honours level]).
Candidates who choose to undertake an Honours Research Project (or
equivalent) which is significantly based upon their previously completed
Degree Review Project, should be advised that the academic credit
associated with the Degree Review Project will not contribute towards an
Ordinary to Honours Degree conversion course. In this instance, the
minimum credit requirement for the programme is 75 credits (with a
minimum of 45 at level 6 [honours level]).
The overall grade or classification of an Honours award is based on the
marks associated with the credit carried forward from the previous Harper
Adams interim awards (whether it is a Foundation Degree/HND or
Ordinary Degree) and achievement in the final award, with weightings as
specified in the assessment regulations (Annex 5.01). For external,
interim awards, only eligible credit may be carried forward to the Harper
Adams award (see Section 4.4.5 and Table 4.1). The overall grade or
classification is based solely on the weighted mean mark of modules
achieved through Harper Adams assessment arrangements (where
Section 4
Page 78 of 170
weighting is determined by credit volume with no weighting differential by

level for a normal conversion programme).
4.5.11
4.6
Registration
The maximum period of registration is three years beyond the normal
period of study, as set out in the Programme Specification, in addition to a
maximum one year period of postponed study. No award shall be
conferred upon a student beyond the maximum period of registration.
Course Design, Structure and Requirements

4.6.1
Programme specifications and award titles

Each named award will be defined by a programme specification
(Annex 3.02) which is published. This will specify award-specific aims
and outcomes (with cross reference to generic aims and outcomes for
each level of award), their relationship with external reference points,
teaching, learning and assessment methods used to enable learners to
achieve and demonstrate the outcomes, and a matrix showing core and
optional modules specific to the award, progression and transfer
arrangements, requirements for interim awards and entrance
requirements. Specifications for programmes leading to awards under the
Harper Adams Studies by Negotiation Scheme are only published to the
individual students concerned, as approved by the Programme Approvals
Committee. In designing Foundation Degrees, due cognisance should be
taken of appropriate national occupational standards published by the
relevant sector skills council.
Many Harper Adams awards are multi-disciplinary. A protocol for naming
awards has been adopted so that a title reflects the balance of discipline
content eg Agriculture and Animal Science denotes equal coverage,
whereas Agricultural Engineering with Marketing and Management
denotes a major and minor theme. The minor theme would typically be
expected to constitute one quarter of the study load. Where a suite of
courses comprises several related awards, a different title is justified by at
least one distinct award outcome, typically achieved through the study of
45 separate credits at levels 5-6 for undergraduate programmes.
4.6.2
Principles of course design

Harper Adams undergraduate curriculum is broadly based on the
sequence Practice - Principles - Application. This design principle
reflects the belief that students on vocational courses learn most
effectively if the industrial, commercial or professional context of the
learning is clear from the early stages. As far as practicable, the early
stages of Harper Adams courses should include study of current practice
in the relevant industry or profession. This provides a context and
motivation within which the underlying technical, scientific, economic or
business principles can be most readily appreciated and developed. This
also ensures that students have an appropriate background for the
placement period. The principles learned in the second stage of the
course and the experience acquired in the placement period can then be
applied to the solution of real and complex problems in the final stages.
Curriculum design, both at programme and module level, is also
influenced by Kolbs learning cycle of experience, reflection,
conceptualisation and experimentation, which is facilitated by the
Practice - Principles - Application pattern. Thus the knowledge of current
practice and underpinning principles established in pre-university practical

Section 4
Page 79 of 170
work and early stages of each course, provides a foundation for reflection
during placement periods which, in turn, provides further experience. With
this foundation, placement reports, assignments and major projects
provide opportunities for further experimentation and experience.
4.6.3
Modes of study
Courses leading to both undergraduate and postgraduate awards may be
offered in full-time, sandwich and part-time modes. Courses may only be
offered in full-time-only mode if validation panels are persuaded that paid,
year-long placements are not available in the sector. In such cases a
minimum period of ten weeks industrial placement is required
(Section 4.8).
Because of the vocational and professional nature of Harper Adams
awards, full-time students are only admitted to courses that have a
sandwich mode if they are able to provide evidence that they can
demonstrate work related award outcomes as a result of previous
experience (Section 4.5.8).
4.6.4
Course duration and outline structure

The academic year is normally 32 weeks in length for undergraduate
awards and is divided into three terms, which also include independent
study and counselling periods and an examination period at the end of the
academic year. The normal duration of each full-time courses is:
University Foundation Certificate
Cert HE and Graduate Diploma
Foundation Degree and Dip HE
Foundation Degree
Degree and Honours Degree
Masters Degree
MRes
6 months
6 months
1 academic year
2 years full time
3 years sandwich
3 years full time
4 years sandwich
4 years full time
5 years sandwich
6 months
1 academic year
1 calendar year
1 year full time
15 months part time
Placement periods in sandwich courses are a minimum of 44 weeks,

normally between the end of the first year and the beginning of the final
year. The location of the sandwich period within courses may vary but is
normally a continuous period after the first or second year. Sandwich
arrangements that do not conform to this pattern will only be approved if
they do not affect the pattern of prerequisites for shared subject themes.
4.6.5
Modules: Definition, contact time and delivery mode

Modules are blocks of learning defined by credit value and level. Harper
Adams' modules generally have credit values in multiples of 15, although
this is not an absolute requirement, especially for work-based learning
programmes. Typical modules of 15 and 30 credits, therefore, represent
respectively 150 and 300 hours of notional learning time: that is, the
working time that an average student will need to devote to a module to
complete it successfully. In a typical full-time or sandwich course,
students will study modules to a credit value of 120 in an academic year
which indicates a typical notional learning time of 40 hours per week.

Section 4
Page 80 of 170
Harper Adams Academic Board has approved a curriculum delivery

framework that encourages students to work increasingly autonomously
as they progress through the academic levels. The ratio of direct tutor
support to student directed learning is as follows:
Levels 3 (FE3 level) and 4 (Certificate level) modules 1:2 (equating
to a maximum of 50 contact hours to 100 student directed learning
hours)
Level 5 (Intermediate level) modules 1:3 (equating roughly to a
maximum of 40 contact hours to 110 student directed learning hours)
Level 6 (Honours level) modules 1:4 (equating to a maximum of 30
contact hours to 120 student directed learning hours)
Student directed learning would typically be devoted to preparation for
classes, reading, assignment preparation and revision.
Typically, all modules are studied over the duration of an academic year.
However a number of higher level modules are delivered over a short and
intensive period of study, with independent study and assessments taken
over a longer period. The intensity of delivery is determined by the
module outcomes and mode of study (eg part-time postgraduate students
typically benefit from short intensive week blocks of tutor-led classes,
followed by periods of independent study and assessent).
Validated core or option modules can be studied independently if this is
appropriate to the needs of individual students. In such cases the
students will be required to sign a learning agreement which will identify
responsibilities of the student and the University in such an arrangement.
4.6.6
Module assessment
Each module will normally be assessed by the end of the academic year in
which it is completed except in the case of negotiated and work-based
modules, the timing of which is agreed with the Studies by Negotiation
Manager.
For a 15 credit module the assessment strategy should normally be based
on no more than two distinct elements of assessment. For all modules,
irrespective of award or level, the normal expectation is of either one major
piece of in-coursework and one time-constrained assessment (typically
held in the Summer examination period), each with a 50:50 weighting
contribution to the overall weighted mean mark or two major pieces of incourse work or one major piece of assessment, which includes
significantly formative elements, which develop and support, rather than
merely test, a students learning. Deviations from this, where appropriate
to the module outcomes, require justification. Students must achieve a
weighted aggregate mark of 40% to achieve an overall pass grade for the
module, unless otherwise specified in the module descriptor (for example,
where there is a minimum level of achievement required in each
assessment element).
4.6.7
Core, optional and elective modules

Modules offered to students studying for named awards are identified as
core, optional or elective and so designated on the programme
specification.

Section 4
Page 81 of 170
Core modules are those which are essential for the achievement of
generic and award-specific aims and outcomes. They will normally
include most of those offered in the first year of any programme and the
modules associated with the Harper Adams Professional Scholarship
Programme (Section 4.7). Courses normally comprise of at least 90
credits of core modules per academic session, unless the Academic Board
has approved otherwise.
Optional modules are those which are closely linked to the aims and
outcomes of the award, but which allow some choice or specialisation
within it. Undergraduate courses normally comprise of a maximum of 45
credits of optional modules, in addition to languages, from which students
may select up to 30 credits per academic session, unless the Academic
Board has approved otherwise.
Elective modules are those which satisfy the generic educational aims
and outcomes of the Harper Adams' Modular Scheme but which are not
necessarily related to award-specific outcomes. Course planning teams
may provide credit space for up to 30 elective credits at any level to allow
learning in pursuit of individual interests and vocational needs. Such
electives may be taken as alternatives to option modules.
The choice of optional and elective modules is subject to approval by the
Senior Tutor for the award and timetable constraints.
4.6.8
Pre-requisites
Pre-requisites specify subjects within the Harper Adams modular scheme
that must have been studied before registering on a module. General
educational achievements that are conditions of access to the modular
scheme are assumed and not specified as pre-requisites in modules.
Alternative ways in which the outcomes of pre-requisite modules may
have been achieved may be accepted with the agreement of the module
leader concerned.
4.6.9
Other sources of credit

Harper Adams Academic Board has adopted the principle that appropriate
and valid learning, wherever it occurs, may be counted towards a
qualification. Sources of academic credit other than standard validated
course modules may therefore include:
approved and accredited work-based training courses which lead

to outcomes that can be assessed through Harper Adams
moderated procedures;
approved and accredited short courses for industry or the

professions which lead to outcomes that can be assessed through
Harper Adams moderated procedures;
NVQ elements and units extended though reflective learning

exercises assessed though Harper Adams moderated procedures;
independent study modules (a descriptor of which is set out in

Annex 4.01);
other activities and experience which have resulted in experiential

learning.
Sources of academic credit specified above may be accredited towards

the requirements of a named award though the processes of Accreditation

Section 4
Page 82 of 170
of Prior Learning or Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning

(Annex 5.08). Alternatively they may be subject to accreditation under the
procedures for credit rating of short courses and external qualifications
also set out in Section 3.10 and may then be included in individual
programmes under the Harper Adams Studies by Negotiation Scheme.
4.6.10
The Harper Adams Studies by Negotiation Scheme

The aim of this scheme is to provide flexible learning opportunities to
satisfy the specific requirements of students, especially those in work,
whose needs are not met by programmes leading to named awards. Such
programmes may include existing core and optional modules or other
sources of credit specified in (Section 4.6.9). Each programme must:
satisfy the generic outcomes of each award;
be defined by award-specific outcomes;
represent an educationally and vocationally valid programme;
offer sufficient credits at an appropriate level;
include 15 (foundation degree, ordinary degree or postgraduate
diploma) or 30 (honours or masters degree) credits from an
individual major project.
Once a candidate or group of candidates have agreed with the Studies by
Negotiation Programmes Manager that they wish to enrol on a programme
leading to an award, a programme proposition, (using the template at
Annex 3.13), should be drawn up. The proposition should include:
student name(s) and details of academic and
professional/industrial background;
mode of study (full-time or part-time);
a proposed title for the award;
programme-specific aims and outcomes;
a list and source of any prior credits being claimed through prior
certificated achievement;
a list of approved modules (including identifier, credit value and
level) to be included in the programme, with planned study periods
for each;
completed learning contracts for work-based or negotiated study
modules;
the amount and level of credit for each element and the total for the
award;
the signature of the Studies by Negotiation Programmes Manager;
the signature of the Head(s) of Department, to signify agreement of
proposed independent study or project based modules (and
associated resource demands);
the signature of the student.
This programme proposition must be submitted for approval to the
Programme Approval Committee (Section 2.4.5).
4.6.11
International awards
In order to qualify for the use of the word international in an award title
the course must be one that is specifically validated as such or the
programme of individual students concerned must satisfy specific criteria.
Thus students may apply to have the word international added to the

Section 4
Page 83 of 170
award for which they are studying if 60 credits are derived from approved
study outside the UK.
Students may substitute up to 22 weeks of their placement employment
with international study, organised through an exchange scheme approved
by both the Senior Tutor and Placement Manager.
Students will normally only be eligible for international study if they meet
the following criteria:
a) have no outstanding reassessment or restudy requirements prior to
commencement of the planned international study period;
b) for the language of international study, satisfy minimum language
requirements in accordance with the receiving institutions policies,
as judged by a Harper Adams approved assessor.
A minimum period of appropriate international study (normally 22 weeks or
60 [30 ECTS] credits) will contribute to placement learning outcomes.
Students who successfully complete this minimum level of international
study are considered to have demonstrated the ability to, work and study
at high levels in an international environment.
An overall pass in the international study period of at least 22 weeks or 60
credits will be accepted in lieu of up to 22 weeks of placement studies.
Assessment of the placement period will be as stipulated in Section 4.8,
other than that the placement portfolio (assessment three) will incorporate
reflections on how both the placement employment and international study
periods have contributed to the individuals personal development. The
marks awarded for international study will not contribute to the grading of
the placement outcomes or the overall grade or classification of the award.
Academic credits earned as part of the international study period will,
however, be recorded on students transcripts of performance.
Where a student achieves a fail in their international study period,
following any permissible reassessments, they will be offered an
opportunity to complete a further placement period, to meet the minimum
44 week requirement. In this case they would not qualify for an
international award.
4.7
Harper Adams Professional Scholarship Programme

4.7.1
Introduction
To fulfil the University mission, lifelong learning must be developed within
a vocational context to the benefit of the learning community, both in
higher education and in the industries and professions associated with the
countryside. This involves the development and exercise of key skills,
career management abilities, and the research and scholarship
competencies required of autonomous professionals in a rapidly changing
sector. The programme of learning designed to develop such skills and
attributes is the Harper Adams Professional Scholarship Programme:
students become involved in this at entry to higher education and may
continue to exercise and apply outcomes for the rest of their careers. All
undergraduate (foundation degree, degree and honours degree) courses
validated under the Harper Adams undergraduate modular scheme will
adopt this programme: its aims, elements, delivery and assessment are
set out below.

Section 4
Page 84 of 170
4.7.2
Aims of the Professional Scholarship Programme

To develop the key skills required for successful learning both in
undergraduate courses and in subsequent careers.
To develop the knowledge, understanding, attributes and skills required to
obtain appropriate employment and manage career development.
To develop the professional scholarship required in a learning society.
4.7.3
4.7.4
Delivery of the Professional Scholarship Programme

Delivery of the professional scholarship programme will be focussed on a
series of specific curriculum modules and on the industrial, professional or
business placement period (Section 4.8) or work-based learning modules
(see Section 4.5.8) .The specific modules (and credit value) include:
Academic Development, Personal Development and Introductory

Research Methods (15 credits total at level 4 [Certificate level]).
Research Methods or alternative research and data analysis

module (15 credits at level 5 [Intermediate level]) for Honours
Degree courses only.
An independent, problem based major project eg Professional

Project (15 credits at level 5 [Intermediate level]) for Foundation
Degree courses, Degree Review Project (15 credits at level 6
[Honours level]) for Ordinary Degree courses, Honours Research
or Design Project (30 credits at level 6 [Honours level]) for Honours
Degree courses.
A problem-solving module which involves group work (minimum of

15 credits at levels 5 or 6 [Intermediate or Honours level],
appropriate to the subject area) for all degree awards.
Elements of the Professional Scholarship Programme

The skills specifically developed through the programme include:
communication
information technology
numeracy and data analysis
personal and career management
team-working skills
problem solving
independent research
including significant learning derived from placement or work-based
modules (see Section 4.8.1).
4.7.5
Assessment of the Professional Scholarship Programme

The Professional Scholarship Programme will be assessed through the
individual modules listed above. Evidence of key employability skills
development, and personal development planning are explicitly assessed
through these modules.

Section 4
Page 85 of 170
4.8
Placement Period
4.8.1
Requirements
All students on undergraduate programmes, except those who have
successfully completed a sandwich course, must undertake a work
placement period. The work placement is required to underpin the
learning outcomes of the programme being followed by the student and be
agreed by the Placement Manager. For students on sandwich courses the
placement will normally be of one years duration and will attract 120 P
credits. Students on full-time courses must complete a minimum of ten
weeks approved work experience and acquire a minimum of 30 P credits
or complete at least 15 credits of work-based learning, for each full-time
(or part-time equivalent) year of study.
4.8.2
Aims of the placement period

To provide an opportunity to apply knowledge, understanding and skills
acquired in the course, in an industrial, commercial or professional
environment.
To provide opportunities to acquire and practise the practical and
intellectual skills needed in the workplace.
To develop an appreciation of management skills and a sensitivity to the
interpersonal relationships involved.
To develop a mature, professional and flexible attitude in readiness for
final year study and career development.
To provide experience on which to base career plans.
To acquire further knowledge and experience upon which the student
group as a whole can draw in the later stages of the course.
4.8.3
Outcomes of the placement period

Demonstrate the personal competencies and skills required to obtain and
retain employment.
Develop effective career management skills and self-evaluation through
personal planning.
Demonstrate the ability to understand the business environment and
analyse, evaluate and plan elements of employers organisation.
4.8.4
Duration, value and timing of the placement period

For students registered on sandwich programmes, a full placement period
will normally last for no less than 44 weeks and have a value of 120 P
credits, or as specified in the relevant Programme Specification. For
students registered on Agriculture sandwich programmes, a full placement
period will nomally last for no less than 52 weeks, and attract a credit
value of 120 P credits when successfully completed. Shorter placement
periods will attract credits pro-rata according to the number of weeks
worked, as approved at validation.
The location of the placement period within a sandwich course may vary
but is normally a continuous period after the first or second academic year.
The length and timing for courses leading to specific awards may be
varied with the agreement of the validation panel if this is essential for the

Section 4
Page 86 of 170
effective achievement of the award-specific outcomes. However,

arrangements that do not conform to the normal pattern will only be
approved if they do not affect the accessibility of prerequisites for shared
subject themes.
4.8.5
Preparation for the placement period

Preparation for placement will take place in the early stages of the
Professional Scholarship Programme as specified in the module
descriptors, and particularly through the Personal Development module
(module descriptor avaliable on the University network).
The placement managers will also brief students on:
the requirements of the training period and their role during it;
organisations offering placement;
aims of the placement period and how it relates to the rest of the
course;
the assessment process including assessment criteria and
regulations;
the means by which they may gain greatest benefit from the work
and from contacts with employers, with supervisors, and with other
employees.
4.8.6
Placement of students
The responsibility for assisting sandwich students to find employment is
vested in the Placement Managers who are responsible to the Course
Committee. The Placement Manager will:
identify or approve suitable placement opportunities before
placements are agreed;
will interview each student to review previous experience and
determine individual interests;
arrange interviews between student and employer;
confirm the placement if both parties are satisfied;
brief University-based and workplace supervisors on the functions
of the placement period and the assessment of students;
submit assessment results for moderation by the Course
Assessment Board.
4.8.7
Support and guidance

Each sandwich student will be allocated to a placement tutor who will be
responsible for ensuring that the student is given the opportunity to
achieve the agreed learning objectives wherever possible. These tutors
will normally visit the students two to three months after the
commencement of employment in order to check on progress and provide
guidance and counselling and towards the end of the period to obtain the
employers assessment before the student leaves the placement. The
tutor will also:
discuss with the student (and employer where appropriate) the

reports which are to be completed (Section 4.8.9) and the
deadlines for submission;
maintain contact with the student and employer to monitor progress

and resolve problems;
establish visit dates and objectives for each visit;

Section 4
Page 87 of 170
4.8.8
assess written work and provide written feedback to students;
determine work-based supervisors assessment of employability by

joint discussion with supervisor and student;
moderate work-based supervisor's assessment in order to improve

consistency across different organisations;
report assessment results to the placement manager;
collect feedback from employers to be used for the evaluation of

the students placement period.
Assessment of the placement period

During placement, in addition to carrying out the normal duties as directed
by the employer, each student will be expected to complete pieces of
written work as shown below in order to demonstrate that each of the
outcomes of the placement period have been met:
Outcome 1: Demonstrate the personal competencies and the skills
required to obtain and retain employment.
Achieved through satisfactory completion of the minimum
period of employment (as specified in Section 4.8.4 and
ten weeks for students on full-time courses with an
integrated work experience period) and at least 40%
attainment in the employers assessment of overall
performance of student.
Outcome 2: Demonstrate the ability to understand the business
environment and analyse, evaluate and plan elements
of the employers organisation.
Achieved through satisfactory completion of an employerbased project, with an employer initiated element weighted
at 70%, and a sustainability impact review of an element of
the organisation or plan weighted at 30%. The aims and
outcomes of the project should be negotiated between the
student, the employer and the visting tutor, ideally, at the
first visit.
Outcome 3: Develop effective career management skills and selfevaluation through personal development planning.
Achieved through satisfactory completion of a placement
portfolio, comprising a personal development plan
(weighting of 70%), and poster presentation (weighted
30%).
Full details of each assessment are included in the Placement Handbook,
issued to each student, prior to the commencement of the placement
period. Students will receive three grades, corresponding to each
outcome and these will be recorded on students transcripts as
employability (outcome 1), career management (outcome 2) and insight
into business (outcome 3).
4.8.9
Submission dates for written work and final deadlines

Course guidelines on the arrangements for the submission of written work
will be given to students during briefing for the placement period. The
normal penalties for late submission apply.

Section 4
Page 88 of 170
4.8.10
4.9
Assessment regulations for the placement period

Assessment regulations for the placement period are set out in
Annex 5.01.
Management of the Modular Scheme

4.9.1
Responsibility for the scheme

Ultimate responsibility for the control of academic standards and for the
granting of degree awards rests with the Academic Board of Harper
Adams University.
4.9.2
Management of the module scheme

Heads of Department have responsibility for the staffing, resourcing,
development and delivery of subject modules and course teams. The
Deputy Vice-Chancellor is responsible for the management of the
modular scheme and the co-ordination of programmes leading to
individual awards.
4.9.3
Course managers and senior tutors

Responsibility for the administration of programmes leading to cognate
groups of awards is delegated by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor to course
managers. These managers are responsible for developing and leading
course teams in the organisation and administration of courses and for
chairing the courses committee. The duties include responsibility for the
admission of students, management of module registration arrangements,
liaison with award external examiners, and the presentation of results to
the Course Assessments Boards. Full details of these responsibilities are
set out in Section 7.6.
Each Course Manager is supported by a number of Senior Tutors (one
of whom is the Course Manager themself) responsible for year groups or
individual courses according to the requirements of particular
programmes. Senior Tutors are responsible for supporting the personal
development (in association with colleagues, as detailed in Course
Handbooks) and academic welfare of students, advising students on
choice of modules, checking individual timetables, liaising with module
leaders and dealing with the practical issues that arise during the year.
Senior Tutors within a course group may include those for Harper Adams
validated courses delivered at partner colleges. The management of all
postgraduate courses is the responsibility of the Postgraduate Course
Manager. There are no senior tutors for these courses but the manager
will be assisted by subject specialist members of the Postgraduate
Course Committee, known as Subject Co-ordinators.
4.9.4
Module leaders
A member of staff is nominated as module leader for each module in the
scheme. If more than one person teaches the module, the Head of
Department shall determine which one will assume this role.
Responsibilities of the module leader are set out in Section 7.7.
4.9.5
Course committee membership and terms of reference

Cognate groups of awards are managed by a Course Committee, the
membership of and terms of reference for which are detailed in Section 2.

Section 4
Page 89 of 170
4.10
4.9.6
Management of partnership courses

Harper Adams courses which are delivered at other centres will be
managed as described above with a representative from Harper Adams on
the course committee.
4.9.7
Course evaluation
The courses are subject to the course evaluation procedures of the
Academic Board, Harper Adams University. Once each year the Course
Committee meets to debate the Annual Report and decide what actions
should be taken in consequence of that debate or in response to the
recommendations of the Academic Standards Committee. Details of the
course evaluation policy are contained at Section 3.11.
4.9.8
Learner support
University-wide learner support is available for students with disabilities or
learning differences in addition to the arrangements set out above.
4.9.9
Other University-wide support

Support for other aspects of student spiritual, financial and personal
welfare is provided by the University and described fully in the Course
Handbook.
Professional Studies Framework

4.10.1
Outline of the Professional Studies Framework

The Professional Studies Framework (PSF) provides a framework within
which programmes and modules for employer cohorts may be developed.
It is intended to be flexible and responsive to the timeframes required by
employers, whilst promoting consistency of academic standards across
individual awards.
The PSF seeks to offer awards which meet the needs of employers and
which support students to develop and demonstrate knowledge and
understanding, skills and also other attributes which are beneficial to an
individuals employing organisation and to the individuals personal and
professional development.
The PSF enables awards in the full range of those approved for use within
Harper Adams (ranging from a level 4 University Foundation Certificate
through to a level 7 Master of Science Degree in Professional Studies).
The achievement of awards within this range can be formed through
different module combinations and using various sources of credit. This is
made possible by broadly articulated award outcomes that emphasise
learning processes and learning levels, rather than subject content. The
PSF has been designed for cohorts who either:
Already have credit from different sources and who wish to bring
that credit together, along with some new Harper Adams credit, to
form a named Harper Adams University award.
Seek an award through a unique combination of Harper Adams

modules in line with the arrangements set out in Section 4.4.5.
In addition, the PSF has its own module suite that may be used to
recognise and add value to existing work-based training and to provide
readily available modules for use by work-based learner cohorts. PSF
awards may also be entirely based on credit from the PSFs own module
suite.
Section 4
Page 90 of 170
4.10.2
Glossary for Professional Studies Framework

The following explanation of the PSF utilises some unique terms which it is
helpful to define:
Route is used to describe the precise way in which a cohort will
achieve a PSF award. The nature of credit in any route is defined on
the route proposal form.
Individual Entry Route (IER) is a specific approved route at
postgraduate level for a cohort of individuals from diverse professional
backgrounds studying together, online through a community of inquiry.
Programme is used to describe the course of study undertaken by
students.
Shell modules provide broadly defined learning outcomes that may be
customised at the point of delivery.
Wrapper modules recognise existing training whilst extending the
learning from that training through a range of processes that include
systematic reflection, connecting the development of competencies in
practice to bodies of literature and to analysing the impact of new
knowledge. Wrappers are intended to extend and enhance learning.
Subsidiary Modules are reduced credit versions of validated PSF
modules. They are defined by learning outcomes that are only a subset of the outcomes of the module from which they were derived. The
number of learning outcomes in each subsidiary is credit
commensurate. Subsidiary versions of modules are documented on
the module descriptor from which each is derived.
Parent Modules are modules within the PSF suite from which
subsidiary modules are derived.
4.10.3
Aims of the Professional Studies Framework

The PSF aims to:
Provide a facility for a named award for cohorts of students who
acquire credit that is relevant to their individual work context, but which
does not fit in to an existing award.
Provide a progression route for work-based learners to accredit their
learning within a defined award.
Provide ready-made and flexible pre-approved modules, with
approval for adaptation sought, where necessary, for employers
seeking to develop workforce development programmes, through the
suite of modules associated with the PSF.
4.10.4
Outcomes of the Professional Studies Framework awards

Outcomes for the PSF are specified for each level. For awards
encompassing a complete level (ie for level 4 the Certificate of Higher
Education; level 5 the Diploma of Higher Education; level 6 the Honours
Degree; level 7 the Masters Degree), the achievement of every award
outcome is required. For interim awards a proportionate number of
outcomes must be met.

Section 4
Page 91 of 170
Level 4
Upon completion of level 4, learners will:
a) Identify and communicate concepts and principles associated with
their area of study or practice.
b) Evaluate and interpret concepts associated with their area of study
or practice.
c) Present, evaluate and interpret data.
d) Formulate argument and make sound judgements in accordance
with relevant basic theories and concepts.
e) Evaluate the appropriateness of approaches to solving problems
related to their area of practice.
f)
Communicate accurately and reliably, and with coherent

arguments.
g) Develop new skills relevant to practice.

h) Display qualities and transferable skills necessary for practice.
i)
Demonstrate a culture of personal responsibility for learning.
Level 5
a) Demonstrate knowledge and critical understanding of the wellestablished principles associated with their area of practice and
related subject disciplines.
b) Apply relevant concepts and principles to practice.
c) Identify the main methods of enquiry relevant to practice or
associated subject disciplines.
d) Critically evaluate the appropriateness of different approaches to
solving problems in practice or in associated subject disciplines.
e) Be aware of the limits of their knowledge, and how this influences
analysis and interpretations.
f) Undertake critical analysis of information, and propose solutions to
problems.
g) Effectively communicate information, arguments and analysis in a
variety of forms to a range of audiences.
h) Develop existing skills and acquire new competences that will
enable them to assume significant responsibility within a workplace
organisation.
i) Demonstrate decision-making abilities.
j)
Demonstrate responsibility for personal development.
Level 6
a) Demonstrate a systematic understanding of key ideas associated
with practice or associated subject areas.
b) Deploy appropriate and established techniques of analysis and
enquiry.
c) Devise and sustain arguments, or solve problems, using ideas and
techniques, some of which are at the forefront of practice or an
associated subject area.
d) Describe and comment upon particular aspects of current
Section 4
Page 92 of 170
research, or equivalent advanced scholarship.

e) Appreciate the uncertainty, ambiguity and limits of knowledge.
f)
Use scholarly reviews and primary sources.
g) Communicate information, ideas, problems and solutions to both

specialist and non-specialist audiences.
h) Initiate and carry out projects to extend and apply their knowledge
and understanding.
i)
Demonstrate decision-making in complex and unpredictable

contexts.
j)
Demonstrate the management of their learning.
Level 7
a) Demonstrate a systematic understanding of knowledge, and a
critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights at the
forefront of their area of professional practice.
b) Show a comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to
their own research or advanced scholarship.
c) Originally apply knowledge with a practical understanding of how
established techniques of research and enquiry are used.
d) Critically evaluate current research, professional literature and
advanced scholarship in their area of practice or in associated
disciplines.
e) Evaluate relevant methodologies and develop critiques of them.
f)
Systematically and creatively deal with complex issues.
g) Communicate conclusions clearly to specialist and non-specialist

audiences.
h) Demonstrate self-direction and originality in tackling and solving
problems, and act autonomously in planning and implementing
tasks at a professional level.
i) Display the ability to make decisions in complex situations.
j)
4.10.5
Demonstrate the autonomy and independence to effectively

manage professional learning.
Sources of credit
Sources of credit contributing to a PSF award may be:
Existing Harper Adams University validated modules from levels 37.
Modules from the PSF module suite (work based learning shell or
wrapper modules).
External credit, within approved limits for credit transfer as defined

at Annex 5.08.
Credit volumes from outside Harper Adams will be accepted on the terms
outlined in, Section 4.4.5.
Incoming credit may take two forms: General credit transfer and credit
which specifically meets module learning outcomes (Annex 5.08) which is
recognised as part of the process of accreditation of prior learning.

Section 4
Page 93 of 170
Credit transfers are accepted when incoming credit contributes to the

meeting of the award level outcomes and when it is work-based in nature,
thus preserving the integrity of the award name.
4.10.6
Individual accreditation of prior learning claims

Within the PSF it is possible for individual students to utilise APCL or
APEL (Accredited Prior Certificated Learning or Experiential Learning) for
individual modules using existing processes set out in Annex 5.08. This
may be appropriate, for example, when a particular suite of technical
modules have been specified for a cohort and individuals possess
commensurate experience. The named PSF award course manager will
facilitate individual claims.
4.10.7
Route proposal form and award titles

Staff wishing to propose an award within the PSF must map their proposal
onto a PSF Route Proposal Form (Annex 3.10). This document exists to
ensure that:
There is a clear work-related rationale for the award.
Through a process of curriculum mapping, the proposed modules
and any accrued credit satisfy the intended award outcomes.
There is no unacceptable overlap between the modules proposed,
including explicitly excluded combinations.
Incoming credit is work relevant.
If a suffix is proposed within the award title, it is appropriate and
justifiable.
Variations in the assessment from that stated on the source
module descriptor are appropriate.
The PSF Route Proposal Form along with the PSF specification will form
the definitive course documentation. Together these documents set out in
detail the knowledge, understanding and skills that the successful student
will acquire during their programme.
Awards within the PSF will take the name Professional Studies to reflect
the work-relevant curriculum. Suffixes may be used to locate additional
contextualising information within the award name, such that it indicates
the precise context of studies undertaken. Suffixes can be:
A specific indication of the context in which learning took place eg
Postgraduate Certificate in Professional Studies: Pet Retail.
An indication of the type of issues or subject areas studied eg
Diploma of Higher Education in Professional Studies: Leadership
and Management.
An indication of the type of issues or subject areas studied and the
context in which that learning took place eg Postgraduate
Certificate in Professional Studies: Leadership in the Dairy
Industry.
Details of a suffix to the award title will be proposed on the PSF Route
Proposal Form. A suffix must be underpinned by an additional award
outcome reflecting the specific content or context. The additional learning
outcome must also be included on the programmes curriculum map.
The use of a specific organisations name within a suffix is not permitted
by Harper Adams Academic Board.

Section 4
Page 94 of 170
4.10.8
Partnership approval procedure

Where proposed modules are to be delivered by partners, it is anticipated
that existing arrangements for partnership review, risk assessment and
contractual procedures will apply (see Section 3.10).
4.10.9
Professional Studies Framework module suite

The PSF offers a number of shell and wrapper modules that may be
used to:
Provide a ready-made module to be used in different contexts.
Accredit and add value to existing work-based training.
Each module parent can be adapted to appear at a different level, and for
a reduced credit volume. New versions require approval by the
Programme Approvals Committee.
4.10.10
Professional Studies Framework module scaling and reuse

Framework modules may be reduced in terms of their credit volume. The
advantage of reducing the credit volume comes from the eradication of
duplication in creating module descriptors and, critically, it offers clients
and developers additional choices of modules when configuring provision
into approved modules that precisely meet their needs.
Scaled down versions of modules include:
A sub-set of learning outcomes derived from the original parent
module to be defined;
An adaptation in the assessment commensurate with the new
credit volume;
An adaptation of the teaching and learning strategy and indicative
content in-proportion to the new modules credit size.
PSF module descriptors contain a subsidiary versions table to detail the
adaptations brought about by re-scaling. In addition, within the PSF
module descriptor there should be an outline of reduced features of
subsidiary variations (indicative content, teaching and learning strategy
and assessment). It is possible to have different subsidiary versions at the
same credit volume providing that the learning outcomes are derived from
the parent module.
For subsidiary modules:
Module titles should reflect the volume of credit in brackets.
The subsidiary modules will be distinguishable by a module code
which is derived from the parent module.
The Programme Approvals Committee must always approve new
versions of a module.
The nature of PSF modules is such that they can be taken more than once
within a single route but they must contain very different content or be
undertaken in markedly different contexts. PSF modules may be used
multiple times within one route, where repeated use meets the
requirement of a work-based cohort. Repeated use of a PSF module must
be underpinned by a sound rationale and course teams should guard
against using repeaters as a developmental short cut. Approval of routes
containing repeater modules will only be given when the committee is

Section 4
Page 95 of 170
satisfied that differences in their content or context are sufficient to provide

a variety of learning experiences for students.
4.10.11
Management of the Professional Studies Framework

Heads of Department have responsibility for the staffing, resourcing,
development and delivery of adopted PSF modules and PSF award
course teams.
Responsibility for the administration of PSF programmes leading to
cognate groups of awards is delegated by the sponsoring Head of
Department to link-tutors. These link-tutors are responsible for
developing and leading course teams in the organisation and
administration of courses. The duties include responsibility for the
admission of students, management of module registration arrangements,
liaison with award external examiners, and the presentation of results to
the Course Assessments Boards.
Each use of a PSF module requires a link tutor or designated moduleleader to oversee implementation of module learning, teaching and
assessment strategy, report on outcomes of assessment to subject
assessment board and evaluate a modules implementation.
The Professional Studies Co-ordinator advises on development of
proposals within the PSF, liaises with the nominated PSF awards external
examiner, maintains a register of module leaders, and oversees the
management of students on the Individual Entry Route.
Reporting lines for Professional Studies Framework awards are outlined in
Section 2.7.2.2 (course committee), Section 3.10.1 (route approval),
Section 3.11.2 (programme monitoring), Section 5.7 (subject assessment
board), Section 5.8.1 (course assessment board).

Section 4
Page 96 of 170
Section 5
Assessment Regulations, Procedures
and Moderation
Table of Contents
5.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 99
5.2
Assessment Scheme and Regulations...................................................................... 99
5.3
Moderation of Assessment Briefs and Examination Papers ................................... 99

5.3.1
5.3.2
5.4
5.5
Assessment Rules and Procedures .......................................................................... 100

Moderation of Assessment Results .......................................................................... 100
5.5.1
5.5.2
5.5.3
5.5.4
5.5.5
5.5.6
5.6
Introduction ..................................................................................................................102
Moderating standards: the role of external examiners ................................................102
Subject external examiners role .................................................................................103
Course external examiners role ..................................................................................105
Taught awards board examiners role .........................................................................105
Number and deployment of external examiners ..........................................................106
Appointment of external examiners: The process .......................................................106
Criteria for appointment as external examiner.............................................................107
Term of appointment....................................................................................................108
Briefing of new external examiners .............................................................................108
Premature termination of external examiners appointment ........................................109
Professional advisors: Role, criteria and term of appointment and deployment .........109
Constitution, Terms of Reference, Organisation and Procedures of Subject

Assessment Boards ................................................................................................... 110
5.7.1
5.7.2
5.7.3
5.7.4
5.8
The moderation process ..............................................................................................100

Assessment criteria .....................................................................................................100
The role of internal examiners .....................................................................................100
Internal double marking expectations ..........................................................................101
External moderation expectations ...............................................................................101
Marking Major Projects ................................................................................................102
External Examiners: Role, Rights, Responsibilities and Appointment ................... 102

5.6.1
5.6.2
5.6.3
5.6.4
5.6.5
5.6.6
5.6.7
5.6.8
5.6.9
5.6.10
5.6.11
5.6.12
5.7
Moderation of assessment briefs .................................................................................99

Moderation of examination papers ..............................................................................99
Constitution of subject assessments boards ...............................................................110

Terms of reference of subject assessments boards ....................................................111
5.7.2.1
Organisation of workforce development subject assessment boards .......111
Procedures of subject assessment boards..................................................................112
The role of the chairs of subject assessments boards ................................................113
Constitution, Terms of Reference and Procedures of the Course Assessment

Board ........................................................................................................................... 115
5.8.1
5.8.2
5.8.3
5.8.4
5.8.5
Constitution of the course assessments boards ..........................................................115

Terms of reference of course assessments boards ....................................................116
Procedures of course assessment boards ..................................................................116
Evidence of extenuating circumstances relating to students performance ................117
The role of the chair of a course assessments board .................................................117
5.9
The Role of Course Managers in the Assessment Arrangements .......................... 118
5.10
Responses to External Examiners Reports ............................................................. 118
5.11
Assessment of Staff Members ................................................................................... 119

Section 5
Page 97 of 170
Assessment Regulations, Procedures
and Moderation
5.01
5.02
Harper Adams University: Assessment scheme and regulations for taught degree
and diploma courses
Academic misconduct advisory letters
5.03a
Coursework assignment form and criteria for moderation of assignment briefs
5.03b
5.04
5.05
Coursework assignment form: Electronic submission only

Examination preparation sheet and moderation criteria for examination question
papers
Harper Adams University examination rules
5.06
Procedures for invigilation of examinations and the responsibilities of invigilators
5.07
Intentionally blank
5.08
Procedures for the accreditation of prior learning and prior experiential learning
5.09
Academic appeals procedure
5.10
Twenty point marking scale for taught course examinations
5.11
Generic marking criteria for coursework
5.12
Undergraduate major project assessment form
5.13
Postgraduate major project assessment form
5.14
5.15
5.16
Subject assessment board module assessment moderation check list

Guidance on the operation of the assessment process in relation to the Data
Protection Act
External examiners report form
5.17
External examiners proposal form
5.18
External examiners fees and expenses form
5.19
Degree Review Project assessment form
5.19a
Advanced veterinary nursing review project assessment form
5.20
Professional Project Assessment form
5.21
Arrangements for e-assessment
5.22
Engineering Individual Major Project Assessment form
5.23
Professional advisor report form
5.24
Guidance for students and tutors: Academic misconduct and poor academic practice
5.25
Degree Engineering Project Assessment form
5.26
Engineering work-based project assessment form
5.27a
Engineering postgraduate major project assessment form
5.27b
Engineering individual design project assessment form
5.28
Arrangements for claiming mitigating circumstances
5.29
Assessment arrangements at Harper Adams University
5.30a
MRes assessment form (for research project 1)
5.30b
MRes assessment form (for research project 2 and research project 120 credits)

Section 5
Page 98 of 170
Section 5
Assessment Regulations, Procedures and Moderation
5.1
Introduction
Taught courses at Harper Adams University are modular and organised within an
academic session, which extends to approximately 32 weeks for undergraduates and
50 weeks for postgraduate students. Most courses comprise modules from several
different subject areas and modules are shared between courses leading to different
named awards. Assessment regulations, and procedures for the assurance of quality
and the maintenance of standards, including those concerned with the appointment,
deployment and roles of external examiners, and the operation of the two-tiered
Assessments Board structure, have been devised to accommodate this curriculum
framework and are described in this section. Whilst Section 5 sets out assessment
regulations and associated arrangements, Annex 5.29 sets out some of the detailed
organisation of assessment for the benefit of staff and students, within the context of
this regulatory framework.
5.2
Assessment Scheme and Regulations

The assessment scheme and regulations for the Harper Adams modular scheme are
set out in Annex 5.01, and in students course handbooks. The assessment
regulations may only be varied with the agreement of the Academic Standards
Committee. These regulations apply to all awards made by Harper Adams, including
those offered in conjunction with partner colleges, in the UK and overseas.
5.3
Moderation of Assessment Briefs and Examination Papers

5.3.1
Moderation of assessment briefs

The moderation of assignment briefs and other in-course work is the
responsibility of heads of academic departments. Standard assignment
forms together with assignment moderation criteria (Annex 5.03a /
Annex 5.03b) are to be used to facilitate this moderation, to inform the
Senior Tutor and course team of the nature of each assessment, and to
act as a briefing and feedback sheet for the students.
Good practice guide: moderation of assessment programme

Whilst course assessment packages (format, contribution and timing) are
considered as part of the course approvals process, tutors may, in the light
of experience propose changes to module assessment within the
approvals period. Continuous monitoring of changes to the nature and
timing of the total assessment package for each group of students is the
responsibility of the course team under the leadership of the Course
Manager. Before each academic session, therefore, the team shall review
the in-course work to ensure that a diversity of assessment methods is
used, and to ensure, as far as is possible within a modular scheme, that
the timetable of assessments does not put an unfair or uneven load upon
the students.
5.3.2
Moderation of examination papers

The sequence and timing of events for the preparation and moderation of
examination papers is set out in Figure 5.1. Each academic session,
upon receipt of the list of modules on the timetable planning schedule,
the Examinations Office shall send out to the module leader an
examination preparation sheet for each examination. Agreed moderation
criteria for examination papers are included with the examination

Section 5
Page 99 of 170
preparation sheet as a prompt to staff when setting and moderating their

questions (Annex 5.04). The module leader shall complete the
appropriate sections on the sheet and submit it, together with the draft
paper, to the appropriate head of academic department who is responsible
for arranging moderation. After the various stages set out in Figure 5.1 the
draft papers shall be submitted by the Chair of the Subject Assessment
Board to the Examinations Office (Section 5.7) for dispatch to the
appropriate subject external examiners for approval. Any changes
recommended by the external examiner, if accepted by the Chair of the
Subject Assessment Board and the module leader, shall be incorporated
in the final version of the paper. If the recommendations are not accepted
then the chair of the subject board should justify this to the external
examiner.
5.4
Assessment Rules and Procedures

The conduct of written examinations, the policy and procedures for the assessment of
prior achievement and arrangements for academic appeals and reassessment are set
out in Annexes 5.05 to 5.09. In addition to standard written examinations, students
may be required to attend viva voce examinations with internal or external examiners.
All students must be available to attend if necessary, and are responsible for
checking notice boards for published lists of the time and venue of the viva voce for
those required to attend. Failure to attend may result in the external examiner and
the assessment boards being unable to confirm marks and hence the determination
of the award or progression may be deferred.
5.5
Moderation of Assessment Results

5.5.1
The moderation process

Moderation of module results involves marking and sample double
marking by internal examiners (Section 5.5.4), review by subject external
examiners (Section 5.6.3) and consideration by the appropriate Subject
Assessment Board (Section 5.7) for final agreement. In adopting this
moderation process, procedures are followed to inform external examiners
of staff expectations and to ensure feedback to students on their
performance.
5.5.2
Assessment criteria
Academic staff are expected to use assessment criteria as a guide to
students and as a means of improving consistency of marking. Universitywide criteria are promulgated to improve consistency of marking between
modules. These include a 20 point, level specific, scale for all
examinations (Annex 5.10) and level-specific generic criteria for in-course
work (Annex 5.11), (although assignment briefing and feedback forms are
expected to detail specific assessment and marking criteria), and criteria
for the assessment of major projects (Annex 5.12, 5.13, 5.19, 5.19a, 5.20,
5.22, 5.25, 5.26, 5.27a, 5.27b).
5.5.3
The role of internal examiners

All academic staff involved in the teaching and assessment of a module
are internal examiners. Internal examiners are responsible for ensuring
that the students have been fairly assessed in accordance with the module
assessment scheme and assessment criteria and for maintaining accurate
records of marks and grades. Where two or more staff are involved in the
assessment of a module, the module leader is responsible for moderating
marks or grades, entering these results into the computerised student
record system, checking them, and signing the module assessment sheet
before submission to the subject assessment boards.

Section 5
Page 100 of 170
Prior to consideration of module results by the subject assessment board,

the module leader should ensure that tutors have reviewed all aggregate
marks which generate a weighted score of either 38% or 39%. This
review should verify the reliability of a marginal failure grade, given the
potentially serious consequence for student progression.
Where there is a case for revising marks, based upon a review of the
assessment components, the moderated mark should be entered into the
computerised record system, prior to the subject assessment board.
Where a score of 38% or 39% is presented to the SAB, the module leader
should confirm to the board that the above procedure, for reviewing the
mark, has taken place.
Internal examiners have prime responsibility for determining standards
against agreed criteria. This may involve, for example, scaling marks in
consultation with the Chair of the subject Assessment Board, if it becomes
clear that the format of the assessment was such as to give a false
impression of student achievement for reporting and endorsement at the
subject assessment board.
The moderation process is designed to audit these standards and develop
a common understanding of what they should be. The appropriateness of
these standards is established at subject assessment boards
(Section 5.7) which all internal examiners are required to attend.
5.5.4
Internal double marking expectations

Heads of Academic Departments should ensure that samples of assessed
work are double marked and that a sample of marked and double marked
assessments are available for scrutiny by subject external examiners.
In each session, the Head of Academic Department ensures that a sample
of all modules coursework submissions and examination scripts are
double marked. A standard checklist for module assessment and
moderation is given at Annex 5.14 which should be completed by each
module leader and made available for scrutiny by the external examiner,
with the accompanying documents as indicated on the checklist.
The sample for any assessment is at least six or six per cent (whichever is
the greater) of the scripts and significant discrepancies (a mean of over
five percentage points) is reported to the Chair of the Subject Assessment
Board, who will take appropriate action.
5.5.5
External moderation expectations

The procedures set out below are designed to ensure that moderation of
work and the retention of papers for external examiners does not militate
against the prompt feedback essential for effective learning or contravene
the provisions of the Data Protection Act, 1998.
a) All internal and external examiners are provided with guidelines on
the Act as they relate to the assessment process (Annex 5.15).
b) A sample of six or six per cent (whichever is the greater) of
coursework scripts and student feedback sheets (representing the
range of performance within the group) are photocopied and
retained by each module leader for inspection by external

Section 5
Page 101 of 170
examiners. All the original scripts are returned to students as soon

as practicable.
c) All internal examiners will either write a concise report on the
performance of the cohort of students on each examination
question after marking scripts or ensure that scripts are annotated
as part of the marking process, in order to assist internal
moderators and external examiners in making judgements on the
validity of marks awarded by the internal examiner.
d) All examination scripts are made available to external examiners
and thereafter stored securely for a period of six years.
5.5.6
5.6
Marking Major Projects

Procedures for the assessment, double marking and reassessment of
major projects are set out in detail on the major project assessment forms
(Annex 5.12, 5.13, 5.19, 5.19a and Annex 5.20).
External Examiners: Role, Rights, Responsibilities and Appointment

5.6.1
Introduction
As subject modules are often shared by students on different courses, the
Academic Board has adopted a two-tiered assessments board system
involving subject, and taught awards board external examiners. Subject
examiners are appointed on the basis of their subject expertise and are
members of the appropriate subject assessment board (Sections 5.6.3
and 5.7). Course external examiners are drawn from the subject external
examiners to take an oversight view on individual programmes but are not
required to attend the associated course assessment board
(Section 5.6.4). Taught award board external examiners are appointed to
attend a number of course assessment boards, to provide an overview on
the fairness of regulations and consistency of their application (Sections
5.6.5 and 5.8) Harper Adams philosophy on the function of external
examiners in moderating standards is set out in this section together with
information on the role, rights, responsibilities and appointment of subject
course examiners.
5.6.2
Moderating standards: The role of external examiners

Internal examiners have the primary responsibility for assessing students
and maintaining standards. The role of external examiners is to audit and
moderate these standards against those set in other institutions of higher
education of good standing in the UK. In discharging this role, external
examiners must be in a position to evaluate student work and the
assessment and grading of it by internal examiners; to draw conclusions
from this evaluation both on standards and on the quality of the teaching,
learning and assessment processes; and to provide feedback to the
University so that, through a process of socialisation and debate,
appropriate adjustments in standards and procedures can be made in the
future.
External examiners have no power of veto and shall normally contribute to
decisions on the grading of modules, the granting of awards, and the
progression or withdrawal of students through membership of, and advice
to assessment boards. External examiners do, however, have the right to
submit confidential reports to the Chair of the Academic Board on any
assessment matter on which they have serious concern and which might
put at risk the standards of University awards, in addition to submitting an
annual report, which is publicly available.

Section 5
Page 102 of 170
Although external examiners have the right to review the assessment of

any part of the curriculum, they will normally be asked to moderate papers
and scripts of those modules that contribute to the classification of awards:
that is level 5, 6 and 7 (intermediate, honours and M level) modules.
5.6.3
Subject external examiners role

The key roles of subject external examiners are to ensure that:
a) the standard of attainment of Harper Adams students in the subject
is similar to standards in the same subject in other UK higher
education institutions of good standing;
b) students have been fairly assessed in accordance with the module
descriptor and assessment scheme.
In order to fulfil this role, subject external examiners shall:
review module descriptors including assessment strategies for

those modules for which they are responsible;
approve draft examination papers for all modules which contribute

to the classification of the final award;
sample mark examination scripts and in-course work and make

judgements upon the standard of marking;
attend the appropriate subject assessment board (Section 5.8)

and participate in the moderation of module results by providing
independent advice on the standard of modules;
make judgements upon issues relating to assessment in the

subject as specified in the external examiner report form
(Annex 5.16) and submit an annual report to the Chair of
Academic Board within one month of the June assessments board
meetings each year and within two weeks of the postgraduate
assessment board in September;
submit confidential reports to the Chair of Academic Board on any

assessment matters on which they have serious concern and
which might put at risk the standards of awards of the University.
Subject external examiners have the right to:
access, on prior request, to papers and scripts of all forms of

assessment which are used in the subject modules by agreement
with the Chair of the Subject Board, including samples of
coursework assignments;
carry out viva voce examinations as an aid to confirming marks and

the overall standard in modules (but not as a means for
determining the classification of borderline students);
additional visits to Harper Adams to see assessments in practice;
meetings with individual students and/or student groups.
Subject external examiners have no right of attendance at course

assessment boards (unless they are also course examiners).

Section 5
Page 103 of 170
Last Dates
Week 3
Exam & re-exam paper

preparation sheets
Module leader
List of subject papers
Chair of Subject
Board
Week 11
Preparation sheet,
draft paper and
reassessment
paper
Moderated paper
Week 13
Examinations Office
Examinations Office
Week 14
Week 15
Week 22
Week 24
Typed exam
paper
Module
leaders
Checked
paper
Retyped paper
Chair of Subject
Board
Moderation
External
Examiner
Final Draft
Examinations Office
Figure 5.1 Examination Paper Preparation System

Section 5
Page 104 of 170
5.6.4
Course external examiners role

The key roles of the course external examiner are to ensure that:
a) each student has been fairly assessed in accordance with the
approved programme and that assessment arrangements facilitate
the development and evaluation of award outcomes;
b) student achievement reflects overall course outcomes to a
standard comparable to that of other higher education institutions
of a good standing in the UK.
Additionally, those course examiners for awards run in conjunction with
partner colleges also, typically, accept the roles and responsibilities
associated with the taught awards board external examiner, but only in
relation to the specific course assessment board arrangements
(Section 5.6.5).
In order to fulfil this role, course external examiners shall:
review programme specifications for the relevant awards;
review approved assessment strategies for overall awards;
make judgements upon issues relating to assessment and

curriculum design of the course as specified in the external
examiners report form (Annex 5.16) and submit an annual report
to the Chair of Academic Board within one month of the June
assessment board meeting each year and within two weeks of the
September Postgraduate Course Assessments Board;
submit confidential reports to the Chair of Academic Board on any

assessment matters on which they have serious concern and
which put at risk the standards of awards of the University.
Course external examiners have the right to:
5.6.5
sample assessed work to help them form their opinion of the

curriculum, its delivery and assessment;
interview individual students or groups at any time, and with notice,

in order to form an impression of the curriculum, its delivery and
assessment and student achievement;
review course assessment board papers and submit comments for

the Course Manager to present at the board meeting.
Taught awards board examiners role

The key roles of the taught awards board external examiner are to ensure
that:
a) awards are made consistently and fairly within institutional
regulations;
b) institutional regulations are broadly comparable to those in force in
other reputable UK higher education institutions.
In order to fulfil this role, taught awards board external examiners shall:
review the assessment regulations, especially those concerned

with progression, compensation, condonement and award
classification;

Section 5
Page 105 of 170
contribute to several course assessment board (Section 5.8)

meetings at which Harper Adams awards are to be decided,
through attendance, at the end of each academic session and the
reassessment period;
make judgements upon issues relating to assessment regulations

and assessment and decision making as specified in the external
examiners report form (Annex 5.16) and submit an annual report
to the Chair of Academic Board within two weeks of the September
reassessment board meetings;
submit confidential reports to the Chair of the Academic Board on

any assessment matters on which they have serious concern and
which put at risk the standards of awards of the University.
Taught awards board examiners have the right to:
5.6.6
request an opportunity to discuss assessment issues with those

course external examiners, for which they are members of the
relevant course assessment board;
full membership of designated course assessments boards but no

power of veto and no power to alter marks.
Number and deployment of external examiners

No more than one subject external examiner should be associated with
the assessment of each module (including modules shared in common
between courses). The number of modules in each subject area will
determine the number of subject examiners. Typically, external examiners
will have responsibility for 12 modules per academic session for standard
undergraduate and postgraduate modules. External examiners may be
required to review up to six additional modules per year, with a
supplementary fee payable for each additional module reviewed. No
external examiner shall review more than 18 modules, unless
exceptionally agreed (eg acting as cover for illness) by the Chair of the
Subject Board and Head of Educational Development and Quality
Enhancement.
For each award one (or, where this is a requirement of the professional
body concerned, two) subject examiners will act as course examiner for
one or more awards (up to a maximum of three distinct awards/award
suites). A small team (of two or three) taught award board external
examiners will be appointed to attend and comment upon course
assessment board arrangements. A list of external examiners and the
subjects and awards with which they are associated shall be maintained
and presented to Academic Standards Committee by the Head of
Educational Development & Quality Enhancement annually.
5.6.7
Appointment of external examiners: The process

The process for appointment of external examiners shall be as follows:
Action by the chairs of subject board
Nominations for subject external examiners shall be made to the Head of
Educational Development and Quality Enhancement (HEDQE) by the
Chair of the Subject Board concerned after consultation with the
appropriate course manager in those cases in which that nominee may
also be asked to act as a course examiner.

Section 5
Page 106 of 170
Once general approval of a nominee has been obtained, the Chair of the
Subject Board or their nominee - shall make an informal approach to the
nominee to determine if he or she is prepared to act as examiner.
The nomination of taught awards board external examiners is the
responsibility of the HEDQE.
Action by Head of Educational Development & Quality Enhancement
The HEDQE shall request from the nominee the information required for
the completion of the external examiner proposal forms (Annex 5.17). To
comply with UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) requirements, all nominees
will also be asked to provide evidence of their eligibility to work in the UK
and a photocopy of the documents will be forwarded to a member of the
Harper Adams HR team in the first instance, for verification.
Members of the Academic Standards Committee will be invited to review
the proposal form in considering whether to approve or decline a
nomination, for Academic Board ratification.
Action by Chair of Academic Board
The Chair of Academic Board shall write a formal letter to the successful
nominee setting out terms and duration of appointment.
Action by the Chair of the Subject Board and Course Manager
The Chair of the Subject Board, in consultation with the manager of the
course concerned if the subject examiner is also a course examiner, shall
invite the newly appointed examiner to visit the institution for briefing
(Section 5.6.9) and shall thereafter be the main point of contact between
the examiner and the University.
The HEDQE shall take responsibility for briefing and liaison with taught
awards board external examiners.
5.6.8
Criteria for appointment as external examiner

To ensure appropriate expertise, experience and independence, subject
and course external examiner appointees should normally have:
academic, professional or industrial qualifications or experience

appropriate to, and at a level matching the subject and course(s) to
be examined;
appropriate academic and/or professional standing, expertise and

experience to maintain standards in higher education;
recent experience of examining in higher education, and preferably

of acting as an external examiner, or comparable recent
experience which provides evidence of competence in assessing
students in the subject;
no more than two other current external examining appointments

involving substantial examining;
no involvement over the last five years as a member of staff,

governor or student at Harper Adams or partner college (as
appropriate);
no personal involvement as a sponsor or industrial assessor of

students;
no involvement as a consultant to the course team.

Section 5
Page 107 of 170
The criteria for appointment of taught awards board external examiners is

as above, with the exception of the need for qualifications or experience to
match the courses under consideration.
To ensure an appropriate balance of experience in relation to the
examiners role and the mission of Harper Adams, the team of external
examiners should normally involve representatives of relevant industries
or professions and a range of academic perspectives.
To ensure independence of judgement, the team of external examiners
should not normally involve:
more than one examiner from the same institution within a subject
assessment board;
reciprocal arrangements with another institution within an

assessment board;
replacement of an external examiner by one from the same

institution;
reappointment of an examiner to the same or to a different course

or subject board, within a five year period.
In any subject area where there are only limited centres of expertise, the
Academic Standards Committee will consider the need for a sufficient
depth of specialist knowledge whilst militating against the potential
problems of insularity and cosiness that may occur, if any of these criteria
cannot be strictly applied, when making recommendations to Academic
Board.
5.6.9
Term of appointment
The term of appointment of External Examiners shall normally be four
years (five years for new courses) but appointees should remain in post
until after the last assessments with which they are to be involved in order
to deal with any subsequent review of decisions. Newly appointed
examiners should take up their appointments by September or October
and, before the retirement of their predecessors. Inexperienced external
examiners should, wherever possible, take up their posts in the June
before the retirement of the existing examiner. Where there is more than
one course examiner, appointment should be staggered to ensure
continuity.
5.6.10
Briefing of new external examiners

Newly appointed examiners shall be invited by the appropriate subject
board chair (HEDQE in the case of taught awards board external
examiners) to visit the institution as soon as possible after their
appointment to be briefed by the chair, the course manager (if
appropriate), the HEDQE and the Assistant Registrar (Examinations) on:
the role of external examiners as agreed by Harper Adams

Academic Board;
the rights and responsibilities of external examiners;
the operation and timing of the subject and course assessments

boards;
in the case of course examiners, the aims, objectives, curriculum

and assessment regulations as defined in the course handbook;

Section 5
Page 108 of 170
the assessment scheme for each academic session as determined

by the course team in those cases where the subject examiner is
also a course examiner;
the assessment moderation and exam paper preparation system

and the dates of subject and assessment boards;
reporting procedures;
action taken in response to previous external examiners reports;
arrangements for the payment of fees and expenses (Annex 5.18);
to comply with UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) requirements, all

newly appointed external examiners will be asked to bring along
with them, during their first visit to the University, documentation
(which must be originals) that confirms their eligibility to work in the
UK, which will be verified in person by a member of the Harper
Adams HR team.
In addition, the external examiners should be introduced to the Chair of

the Academic Board, and to relevant senior staff and, in the case of a
course examiner, to the course team and students. In the case of
inexperienced examiners appointed before the retirement of their
predecessor, the former shall be invited to 'shadow' the latter during a visit
to the University and a meeting of the assessment board(s).
Inexperienced external examiners are also offered the opportunity of
professional development, at Harper Adams expense, to supplement
these normal briefing procedures.
5.6.11
Premature termination of external examiners appointment

Circumstances that shall lead to the premature termination of an external
examiners appointment shall include:
a newly arisen or discovered conflict of interest;
failure or inability to attend boards or carry out moderation;
behaviour inappropriate to the position of external examiner;
a loss of academic standing;
failure to submit appropriate reports.
In such circumstances the Chair of the Subject Board concerned, together

with the course manager in the case of a course external examiner, shall
prepare a paper citing the circumstances and evidence for consideration
by the Chair of the Academic Board, the Chair of Academic Standards
Committee and the Head of Educational Development & Quality
Enhancement who shall collectively decide upon appropriate action.
5.6.12
Professional advisors: Role, criteria and term of appointment and

deployment
A professional advisor shall normally, in addition to the external examiner
appointments, support undergraduate awards. The advisor will have the
following responsibilities:
Review work associated with the Professional Scholarship

Programme elements (Section 4.7) to provide feedback on the
relevance of such work.

Section 5
Page 109 of 170
Meet with students at various stages of the course, on two

occasions a year, to form an impression of the way in which
students have been prepared for employment.
Provide a reference point for informing the course team on

workplace needs in designing and reviewing courses and modules.
Submit an annual report to the Chair of Academic Board by the end

of each academic year. This report (of no more than two sides of
A4) should provide an evaluation of the technical and generic skills
required in the workplace, the extent to which students possess
these, and the corresponding lessons for organisation of the
curriculum and the placement period (Annex 5.23).
The professional advisor should have industrial qualifications or

experience appropriate to the programmes and award outcomes and
appropriate professional standing, expertise and experience to offer
advice in support of maintaining standards in higher education. The term
of appointment shall normally be for four years. Course committees will
nominate advisors, following third party recommendation and inform the
Academic Standards Committee. To comply with UK Visas and
Immigration (UKVI) requirements, all newly appointed professional
advisors will also be asked to provide documentation (must be originals)
as evidence of their eligibility to work in the UK, for verification in person
by a member of the Harper Adams HR team.
Payment of fees and expenses shall be commensurate with those of
external examiners. Some courses achieve regular external, professionbased impartial advice on the effectiveness of the curriculum in supporting
employment-related skills through alternative means, such as industry
liaison groups.
Professional reviewers are also appointed in relation to some employersponsored programmes, instead of, or to complement the work of external
examiners, where their input in relation to professional currency is
especially valued. The terms of reference for these professional reviewers
are overseen by the Head of Educational Development & Quality
Enhancement, and, whilst broadly based on those for external examiners,
are customised to reflect the specific nature of the programme they
support. The appointment and reporting arrangements are based on
those for external examiners outlined in Sections 5.6.7-5.6.9.
5.7
Constitution, Terms of Reference, Organisation and Procedures of Subject

Assessment Boards
5.7.1
Constitution of subject assessments boards

Each cognate subject area, normally based on departments, shall have an
associated subject assessments board that is empowered to act on behalf
of the Academic Board, following procedures laid down by the Board or by
Academic Standards Committee acting on its behalf. Each subject
assessments board will correspond to one or two academic subject
groups and the membership shall be as follows:
Head(s) of Academic Department (of whom one will act as Chair)
Administrative officer (recorder and student record systems

operator)
Leaders of each module under consideration
Subject external examiners

Section 5
Page 110 of 170
5.7.2
Terms of reference of subject assessments boards

The subject assessment boards are empowered to:
a) moderate and agree results for each module to ensure that
standards are comparable to those of cognate subjects both within
the University and in other higher education institutions;
b) ensure that students have been fairly assessed in accordance with
the module assessment scheme;
c) confirm or scale the marks of all students taking the module;
d) approve the nature of the reassessment proposed for each
module;
e) review individual subject modules introduced between review and
revalidation events; for ratification by the Programme Approvals
Committee;
f)
receive and approve responses to subject external examiners

reports;
g) appoint members to represent the subject board at each course

assessment board;
h) make recommendations on assessment issues to course
assessment boards, Academic Standards Committee or Academic
Board;
i)
5.7.2.1
convene sub-groups, to be known as Workforce Development

Subject Assessment Boards, on a regular basis, to deal with the
results of students who have participated in credit-bearing
workforce development modules.
Organisation of workforce development subject
assessment boards
Membership
The membership of Workforce Development Subject
Assessment Boards will comprise the following minimum
membership, as below:
Subject Assessment Board Chair or nominee
Two Subject Assessment Board members involved in
delivery of programmes for which results are under
review
A Subject Assessment Board member not involved in
the delivery of programmes for which results are under
review
Either a sponsoring employer representative, who is
involved in assessment, or a professional advisor who
reviews marked work to advise on its relevance to
current professional practice and alignment with the
Framework for Higher Education Qualifications
Independent Chair of Course Assessment Board or
nominee
Oversight of arrangements by associated Subject External
Examiners and Taught Awards Board Examiners would

Section 5
Page 111 of 170
normally be through scrutiny of board papers and minutes,

rather than through attendance, for reporting purposes.
Terms of reference
The terms of reference for Workforce Development Subject
Assessment Boards are as listed under a-e and h in
Section 5.7.2, in addition to the following:
receive and approve responses to sponsoring employer
or professional advisor reports.
5.7.3
Procedures of subject assessment boards

The focus of the role of the subject assessment boards is the subject and
module. The subject assessments boards alone are responsible for
establishing the standards of assessed work in a subject, and in this the
role of the subject external examiner is crucial. Standards are established
by:
comparing the analysis of module marks and grades with those of

previous occasions and identify any modules which are atypical;
considering the implications of the results of sample double

marking by internal and external examiners;
considering the views of external examiners who have reviewed

the assessment methods and carried out viva voce examinations
of individual students;
reviewing the profile of marks and grades of modules in other

subject assessment boards, for that assessment stage.
Subject assessment boards will be presented with students marks and

grades in each module studied for consideration. Where the module
leader, Head of Academic Department and internal second marker have,
as a consequence of the moderation process, decided to recommend that
marks should be modified in some way, they will additionally present the
board with a comparison of un-moderated marks and an explanation of the
rationale for the modification.
The subject assessment board considers the results for all students
(irrespective of course, programme or award) who have been assessed in
modules in the subject. It is not the responsibility of the subject
assessment board to consider the overall performance of individual
students or extenuating circumstances relating to individual performance.
It is, however, the responsibility of the module leader to report to the board
the accuracy of incomplete or zero grades and to ensure that nonsubmission or non-attendance of an individual student has been verified
by a medical note or other valid, written evidence. Once the marks and
grades have been confirmed by the subject board they shall be made
definitive in the computerised student record system so that overall results
for each student can be considered by the appropriate course
assessments boards (Section 5.8) and (Figure 5.2). All Incomplete
grades should be ratified by the course assessments board in considering
the mitigating circumstances of individual students (see section 11.2 of the
assessment regulations at Annex 5.01).

Section 5
Page 112 of 170
5.7.4
The role of the chairs of subject assessments boards

Chairs of subject assessment boards are appointed from amongst the
heads of academic departments and are responsible for:
nominating candidates for approval as subject external examiners;
briefing new subject external examiners on their role together with
the Head of Educational Development & Quality Enhancement and
Course Manager, where applicable;
dispatching moderated examination papers and other assessment
instruments to the external examiner and ensuring that responses
are made to his or her moderation by the head of department
concerned;
making arrangements for the visits of external examiners in
conjunction with the Assistant Registrar (Examinations) and, where
appropriate, the relevant course manager;
providing samples of marked scripts and in-course work as
required for scrutiny by the external examiner (see Annex 5.14);
conducting meetings of the board in a manner which ensures that
the module marks are properly agreed and recorded;
determining whether sufficient members are present to properly
progress the agenda (all members and all module leaders should
normally be in attendance see Section 2.2);
appointing a secretary to the board and ensuring that detailed and
accurate records are kept of the proceedings, of the agreed results
and of any recommendations;
approving the draft minutes and ensuring that they comply with
guidance given on the Data Protection Act (Annex 5.15);
submitting a copy of the minutes to the Head of Educational
Development & Quality Enhancement, including any matters
arising;
nominating members of the board to represent it at course
assessments board meetings;
drafting a response to the subject external examiners report for
consideration during annual course and subject monitoring.

Section 5
Page 113 of 170
Moderated module
assessments lists
Mode of reassessment
Subject assessment
boards
Examinations
Office
Definitive course results

sheet
Course
assessments
board
Results published July

Module leader
Examinations
Office
Assignment preparation
sheets for reassessment
Definitive results,
reassessment timetable,
accommodation form &
reassessment invoice
Head of Academic
Department
Moderated completed
assignment sheets
Students vacation
or sandwich: July
Examinations Office
Reassessment:
September
The examination preparation system is as described in Figure 5.1. Students on placement

will normally be reassessed before the next study part (ie students are reassessed in the
immediate September, with the exception of students who have already commenced on
overseas placement, where reassessment takes place immediately preceding their return to
University-based study.
Figure 5.2 Results Moderation, Notification of Students and Reassessment

Section 5
Page 114 of 170
5.8
Constitution, Terms of Reference and Procedures of the Course Assessment

Boards
5.8.1
Constitution of the course assessments boards

Each course has an associated assessment board that is empowered to
act on behalf of Academic Board, following procedures laid down by
Academic Board or the Academic Standards Committee acting on behalf
of Academic Board. The membership shall be as follows:
Head of Educational Development & Quality Enhancement or

nominee (Chair)
Director of Academic Services or nominee (Results recorder)
Course Manager
All members of the course team
Chair or nominee of each appropriate subject board
Placement Manager
Taught awards board examiner
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor has right of attendance as observer
For final year undergraduate students combined course assessment

board will be convened to consider the awards of completing students.
The membership will be as follows:
Head of Educational Development & Quality Enhancement or

nominee (Chair)
Director of Academic Services or nominee (Results recorder)
Course Manager
Senior Tutor of completing cohort
Additionally, there will be a Workforce Development Combined

Assessment Board to deal with the results of candidates studying a
Professional Studies Framework module or with a partner college, through
the Workforce Development programme, where there are no existing
arrangements. The Workforce Development Combined Assessment
Board will comprise the following members:
Head of Educational Development & Quality Enhancement (or

nominee) (Chair)
Workforce Development Administrative Officer (recorder and

student record systems operator)
Module leader (or Link Tutor, where applicable) of each module, or

route variation for any Professional Studies Framework module
under consideration, with participation either in person, or through
telephone or video conferencing facilities
Subject external examiners for each module at levels 5-7, or a

professional advisor who reviews work across a programme, to
advise on its relevance to current professional practice and
alignment with the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications.
(Whilst these external members have a right of attendance, their
input may take the form of a written report, prepared in advance of
the meeting)

Section 5
Page 115 of 170
5.8.2
Terms of reference of course assessments boards

The course assessments boards are empowered to:
a) make decisions on the progression and awards for all students
registered for the named award(s) for which the board is
responsible in accordance with the approved assessment scheme
and regulations for the course;
b) agree results for course-wide components such as the industrial
training period;
c) approve for publication the agreed recommendations on the results
of assessment;
d) consider the advice to be given to students who have failed;
e) approve the timing of any reassessments, whether reassessment
should be allowed without further attendance, and to specify the
period of time to be allowed for the completion of reassessment;
f)
receive and consider reports of appeals panels and to determine

the appropriate course of action, having given due regard to the
Appeals Panel's recommendation(s);
g) receive reports of the Academic Misconduct Panel previously

established to determine whether a student (singly or in
conjunction with others) has attempted any form of cheating or
breach of regulations in order to gain an unfair advantage in terms
of their assessments, and to implement the appropriate course of
action with regard to each student against whom an allegation(s)
has been substantiated.
5.8.3
Procedures of course assessment boards

The focus of the proceedings of the course assessment boards is the
student. Progression and award classification decisions made by course
assessments boards are normally determined by the mathematical rules
contained within the assessment regulations. The board cannot alter any
module marks or grades moderated by subject assessments boards
unless an error in transcription or an omission is discovered but can
decide to compensate or condone a failure in a module under the
conditions prescribed in the assessment regulations (Annex 5.01).
Thus the overall performance of the student is indicated by:
module marks or grades which have been confirmed by the

appropriate subject assessments boards at each part or stage of
the course;
documented evidence of extenuating circumstances relating to the

student (Section 5.8.4 and section 11 of the assessment
regulations at Annex 5.01);
performance in course-wide components.
The board may award a different classification from that determined by the
marks awarded under the conditions prescribed in the assessment
regulations (Annex 5.01). However it is essential for equity and legal
reasons that the same array of marks normally yield the same overall
result. The reasons for any decisions that are out of line with the
assessment regulations, or for any decision on individual students that are
out of rank order, must be clearly specified in the minutes of the board
meeting.
Section 5
Page 116 of 170
5.8.4
Evidence of extenuating circumstances relating to students

performance
All significant extenuating circumstances relating to the performance of
individual students must be documented (section 11 of assessment
regulations at Annex 5.01). Course assessment boards must not rely on
oral reports. Students are individually responsible for providing
documented evidence of any extenuating circumstances, which may have
affected their performance in one or more assessments. Students should
also be advised to inform their senior tutor or another member of the
course team of their personal extenuating circumstances so that the
course team member can, if appropriate, provide written corroboration for
the course assessment board.
In some cases the board may decide to hear evidence from an internal
examiner who has particular knowledge of the circumstances relating to
an individual student. Oral evidence of this type must be in support of
documentary evidence and not a substitute for documentation.
All documented evidence from students and staff must be submitted to the
Chair of the Course Assessments Board prior to start of the course
assessments board meeting.
5.8.5
The role of the chair of a course assessments board

The chair of the course assessments board shall:
conduct the meeting of the board in a manner which ensures that

decisions on progression, awards and award classifications for
individual students are arrived at fairly and in accordance with the
assessment scheme and regulations;
determine whether sufficient members are present to properly

progress the agenda (all members should normally be in
attendance see Section 2.2);
advise the board on the interpretation and application of the

assessment regulations;
ensure that decisions are clear and that they have been agreed by
the board;
ensure that all extenuating circumstances relating to individual

students have been fully taken into account before a decision is
reached on progression or an award;
ensure that the course manager has appointed a secretary and

that detailed and accurate records are kept of the board's
proceedings and of the agreed outcomes;
approve the draft minutes, ensuring that they comply with guidance
given on the Data Protection Act (Annex 5.15);
bring to the attention of the Academic Standards Committee any

issues, which arise at assessments boards or in the reports of, or
responses to external examiners reports that are worthy of
consideration by the Committee.

Section 5
Page 117 of 170
5.9
5.10
The Role of Course Managers in the Assessment Arrangements

The course manager and senior tutors are, amongst other things, responsible for:
briefing students on the examination rules and assessment regulations;
monitoring the assessment programme for each cohort of students, in

consultation with module leaders and heads of academic departments as
appropriate, with particular reference to the timing and nature of assessed
assignments;
publishing the assessment programme to students and staff teaching the

course;
distributing individual major projects for assessment and for collating results;
collating and presenting assessment results for the course at the course
assessments board;
ensuring the accuracy of all course assessment board decisions for each
candidate in the student record system before ratification and publication of
the results;
submitting external examiners' reports and proposed responses to the course

committee for discussion and agreement.
Responses to External Examiners Reports

Annual reports of external examiners shall be responded to through the course and
subject monitoring processes of Harper Adams Academic Board as follows.
a) On receipt of the report, the Chair of Academic Board shall send copies to the
Head of Educational Development & Quality Enhancement who shall circulate
it to the chairs of subject boards, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, and the relevant
course managers (and to the Principal, HE Manager and Course Managers in
partner colleges). A copy shall be lodged in the Common Room and the
original will be lodged in the Examination Office.
b) Any issue of University-wide significance that requires immediate action shall
be reported by the Head of Educational Development & Quality Enhancement
to the Academic Standards Committee.
c) The Chair of the appropriate subject board shall write a response to the
subject related issues and submit the response for approval to the September
meeting of the relevant subject assessment board. This approved response
will then be submitted to the managers of any courses whose students make
use of the module and to the Head of Educational Development & Quality
Enhancement.
d) The course manager shall include the report and the course teams and
subject board chairs' responses to it in the annual course report for debate at
the annual course-monitoring meeting of the course committee.
e) All external examiners reports and all responses to them shall be submitted to
Academic Standards Committee along with a commentary and recommended
action on cross-University issues prepared by the Head of Educational
Development & Quality Enhancement.
f) The Academic Standards Committee shall determine if the action
recommended is appropriate and in line with wider institutional policy.
g) Responses on University-wide issues shall be included in Academic
Standards Committees report to the Academic Board and will be sent to each
external examiner, on request, together with the response to his or her own
report before the end of the calendar year.

Section 5
Page 118 of 170
5.11
Assessment of Staff Members

All assessments completed by staff, including APL submissions, should be doublemarked and, in addition, should be reviewed by the assigned external examiner. This
approach should ensure that individuals are not asked to make sole judgements on
the work of their colleague(s). External examiner oversight adds an external,
independent reassurance on the reliability of marks.
Colleagues will not have access to records in SITS for modules on which they are
registered. It is accepted practice that the mail trays are not used to transfer draft
copies of exam papers, but are delivered to or collected from the Examinations
Office, in person. In this way, all unseen assessments will be kept secure within the
Examinations Office.
Colleagues whose achievements are under discussion in either subject or course
assessment boards will be expected to declare their interest at the commencement of
the meeting. The Chair will exercise their discretion on whether the individual is
excused or asked not to contribute to specific discussions.
Given that interim results should be posted by identification number, rather than
name, there should be no potentially embarrassing situations where students can
compare their achievements with those of staff. Any assignment returns should be
posted directly to staff mail trays, as opposed to the student collection boxes in the
Assignment Office.

Section 5
Page 119 of 170
MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE OF RESEARCH
6.1
Introduction
6.2
Management and quality assurance of research by staff

6.2.1 Responsibilities
6.2.2 Monitoring and evaluation of research and scholarly activity
6.3
Management and Quality Assurance of Research Degree Students

6.3.1
6.3.2
6.3.3
6.3.4
6.3.5
6.3.6
6.3.7
6.3.8
6.3.9
6.3.10
6.3.11
6.3.12
6.3.13
6.3.14
6.3.15
6.3.16
Introduction
Research degrees awarded
Higher Degrees by published work
Research degree studentship proposals
Student selection and conditions of tenure
Registration requirements for postgraduate research students
Induction and programme of related studies
Registration
Appointment of Supervisors
Duties of Supervisors (excluding Master of Research degree students)
Monitoring research student progress (excluding Master of Research degree
students)
Monitoring research student opinions
Complaints
Assessment regulations and appeals
Cheating, plagiarism and collusion
Examinations, examination panels and the appointment and duties of
examiners (excluding Master of Research degree students)
120
Amended following meeting of
Academic Board December 2009 and
Research Degrees Standards Committee Nov 2011
6.
MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE OF RESEARCH
6.1
Introduction
In order to ensure the intellectual vitality and academic depth required in an
institution of higher education, members of the academic community at Harper
Adams engage in that range of activities defined as research (Annex 6.1). The
research policy and targets are set out in the University Research Knowledge and
Transfer Strategy; procedures and responsibilities for the management and quality
assurance of research conducted by University staff and by postgraduate research
students are detailed separately in sections 6.2 and 6.3 below.
6.2
Management and quality assurance of research by staff

6.2.1
Responsibilities
Each of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Research Co-ordinator and Heads of
Department have responsibilities for the management and quality assurance
of research by staff as follows.
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor, in consultation with others, shall:
a)
identify the major areas where research should be developed and draft
the University Research and Knowledge Transfer Strategy;
b)
allocate University resources to support research programmes, in

negotiation with the Research Co-ordinator and Heads of Department;
c)
be involved in the appointment of academic staff and, where possible,

to identify suitable candidates who will enhance the research
programme;
d)
promote the research ethos of the University.
In consultation with others, the Research Co-ordinator shall:

a)
provide leadership in research;
b)
advise on the likely sources of research funding and methods of

application;
c)
collate bids for adjustment of staff workloads for research purposes

from Heads of Department and allocate on an annual basis, following
consultation with the Heads of Department;
d)
co-ordinate the
submissions;
e)
ensure appropriate selection and appointment of research students,

research assistants and postdoctoral assistants and that they adhere
to the conditions of tenure;
preparation
121
of
annual
reports
and
research
In consultation with others, Heads of Department shall:

a)
identify members of staff who have the potential for productive and
effective research work and involve them more fully in research
activities;
b)
ensure that all staff make effective use of scholarly activity time for
research;
c)
provide resources to support research;
d)
adjust teaching loads and timetable commitments in such a way as to

allow selected staff significant periods of time to engage in research;
e)
monitor the research in the Department and encourage publication in

appropriate refereed journals or presentation at conferences;
f)
encourage staff to seek external funding and secure research

personnel;
g)
liaise with the Research Co-ordinator and Deputy Vice-Chancellor on

research issues;
h)
ensure satisfactory arrangements for the supervision and resourcing of

research students' programmes of work;
i)
draft a Department research and knowledge transfer strategy and

annual operating plan for research in consultation with the Deputy
Vice-Chancellor and Research Co-ordinator.
6.2.2 Monitoring and evaluation of research and scholarly activity

The responsibility for evaluating the research and scholarly activity of
individual staff is vested in the Heads of Departments and forms part of the
staff review process section 1.4.2 et seq. The responsibility for the wider
monitoring and evaluation of research and consultancy in the University shall
be vested in the Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee. The
constitution, terms of reference and reporting procedures of this Committee
are set out in section 2.7. The Research Co-ordinator will each year produce
an annual report for approval by the Research and Knowledge Transfer
Committee and submission to the Academic Board and the Board of
Governors. The report details the research output during the previous
calendar year including:
the relevance of the research to the academic programme, including the

impact on the taught curriculum;
staff publications, evidence of esteem, research supervision duties;
current postgraduate and postdoctoral researchers;
registrations and conferments of research degrees;
122
6.3
engagements at industrial, commercial and professional events and

conferences;
collaborations with industry, research centres and other Higher Education

Institutions;
the value of funds acquired by the University classified by source.
Management and Quality Assurance of Research Degree Students

6.3.1
Introduction
The Academic Board has established a Research Degrees Standards
Committee and a Research Degrees Awarding Board to monitor the progress
of postgraduate research students to assure Academic Board of the quality of
provision and standards of assessment of research degree students.
The constitution and terms of reference of the Research Degrees Standards
Committee and Research Degrees Awarding Board are detailed in section
2.8. In this section are set out the procedures for the management and
quality assurance of research degrees.
6.3.2
Research degrees awarded

The research degrees awarded conform with the framework and guidelines of
the QAA (QAA, 2008, The framework for higher education qualifications in
England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher
Education available at: www.qaa.ac.uk).
Master of Research
For the Master of Research award the student completes a taught component
of 60 credits and undertakes research that is equivalent to 120 credits. All
programmes must be approved by the Programme Approvals Committee
(Section 5) and must meet the Master of Research award outcomes outlined
at 4.3.2
Programme Specification Forms (Annex 3.2.a) and component module
descriptors will describe the precise nature of the research output (e.g. there
may be a single long project or two smaller ones). The research project(s)
must show evidence of the student's proficiency in the methods and
techniques of research, good presentation and style, and an adequate
knowledge and discussion of the literature in a specific field of study. The
research must also show initiative and independence of thought.
Master of Philosophy
For the Master of Philosophy the student undertakes a research programme
leading to the submission of a thesis. The thesis, which must conform to the
rules relating to the submission and format for theses for higher degrees
(Annex 6.13), must show evidence of the student's proficiency in the
methods and techniques of research, good presentation and style, and an
adequate knowledge and discussion of the literature in a specific field of
123

study. It must show initiative and independence of thought, and must be a

distinct contribution to scholarship.
Doctor of Philosophy
For the Doctor of Philosophy the student undertakes a research programme
leading to the submission of a thesis. The thesis, which must conform to the
rules relating to the submission and format for theses for higher degrees
(Annex 6.13), must show good presentation and style and show evidence of
being a significant contribution to knowledge and of the student's capacity to
pursue further research without supervision. The thesis should contain a
significant amount of material worthy of publication.
6.3.3
Higher Degrees by Published Work

The candidates published work must show evidence of making a contribution
to knowledge in a particular field and conform to the guidelines for higher
degrees by publication (Annex 6.14). The publications must also provide
evidence of proficiency in the methods and techniques of research,
demonstrating an adequate knowledge of the literature. The material
submitted must represent a coherent contribution to research in a given field,
at a level and scope equivalent to that of a conventional MPhil thesis.
Doctorate of Philosophy
The candidates published work must show evidence of making a significant
contribution to knowledge in a particular field and conform to the guidelines
for higher degrees by publication (Annex 6.14). The publications must also
provide evidence of the capacity of the candidate to pursue further research
without supervision. The material submitted must represent a coherent
contribution to research in a given field, at a level and scope equivalent to that
of a conventional PhD thesis.
6.3.4
Research degree studentship proposals

All proposals for University funded research studentships shall be submitted
for approval to the Research and Knowledge Transfer Committee, including
approval by signature of the Head of Department, specifying the nature of the
project, the source of funds and resource requirements. When the project is
approved the procedures for recruiting a research student and the
appointment of the supervisory team may proceed (sections 6.3.5 and 6.3.9
respectively).
6.3.5
Student selection and conditions of tenure

To foster equal opportunities and to recruit the best candidate for each
studentship, all vacancies are advertised both internally and externally.
Standard procedures for recruitment are set out in Annex 6.3 and research
studentship conditions of tenure in Annex 6.4. Selection of students shall
involve an interview panel consisting of the proposed Director of Studies and
at least one other member of staff with expertise of interviewing research
students.
124

6.3.6 Registration requirements for postgraduate research students

The normal minimum entrance requirement for research degrees is an upper
second-class honours degree of a British university or recognised higher
education institution. For Master of Research applicants a lower second-class
honours degree with appropriate research experience is also acceptable.
Alternative qualifications or experience may exceptionally be accepted if they
meet with the requirements of the Research Degrees Awarding Board. In
addition, students whose first language is not English should normally have
sufficient command of the English language to complete the programme of
work satisfactorily and to prepare and defend a thesis in English. This will
either be through achieving at least IELTS 6.5 (or equivalent) or by
satisfactory completion of the HAUC English Language Course.
6.3.7
Induction and programme of related studies

For Master of Philosophy and doctoral students there are three possible
enrolment dates each academic year: the first Monday of October, January
and April. On arrival postgraduate research students will be given an
induction programme commencing on each of the above dates. This will
include information on research degree guidelines and briefing on the library,
computer and laboratory facilities.
Master of Research degree students will complete their registration by the
second week in September to enable induction on the first Monday in October
alongside other research students. Induction to support the taught
components will be undertaken alongside taught postgraduate students.
A Personal Development Programme (PDP) is devised for each postgraduate
research student by the Personal Development Planning Advisor (PDPA)
soon after enrolment.
A meeting between the PDPA and the student is used to create the PDP in
conjunction with the Director of Studies.
For MPhil, PhD and part-time Master of Research students progress with the
PDP is reviewed annually by the PDPA, including after submission of the final
thesis. For Master of Research students who are expected to complete their
programme in one year, a mid-programme and end of year PDP review will
be undertaken.
Examples of sessions include:
Advanced Research Methods

The Viva
Writing Scientific Papers
Good Laboratory Practice
Networking
Writing Grant Proposals
Thesis Writing
Public Engagement
Careers
125

Enterprise: An Introduction to good business practice and enterprise

development
Survival as a Tutor at Harper Adams
The Survival in Learning and Teaching Programme includes a requirement to

teach a small number of classes. These should be discussed with the
Director of Studies well in advance of the programme. Further opportunities
for gaining teaching experience should be discussed with the appropriate
Head of Department and Director of Studies.
6.3.8
Registration
For research students (except Master of Research degree students)
Candidates for research degree programmes shall complete a registration
form (Annex 6.8.1 Form SR1 - Application to register for a research degree)
within one month of enrolment at Harper Adams. These forms will be
submitted for approval to the Research Degrees Awarding Board and, if
granted, signed by the Chair of the Research Degrees Awarding Board.
Copies of all forms will be lodged with the Research Office.
On satisfactory completion of the first year progress report (section 6.3.11),
each student will submit Form SM3 (Annex 6.9.3) and request registration for
a specific award (MPhil or PhD). This form will be submitted for approval to
the Research Degrees Awarding Board along with forms SM4 (Annex 6.9.4)
and SM5 (Annex 6.9.5). If approved, SM5 is signed by the Chair of the
Research Degrees Awarding Board.
For Master of Research degree students
Candidates for a Master of Research degree shall complete the Application to
Register (Annex 6.16.01). This form will be considered by the Award Manager
and a suitably experienced subject specialist.
Applications should usually be made no less than six weeks prior to an
expected start date and decisions will normally be notified within three weeks.
The Award Manager will convey the admissions decision to the Research
Office from where a notification letter is dispatched. Copies of all application
forms will be lodged with the Research Office. The Award Manager will
present the Research Degrees Awarding Board with a list of admitted
students.
Period of Study
The periods of study for full-time and part-time students are outlined below.
Full-time students
Degree
MRes
MPhil
PhD
Minimum
1 year
1 year 3 months
2 years
126
Maximum before submission

3 years
4 years
4 years
Part-time students
Degree
MRes
MPhil
PhD
Minimum
15 months
2 years
3 years
Maximum before submission

4 years
6 years
6 years
There are no exemptions from the minimum periods of study, and registration
cannot be back-dated to take account of research already completed.
Extensions to maximum study periods
Exceptionally, the Research Degrees Awarding Board may consider requests
for extensions to the maximum periods of study for full-time and part-time
students. Requests must be made in writing to the Research Office by way of
form SM10 (Annex 6.9.10 and for Master of Research Students at Annex
6.16.02) or the annual progress report, and will be considered at the next
meeting of the Research Degrees Awarding Board.
The length of time requested along with a time-table for completion should be
realistic (to allow time for completion and submission), as it is unlikely that
further extensions will be granted. If you are a full-time student and are
granted an extension at the end of your fourth year registration period, your
student status will be changed to part-time ex full-time. This does not
necessarily mean changing the amount of time that is devoted to the
research. The maximum period of extension is twenty-four months.
Suspending Registration
In certain circumstances the Research Degrees Awarding Board will consider
a request (Form SM9 - Annex 6.9.9 and for Master of Research Students
at Annex 6.16.03) from students to suspend their studies. Periods of
suspension of three, six, nine or twelve months may be requested. Periods of
suspension must be requested in advance and do not count towards the
maximum permitted periods of study. For full-time students the maximum
period of suspension is normally twelve months in total, and for part-time
students the maximum period of suspension is normally twenty-four months.
The circumstances will then be reviewed at the end of this period by the
Research Degrees Awarding Board before a decision on whether the student
must relinquish their registration is made.
Withdrawal
Students who wish to withdraw their registration must inform the Research
Office by completing Form SM13 (Annex 6.9.13 and for Master of
Research Students at Annex 6.16.04). This will then be considered by the
next meeting of the Research Degrees Awarding Board. The date of
withdrawal is usually the date certified by the Research Degrees Awarding
Board. Any fees paid for the year are not refundable.
6.3.9
Appointment of Supervisors
For research students (except Master of Research degree students)
The Research Co-ordinator, in conjunction with the relevant Head of
127

Department, will ensure the nomination and appointment of a suitable

supervisory team within the following guidelines.
Research students will have at least two and usually not more than three
supervisors. One supervisor will be the Director of Studies (first supervisor)
with responsibility to supervise the student frequently and for their personal
development, including training. The Director of Studies will be a member of
the University academic staff. At least one supervisor will have experience of
supervising students to the successful completion of a research degree. The
University normally expects a supervision team to have combined experience
of research degree supervision of at least two students to successful
completion at the appropriate level. Where an inexperienced Director of
Studies. is appointed, an experienced supervisor is nominated as their
mentor. One or more Advisors may also be appointed. Advisors provide
technical advice but have no responsibility for supervision.
The University usually expects nominees for appointment as supervisors:
to be members of the University academic staff or another institute of

higher education, or research centre;
to have produced publications or to hold a higher degree in the student's

field of research (or in the general subject area, if they are to be second
supervisors);
to have experience of research in the student's field of study (or in the

general subject area in the case of a second supervisor);
not to have a close personal relationship with each other or with the
student.
Appointment of supervisors for Master of Research programmes

The relevant subject coordinator will make a proposal for supervisory
arrangements (using the form at Annex 6.16.05.) following their discussions
with the student to establish the topic of research. Appointment of a
supervisor (or supervisors) will be made by the Award Manager in conjunction
with the relevant Head of Department. The supervisor designate and the
relevant Head of Department must sign the proposal form before it is passed
to the Award Manager for approval.
Where a supervisor has limited experience, as indicated on the proposal
forms declaration, the Award Manager in consultation with the relevant Head
of Department will arrange for the supervisor to be supported in carrying out
their duties by a more experienced colleague.
Master of Research degree students will have at least one named supervisor
(first supervisor). Where a student is undertaking two shorter projects it is
conceivable that they could have different supervisors for each. Where two
projects are undertaken, the process of supervisory appointment will apply to
both projects.
The University usually expects nominees for appointment as supervisors for
128
Master of Research awards:
to be members of the University academic staff;
to have produced publications in the general subject area;
to have experience of research in the student's general subject area*;
to have experience of supervising previous research students
not to have a close personal relationship with the student.
*As an absolute minimum, first supervisors must have experience of

supervising postgraduate dissertations.
The Award Manager will report the appointment of supervisors to the
Research Degrees Awarding Board.
6.3.10 Duties of Supervisors (excluding for Master of Research Students)
The arrangements for supervision will conform to the QAA Code of Practice,
Section 1: Postgraduate Research Programmes.
The Director of Studies will:
establish at the beginning of the student's research programme a

satisfactory framework for its supervision, including arrangements for
meetings with the student and the relative participation of the supervisors
in the supervision;
assist the student in the pursuit of research leading to a higher degree, by

offering such guidance and advice as is necessary;
meet the student regularly to discuss the research project, and to be

available for consultation;
monitor the student's progress at regular intervals and ensure that

progress is reported regularly to the Research Degrees Awarding Board;
ensure that second supervisors are carrying out their responsibilities to

the student;
present the registration, monitoring and examination documents jointly

with the second supervisor(s) when required;
meet the student and second supervisor(s) together to discuss the

research project, at least once every twelve months for a part-time
student and three times for a full-time student;
assist the student in identifying development needs through the

Postgraduate Development Plan and other means.
129
The second supervisor will:
establish at the beginning of the student's research programme, in

consultation with the Director of Studies, a satisfactory framework for its
supervision, including arrangements for meetings with the student and the
relative participation of the supervisors in the supervision;
assist the student in the pursuit of research leading to a higher degree, by

offering such guidance and advice as is necessary;
meet the student regularly (usually at least three times a year) to discuss
the research project, and to be available for consultation;
monitor the student's progress at regular intervals and, in conjunction with

the Director of Studies, report progress regularly to the Research Degrees
Awarding Board;
present the registration, monitoring and examination documents jointly

with the Director of Studies;
meet the student and director of studies together to discuss the research
project, at least once every twelve months for a part-time student and
three times for a full-time student.
Duties of Supervisors (Master of Research Students)
establish, at the beginning of the student's research project, a satisfactory

framework for its supervision, including arrangements for meetings with
the student;
assist the student in the pursuit of research by offering such guidance and
advice as is necessary;
meet the student regularly to discuss the research project, and to be

available for consultation;
schedule formal progress review meetings points (as set out at 6.3.11);
monitor the student's progress at specified review points (as set out at
6.3.11) and ensure that progress is reported to the Research Degrees
Awarding Board;
ensure that, where they are in place, second supervisors are carrying out
their responsibilities to the student;
assist the student in identifying development needs;
attend the students viva voce examination, in a supportive but non

participatory role, when this forms part of the module assessment
strategy.
130
6.3.11 Monitoring research student progress (excluding Master of Research

students)
Student and supervisors should have regular meetings at which academic
advice is given and through which progress is monitored. This is particularly
important at the beginning of the research project. The frequency of meetings
should be agreed between the student and supervisor at the initial supervisory
meeting. Meetings should be frequent (at least fortnightly) in the early stage
of the project. After the four month progress meeting, monthly meetings may
be sufficient.
Initial supervisory meeting
This should occur within the first two weeks of the student commencing their
studies. During the meeting the registration form SR1 (Student Registration)
which details the student personal registration details, details of the facilities
required and an outline of the proposed project, hypothesis and progression
to PhD (if appropriate), must be considered. The SR1 should include a Gantt
Chart showing proposed tasks and milestones for the three years of the
project. A copy should be retained by both the student and the supervisor(s)
and the original forwarded to the Research Degrees Awarding Board for
approval and registration.
One month progress meeting
The first formal meeting between student and supervisors should take place
within the first month. During the meeting the supervision monitoring Form
SM1 (Annex 6.9.1) and the provisional three year project plan should be
completed and a copy of each should be retained by both the student and the
supervisor(s). The original should be sent to the Research Office.
Six month progress meeting
Before this meeting the student shall compile a brief progress report (approx.
300 words) for discussion at the meeting on Form SM2 (Annex 6.9.2). The
report should outline the work completed, report any delays or changes which
have been made to the provisional project plan, include a schedule of
proposed work for the remainder of year one and observations on the general
arrangements for support. At the end of the meeting the Director of Studies
should add their comments to form SM2. The completed form should be sent
to the Research Office for approval by the Chair of the Research Degrees
Awarding Board and copies sent to the student and their Director of Studies.
Optional Eight Month Progress Meeting (Optional Form SM8)
By about eight months the student should already be demonstrating the
research capability to be evaluated through the first year report and viva. Any
concerns of the supervisors with student progress should be drawn to the
attention of the student with advice given on the Interim Progress Report
(SM8). The SM8 will be submitted to the Research Degrees Awarding Board.
First year progress report and viva voce
Eleven months after registration the student shall submit a report of a length
131
appropriate to the subject but not so extensive as to seriously interrupt the

progress of research (approximately 20 pages of text). The report should
include a critical evaluation of part of the literature and a section on data
collection and analysis to test the hypothesis. Following submission the
student will be given a viva voce by two appropriate members of staff, as
authorised by the Chair of Research Degrees Awarding Board to test the
Learning Outcomes listed on Form SM6 (First Year Viva Report).
Supervisors will be encouraged to attend the first year viva voce. Following
the viva voce the examiners will recommend to Research Degrees Awarding
Board one of the following:
the student will be allowed to register for PhD;

the student will be allowed to register for MPhil;
the student will be asked to revise the first year report, to be
resubmitted within an appropriate period and may or may not be
required to undertake another viva voce;
the student be withdrawn.
The students Director of Studies and second supervisors must complete

Forms SM5 and SM4 (Annexes 6.9.4 and 6.9.5), respectively,
recommending the students specific degree registration and submit these
along with SM3 (the students First Year Report) to the Research Degrees
Awarding Board for approval. If the specific registration is approved, Form
SM5 is signed by the Chair of the Research Degrees Awarding Board.
Second year viva report
By the end of the second year, students are expected to show evidence of
writing skills and are required to submit a piece of scientific writing in the form
of a refereed paper to the Research Office. The paper must not have been
submitted to the journal before the viva takes place. This is because the
purpose of the viva is to provide constructive feedback on writing the paper.
The second year viva may take place earlier than the end of the second year
to fit with the production and submission schedule of the second year paper.
The student is expected to give a draft copy of the paper to his/her
supervisory team before submission. The paper will then be considered by
the same two examiners nominated for the first year viva voce. The
examiners will act as referees and jointly write a brief, constructive report after
the viva voce on the suitability of the paper for the target journal. Following
consideration of the report by the Research Degrees Awarding Board, Copies
will be sent to the student and his/her Director of Studies. The original will
remain on file in the Research Office. NB For part-time students the draft
paper must be submitted at 48 months after starting.
At the end the second and each subsequent year an annual progress report
on Form SM7 Annex 6.9.7 is prepared by the supervisory team, submitted
to the Research Degrees Awarding Board and, if satisfactory, signed by the
Chair of the Board and a copy is sent to the student and his/her Director of
Studies.
132
Monitoring Master of Research student progress during the research

project modules
Student progression through the taught elements is considered by the Subject
Assessment Boards and the Research Degrees Awarding Board considers
progression through the research project element(s). Specific progression
arrangements for each programme will be stated on the approved
Programme Specification.
Students and supervisors should have regular meetings at which academic
advice is given and through which progress is monitored. Meetings should
usually be held fortnightly, and never less than monthly. Students and
supervisors must both keep records of their meetings.
As well as offering an opportunity for productive engagement some such
meetings provide a more formal opportunity for review. Formalised progress
meetings are reported by to the Research Degrees Awarding Board, and
provide the basis of progression decisions.
Each research project module requires the following formal meetings and
review points:
Initial supervisory meeting and project approval
The student should meet with their subject co-ordinator, typically within the
first four weeks of the commencing their programme (it is likely that this will
occur while the student is engaged in taught modules). During the meeting
the Research Proposal Form (Annex 6.16.06) should be explored and
possible supervision arrangements discussed. Using the form (at Annex
6.16.05) a proposal for supervision is made to the Award Manager. This
proposal will not be considered unless it is signed by the relevant Head of
Department.
Once supervisory arrangements are approved, by the Award Manager, the
student should meet with their supervisor to discuss their draft Research
Proposal Form. This meeting should seek to inform refinement of the
proposal.
Once the supervisor is satisfied of the quality of the proposal it should be
signed by them and forwarded to the Research Office. Both the student and
the supervisor should retain a copy of the completed proposal. Project
proposals must be submitted no less than six weeks before commencement
of the research project.
The Award Manager will seek feedback on the proposal from an independent
subject expert. Informed by this the Award Manager and the Chair of the
Research Degrees Awarding Board will, as a sub-group of the Research
Degrees Awarding Board, make decisions on all project approvals. The
Award Manager will report all project approvals to the next Research Degrees
Awarding Board.
A decision on proposals must occur within three weeks. Decisions are
recorded on the Research Proposal Form (Annex 6.16.06); a copy of which is
returned to the supervisor and another is lodged in the research office. The
133
research office will return the original to the student.

Where approval is not gained the student should continue to work with their
supervisor to make revisions and the project proposal is resubmitted,
wherever possible three weeks before commencement of the research
project.
Initial progress meeting
An initial progress meeting between student and supervisor should take place
within two weeks of the research projects commencement. The Research
Office will notify students of the time, date and venue of this review meeting.
During the meeting the Supervision Monitoring Form (Annex 6.16.07) should
be completed and a copy should be retained by both the student and the
supervisor(s). The original should be sent to the Research Office. The date of
the mid-point progress meeting should also be agreed during this meeting.
Project mid-point progress meeting
Students will engage in a mid-point progress review ahead of which the
student shall compile a brief progress report (approx. 300-400 words) on a
Mid-project review form (Annex 6.16.08). The Research Office will notify
students of the time, date and venue of the project mid-point review meeting.
The report should outline the work completed, report any delays or changes
which have been made to the provisional project plan and any areas where
discussion would help clarify or advance thinking around a topic. At the end
of the meeting the supervisor should add their comments to the review form.
The completed form should be sent to the Research Office for consideration
by the Research Degrees Awarding Board and copies should be sent to the
student and their first supervisor.
Optional Progress Meeting
Any concerns of the supervisors with student progress should be drawn to the
attention of the student with advice given on the Interim Progress Report
(Annex 6.16.09). The form will be submitted to the Research Degrees
Awarding Board with a copy sent to the Award Manager.
6.3.12 Monitoring research student opinions
As full members of the academic community, research students can make an
important contribution to the quality of provision. This contribution is made
through the student member of the Research and Knowledge Transfer
Committee and Research Degrees Standards Committee and through
mechanisms in which the opinions of non-members are gathered.
Two weeks before each meeting of the Research Degrees Standards
Committee, an informal meeting of postgraduate research students shall be
facilitated by the Chair of Research Degrees Standards Committee and the
Postgraduate Research Student Representative. This meeting shall provide a
forum for collecting views which can inform the agenda of the Committee
meeting. The student representative shall also have the right, as a full
member of the committee, to submit agenda items to the Chair of the
134
Research Degrees Standards Committee at any stage.

All research students are asked each year to complete a Postgraduate
Research Student Feedback form based on the national Postgraduate
Research Experience Survey. The results from this survey shall be collated
for inclusion in the Annual Report of the Chair of Research Degrees
Standards Committee. This report shall be debated at the meeting and
appropriate action agreed.
6.3.13 Complaints
Research students who believe that they have grounds for complaint shall
pursue their grievance through the procedures set out in Harper Adams
University procedures set out in Annex 7.4.
6.3.14 Assessment regulations and appeals
Assessment regulations for postgraduate research students are described in
the Examination Regulations (Annex 6.13 or for Master of Research
students, Annex 6.16.11. Students who believe they have grounds for appeal
may do so under the regulations set out in Annex 5.9. Registered research
degree students may appeal against the following decisions:
(i)
termination of registration to read for a higher degree;
(ii)
registration for a particular higher degree;
(iii)
refusal of permission to submit a thesis;
(iv)
the result of the examination of a thesis.
Because there are procedures for complaint and grievance during the study
period, alleged inadequacy of supervisory or other arrangements during the
period of study does not constitute grounds for requesting a review of the
examination decision.
6.3.15 Cheating, plagiarism and collusion
Procedures for dealing with cases of suspected cheating or plagiarism will be
those set out in Annex 5.24.
6.3.16 Examinations, examination panels and the appointment and duties of
examiners (excluding Master of Research degree students)
Examinations shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures detailed
in the Examination Procedures (Annex 6.13). Students are examined on the
basis of their theses, which may be submitted at any time of the year. Oral
examinations are held for the degrees of MPhil and PhD, usually within six
weeks of submission, depending on the availability of examiners.
It is the student's responsibility to submit the thesis to the Research Office
before the end of the registration period and to ensure that the format of the
thesis is in accordance with the Examination Regulations (Annex 6.13).
135
Nomination and Appointment of Examiners

The Director of Studies should nominate examiners in accordance with the
Examination Regulations (Annex 6.13) and in consultation with supervisors
by completing Form SE1 (Annex 6.10.1), Examination Panel Nomination,
and submitting it to the Research Degrees Standards Committee for their
approval.
Examination panels should consist of one internal and one external examiner,
unless there is no suitably qualified internal examiner in which case the panel
will consist of two external examiners and an Independent Chair. The
Research Degrees Awarding Board encourages one of the supervisors to be
present at an oral examination as an observer with the permission of the
candidate (and to attend the examiners' meetings before and after the oral)
and inexperienced staff may attend examinations as observers with the
permission of the candidate.
Examiners must be qualified in the field of the thesis to be examined.
External examiners should normally be members of the staff of a UK
university, University, research institute, government agency or industry. An
internal examiner is one who is a member of staff of Harper Adams
University.
Examiners should not normally themselves be registered for a higher degree.
Usually examiners should have experience of examining at the relevant level.
If an examiner lacks this experience, care should be taken to appoint a panel
that, as a whole, has sufficient experience (normally 5 examinations to the
required level). Internal and external examiners should not be related to or
have a close professional or contractual relationship with the student, the
supervisors or other members of the examining panel.
Appointment of an Independent Chair
Where there are two external examiners or where there is an inexperienced
internal examiner, an independent chair will be required to chair the
examination. The requirement for an independent chair will be decided by
RDSC. The independent chair will be selected from a list of experienced
examiners who have met the following criteria:
The examination independent chair does not assess whether the student has
met the requirements of the degree or make a recommendation on the award
of the degree. He/she is not required to read the thesis or prepare a pre-viva
report.
The duties are to:
(a)
ensure that the examiners prepare independent pre-viva reports;
(b)
identify with the examiners the main points to be raised at the

examination;
(c)
chair the examination and the examiners meetings;
(d)
ensure that the examination is conducted according to the Universitys

136

regulations and procedures;

(e)
ensure that the examination panel report form (SE4D.SE4M) is

completed and agreed by all the examiners at the end of the
examination. This should include a report on the examination and a
recommendation on the award of the degree. If amendments are
required, they should be specified in the examiners report or attached
as an appendix to the report;
(f)
send the completed examination panel report form, any list of

amendments which are not specified in the report and the examiners
independent pre-viva reports to the Research Office on the day of the
viva or on the next working day. At least one copy of the thesis must
also be returned to the Research Office.
External examiners' duties

External examiners shall:
complete independently a pre-viva report (Forms SE3/SE3P Annexes

6.10.3/6.10.3P);
assess, jointly with the other member (or members) of the examination
panel, whether the student has met the requirements of the degree as
specified in the degree regulations;
make a recommendation as to the award of the degree, along with the

other examiners.
Before the oral examination, external examiners will be invited by the internal
examiner or independent chair to discuss arrangements for the oral
examination.
Internal examiners duties
The internal examiner shall:
complete independently a pre-viva report (Forms SE3/SE3P Annexes

6.10.3/6.10.3P);
assess, jointly with the other member or members of the examination

panel, whether the student has met the requirements of the degree as
specified in the degree regulations;
decide, together with the External Examiner, on the date and place for the
oral examination;
consult the other examiner(s) before the oral to select the main points to
be discussed with the student and the role of any supervisor who is in
attendance;
in the absence of an independent chair, to chair the oral examination and

the examiners' meeting(s);
137

ensure that the Form SE4M/SE4P or SED4/SED4P (Annexes

6.10.4A/6.10.4AP or 6.10.4B/6.10.4BP) is completed and signed by all
members of the panel - this should give a brief report on the thesis and
the oral examination, and a recommendation within the specified range
(Annex 6.13) as to the award of a degree;
pass the signed form to the Research Office, on the same day or the next
working day.
In addition, it is a duty of an internal examiner to make a recommendation

about the award of the degree, along with the other examiners.
138
Section 7
Responsibilities of
Academic Staff and Students
Table of Contents
7.1
Duties and Responsibilities of Academic Staff .............................................................. 141
7.2
The Responsibilities of the Head of Educational Development & Quality

Enhancement ............................................................................................................... 141
7.3
The Responsibilities of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor ...................................................... 142
7.4
The Responsibilities of a Head of Academic Department .............................................. 144
7.5
The Responsibilities of Course Managers and Course Teams ...................................... 144
7.6
The Responsibilities of Module Tutors and Module Leaders ......................................... 148
7.7
The Responsibilities of Students ................................................................................... 148

Section 7
Page 139 of 170
Responsibilities of
Academic Staff and students
7.01
7.02
7.03
Criteria and procedures for the conferment of professorships

Procedure for dealing with disruption and anti-social behaviour in reading and study
areas
Procedures for dealing with the poor attendance of students
7.04
Student complaints policy and procedure
7.05
Student complaints form
7.06
University community charter

Section 7
Page 140 of 170
Section 7
Responsibilities of Academic Staff and Students
7.1
Duties and Responsibilities of Academic Staff

The duties and responsibilities of academic staff are of a professional nature and
wide ranging. They include:
teaching and tutorial guidance of students;
supervision of major projects;
student work placement supervision;
research and other forms of scholarly activity;
reach-out and income generation activities;
curriculum development;
educational management and administration;
recruitment and admission of students;
participation in quality assurance procedures and the democratic processes of

the institution.
The specific duties and responsibilities of individual lecturers are determined

according to guidelines published in the Staff Handbook for Lecturing Staff. The
specific responsibilities of academic staff as they relate to academic management,
quality assurance and standards are set out in this section as follows:
Head of Educational Development & Quality Enhancement Section 7.2;
Deputy Vice-Chancellor Section 7.3;
Heads of Academic Departments Section 7.4;
Course Managers and course teams Section 7.5;
Module tutors Section 7.6.
Certain of these posts, when advertised, carry the entitlement to professorial status
but all members of staff are eligible to apply for the title of professor or reader
according to the criteria and procedures set out in Annex 7.01.
7.2
The Responsibilities of the Head of Educational Development & Quality

Enhancement
The Head of Educational Development & Quality Enhancement (HEDQE) is
responsible to the Director of Academic Services. In discharging responsibilities for
academic quality assurance the role of the HEDQE is:
Strategic
To advise on, help shape and keep under continuous review, the application
of nationally accepted methodologies to ensure the proper maintenance of
Academic Standards, Quality and Enhancement across all academic
programmes.
To ensure that the Harper Adams University curriculum reflects latest

pedagogic developments and learner requirements.
To contribute to the development of the curriculum credit framework.
To contribute to the shaping of the University's Strategic Plan and Annual

Operating Statement through the development of strategic targets in the
context of Academic Standards and Quality Enhancement and learning and
teaching for taught courses.

Section 7
Page 141 of 170
To evaluate the security and effectiveness of the Universitys Academic

Standards strategies over time.
To ensure there is in place a coherent framework for the application and

testing of Academic Standards and Awards procedures in the context of
national expectations and the University Mission.
To liaise with QAA, Edexcel and other validating and accrediting bodies to coordinate quality audit arrangements.
To participate in external activities to keep informed of quality assurance and

enhancement, curriculum and educational development policies and practices
in the sector.
To lead educational development initiatives.
To prepare bids, as appropriate, for educational development funding.
Operational
7.3
To advise, where necessary, on the membership and schedule of validation

and review panels.
To advise, where appropriate, the Partnerships Co-ordinator.
To produce an overview report following annual course monitoring.
To advise, where necessary, on external examiner nominations.
To liaise with external examiners, ensuring their proper induction.
To act as Chair to Course Assessment Boards.
To play a leading role in institutional reviews and audits.
To provide advice on course design and development in relation to academic

standards, including those of the application of subject benchmark statements,
credit and quality frameworks and qualifications across the University.
To liaise with Professional Accrediting Bodies to provide material in support of

accreditation arrangements, as appropriate.
To prepare an annual template for student course handbooks.
To co-ordinate the review and up-dating of institutional assessment

regulations to ensure compliance with relevant external requirements.
To co-ordinate the pedagogic staff development programme, including new

staff induction.
To liaise with the Student Academic Group.
To be involved in teaching and learning programmes, as appropriate.
The Responsibilities of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor
To develop and drive the strategic direction of the academic provision of the
University and be responsible for the overall academic development plan,
covering learning and teaching, research and third-stream activities.
To be responsible, in collaboration with the Head of Educational Development

& Quality Enhancement and the Director of Academic Services, for the
maintenance and protection of the Universitys reputation for high quality
academic provision.
To co-ordinate, at strategic level, the work of the Universitys academic

departments and major strategic academic initiatives.
To ensure that academic planning and learning and teaching provision at

undergraduate and postgraduate level is clearly co-ordinated with research
and third-stream activities in order to assist their respective development and

Section 7
Page 142 of 170
to maximise the benefits arising from research and third-stream work in

learning and teaching. In so doing, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor will work with
those staff leading special initiatives in third-stream work and with the
Research Co-ordinator, as well as with Heads of Academic Departments.
To have strategic oversight of the Universitys curriculum, and resources

required for the operation of the curriculum, and to work with the Curriculum
Manager to ensure that the Universitys academic portfolio is current, has due
regard to the requirements of employers and is of rigorous academic quality.
To contribute to the strategic direction-setting for collaborative partnerships in

learning and teaching, working with the Head of Educational Development &
Quality Enhancement in the development and delivery of effective partnership
arrangements.
With the Heads of Academic Departments and the Research Co-ordinator to

oversee the development of the Universitys Research and Knowledge
Transfer Strategy, including:
o Research planning, the establishment of targets and the monitoring of
outputs including providing leadership to stimulate research activities;
o Securing research income from external sources;
o Collaboration in research with other HEIs and appropriate external
organisations;
o Management of the Universitys role in complying with the concordat
for contract research staff;
o Production of management information and an annual report on
research activities, together with the promotion of research more
generally;
o Management of the Universitys Research Excellence Framework
submission and such other returns on research activity required of the
University.
To liaise with the providers of key academic support facilities and services to
ensure that they satisfactorily support core learning and teaching, research
and third-stream activities.
To undertake teaching in specialist subject areas at undergraduate and/or

postgraduate level.
To undertake research and third-stream activities in specialist subject areas

as to generally contribute to delivery of the Universitys Research and
Knowledge Transfer Strategy.
To contribute, alongside other members of the Senior Management Team, to

the general strategic development of the University, including the formulation
of the institutional Strategic Plan.
To ensure that a watching brief is maintained with key external organisations

so that the Universitys academic activities can be informed by external
developments and that the University is able to make suitable contributions to
such developments.
To chair or participate in appropriate committees and working groups

necessary for the delivery of the duties required of the Deputy ViceChancellor.
To act in an ambassadorial capacity for the University in external events and

meetings, as required by the Vice-Chancellor or otherwise consistent with the
duties of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.

Section 7
Page 143 of 170
7.4
The Responsibilities of a Head of Academic Department

Strategic
To provide academic leadership and act as Line Manager in the efficient

planning, operation, monitoring and evaluation of the academic work of the
Department.
To implement and review agreed University and Department strategies and

policies. Prepare contributions for Strategic and Operating Plans, Annual
Reports and Reports to Governors.
To ensure that the work of the Department is co-ordinated with activities in

other Academic Departments to promote interdisciplinary approaches to the
Universitys core functions.
To plan, develop and manage physical facilities and their use specific to the
Department and in conjunction with other groups or departments where the
facilities are shared.
To generate additional funds to enhance the academic programmes and

resources of the University.
Operational
7.5
To lead staff in curriculum development; the recruitment and selection of

students; examining and counselling students; research and consultancy;
meetings of appropriate boards and committees.
To lead the development of new initiatives for teaching, reach-out and

research as appropriate to the interests and expertise within the Department.
To recruit, select, induct, appraise and develop staff in accordance with

University policies and procedures.
To manage, effectively, financial resources and delegated budgets. To

formulate and co-ordinate bids for capital and recurrent funding.
To hold regular Department meetings and promote open communication with

and between staff, and to external organisations, about the Departments
activities.
To take the lead in promoting the Department and its activities within and
beyond the University, in conjunction with the Liaison and Marketing Unit.
To chair the Subject Board for the modules of the Department and liaise with
external examiners.
To take responsibility for all matters relating to the Health and Safety at Work
Act within the Department.
To undertake teaching research and reach-out activities in specialist areas of

expertise at undergraduate and/or postgraduate levels.
The Responsibilities of Course Managers and Course Teams

The task of the course manager is wide-ranging, varied and challenging, but
fundamentally it is to lead the course team in the recruitment of students, in ensuring
that students understand the operational delivery of the courses for which he or she is
responsible, to anticipate these operational requirements and to liaise with Heads of
Academic Departments, Module Tutors, Registry staff and others in seeing that they
are fulfilled, to ensure that students understand their entitlement to support for their
personal and academic welfare requirements, to appraise the delivery of the course
on an on-going basis by both formal and informal means and to take the initiative in
developing the course(s) in line with professional/industrial, economic, environmental
and academic developments.

Section 7
Page 144 of 170
The exact arrangement of these duties will vary from course to course, depending on
the size of the course, the size and the skills of any other course management team
members. The Course Manager should seek to agree a sensible allocation of
individual responsibilities with any senior tutors who are also allocated to the
management of his or her course. In the case of a smaller course there might not be
any senior tutors in addition to the course manager, but in the case of larger courses
and groups of courses there will usually be several senior tutors to assist the course
manager. The course manager will also need to liaise with the placement manager
for the course(s) where relevant.
The list of responsibilities in Table 7.1 has been considered by the Course Managers
group, and gives an indication of how these responsibilities might be shared between
course managers and senior tutors within a course team. It is emphasised however,
that the course manager and the team have discretion in organising these tasks to
best effect. A short induction programme will be arranged for all new senior tutors
and course managers, and mentoring support will also be offered to those who are
new to this role.
Table 7.1 The Responsibilities of Course Managers and Course Teams
Responsibilities of course managers
and course teams
The course manager is responsible for
developing and leading the course team
and for chairing the course committee
except at the annual course monitoring
meeting.
The course team is responsible for fulfilling
the following duties:
1. the satisfactory operation of the
course and for anticipating or
identifying difficulties which may from
time to time occur;
2. the personal and academic welfare of
students on the course;
3.
the overall quality and coherence of

the course and its development in
relation to the needs of students and
industry.
To fulfil these duties the course team will:

(a) participate in promotion, recruitment
and induction procedures for the
course;

Comment on typical division of

responsibilities between course team
members
Course manager will typically take the lead

here, with input from senior tutors as
regards their agreed areas of
responsibility.
Typically the course manager might take
responsibility for one or more years as a
year tutor, with senior tutors also
responsible for one or more years on the
course.
The initiative for this will normally rest with
the course manager, although members of
the course team may have specialist
expertise in regard to specific subject
areas, professional accreditation matters,
underpinning research and similar areas.
Course manager takes the lead, with input
from senior tutors. In particular, the
course manager will also act as
Admissions Tutor for the course, taking
decisions on offers of places in
accordance with agreed entry
requirements and exercising judgment
with regard to mature students and others
who may not satisfy our standard entry
criteria.
Section 7
Page 145 of 170
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
ensure that the decisions of the

course committee are implemented
effectively;
revise and publish the course
handbook each year;
ensure that all students have
received the course handbook and
are briefed on assessment
procedures and regulations;
in consultation with module leaders
and Heads of Departments where
appropriate, monitor the assessment
programme for each term with
particular reference to the timing and
nature of assignments;
publish the assessment programme
to students and staff teaching the
course;
liaise with Heads of Departments, on
the visits of external examiners for
the course;
present assessment results at the
course assessments board and check
the accuracy of records within the
computerised student record system
before and after course assessment
boards;
distribute major projects for
assessment in consultation with
Subject Leaders;
counsel students on module selection
and allocate students to optional
course modules and circulate module
lists to module tutors;
consider requests from students for
extensions to assignment deadlines
on the grounds of illness or other
mitigating circumstances, to keep a
record of extensions granted and to
notify the relevant module tutor and
academic support staff;
notify students of assessments
results with the support of the
Examinations Office where
appropriate and provide appropriate
counselling where required;
(m) notify the appropriate Head of

Department if the curriculum is not
being covered effectively;

Course manager has the overview

responsibility.
Course manager normally, but may be
taken on by a senior tutor responsible for
first year students.
Course manager normally, but may be
taken on by a senior tutor responsible for
first year students.
Typically undertaken by the tutor
responsible for a particular year group, be
that course manager or senior tutor.

Course Manager.
Course Manager, sometimes assisted by a

senior tutor for one or more year groups.
A senior tutor, or other colleague, may be

nominated to coordinate major projects.
Course Manager, who may delegate this
responsibility to a single senior tutor for a
particular year group.
Course Manager, with follow up

counselling from senior tutors for particular
year groups, including referral to the
Learner Support Team where additional
guidance on study strategies is identified
as desirable.
Course managers and senior tutors will
normally both be alert to ineffective
coverage of the curriculum, with senior
tutors consulting the course manager in
the first instance before taking the matter
up with the appropriate Head of
Department.
Section 7
Page 146 of 170
(n)
liaise where appropriate with staff

from other institutions that contribute
to the course;
(o)
prepare an annual report for the

course monitoring procedure;
(p)
prepare a critical review and

resubmission of the course at
appropriate intervals;
ensure that students are aware of
support available through Academic
Support Services, including career
advice, learner support, counselling,
accommodation advice, chaplaincy,
financial advice, sporting or social
services;
provide personal development
planning (PDP) support for students;
(q)
(r)
(s)
monitor and guide the academic

welfare and behaviour of students;
(t)
complete student withdrawal,

transfer, or postponement of study
forms, as appropriate and submit to
the Registry;
(u)
review and counsel on career

aspirations;
(v)
Maintain a copy of the students

academic and personal development
progress and prepare CVs for
student on request, including after
graduation;
liaise with relevant employers and
professional bodies, including
accreditation arrangements, where
applicable.
(w)

Course Manager, with particular aspects

delegated to senior tutors where
appropriate (eg concerning a particular
year group).
Course Manager. Where there has been
a change of course manager at the end of
the year under review, the preparation of
this report will normally be the
responsibility of the outgoing course
manager, with input from the new course
manager and the course team to negotiate
and agree the Action Plan which results
from annual course reports.
Course Manager.

Senior tutor takes a leading role in this,

with contributions from module leaders for
Academic Development and Personal
Development (or other modules
incorporating PDP), placement managers
and placement tutors and the Academic
Guidance Tutor.
that course manager or senior tutor, in
liaison with members of the Learner
Support Team and Student Services
Team.
Course Manager, although students are
likely to approach their year tutor in the
first instance concerning such issues and
in some cases it may be agreed that a
year tutor will deal with the whole process.
Placement Manager, in liaison with Career
Advisor, Placement Tutor and Senior
Tutor.
Senior Tutor to maintain copies for
archiving in the Registry file.
Depending on team members and their

characteristics, this may be undertaken by
the course manager, a senior tutor, the
placement manager or another member of
staff. The course manager must maintain
an overview of such liaison.
Section 7
Page 147 of 170
7.6
The Responsibilities of Module Tutors and Module Leaders

Module tutors are those staff involved in the delivery of course modules. Module
leaders are those tutors responsible for the largest share of the teaching and, where
there is more than one member of staff involved, has overall responsibility for
ensuring the discharge of the responsibilities set out below. Module tutors are
responsible to:
a) the Head of Departments for the planning, delivery and assessment of the
module;
b) the course manager and/or senior tutors of the course(s) to which the module
is offered for the organisation and administration associated with that module.
Planning, Delivery and Assessment
In conjunction with other staff teaching the module the module tutor will:
a) formulate module descriptors which are appropriate to course aims and
outcomes;
b) prepare teaching schemes for the module appropriate to module outcomes
and timetables for each module;
c) formulate assessment strategies and programmes for the module;
d) ensure that the curriculum for the module integrates with, or is complementary
to, other modules in the course;
e) deliver the module using appropriate teaching and learning strategies;
f) contribute to the assessment of key skills where appropriate;
g) prepare coursework briefs and examination papers in compliance with the
module assessment scheme and submit for moderation as required
(Section 4.3);
h) ensure appropriate behaviour and attendance of students registered on the
module and take agreed action (Annex 7.02, Annex 7.03) if this is not
satisfactory;
i) enter module results in the student record system, check their accuracy,
ensure that all zeros and incomplete grades are correct and sign the module
assessment sheets to be submitted to subject boards to confirm checking;
j) attend meetings of subject assessment boards (Section 5.7) unless prior
approval for absence has been granted (Section 2.2);
k) return marked work as soon as possible and ensure effective feedback to
students;
l) evaluate modules and own performance (Section 3.12).
Organisation and Administration
After consultation with other staff teaching the module the Module Tutor will:
a) notify academic support staff of room and student travel requirements;
b) notify the Senior Tutor or Industrial Training Organiser of the performance of
individual students in module assessments.
7.7
The Responsibilities of Students

Generic outcomes of Harper Adams courses include the expectation that graduates
will:
display the competence, key skills, behaviour and attitudes required in

working life;
learn independently and display the skills of professional scholarship required

for innovation, career management and lifelong learning.

Section 7
Page 148 of 170
The achievement of such outcomes requires that students be regarded as trusted

members of the academic community who have their own rights and responsibilities.
This includes the responsibility for attending classes to make full use of the support
available to help students succeed (Annex 7.03). These are set out in the University
community charter (Annex 7.06) which also makes reference to complaints policy
and procedures (Annex 7.04), to the complaints form (Annex 7.05) and to the
appeals procedure (Annex 5.09) to which individual students have recourse if they
believe that the University has not complied with the charter.

Section 7
Page 149 of 170
Section 8
Collaboration with Partner Organisations:

Quality Assurance and the Maintenance of Standards
Table of Contents
8.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 152
8.2
Partnership Principles ................................................................................................ 153
8.3
Establishment of Partnerships .................................................................................. 153
8.4
8.3.1
Sequence of events ...................................................................................... 153
8.3.2
Preliminary partnership review ...................................................................... 154
8.3.3
Criteria for establishing partnerships ............................................................. 154
8.3.4
Risk assessment ........................................................................................... 155
8.3.5
Financial risk assessment ............................................................................. 159
8.3.6
Recommendation of the preliminary partnership review panel ...................... 160
Roles and Responsibilities for Supporting the Link ................................................ 161

8.4.1
Deputy Vice-Chancellor ................................................................................ 161
8.4.2
Partnerships Co-ordinator ............................................................................. 161
8.4.3
Academic quality monitoring ......................................................................... 162
8.4.4
Administrative responsibilities ....................................................................... 162
8.4.5
Course management and quality assurance ................................................. 163
8.5
Contractual Arrangements ......................................................................................... 163
8.6
Assessment Arrangements........................................................................................ 163
8.7
Monitoring and Review of Partnership Arrangements ............................................. 163
8.8
Associate College Status ........................................................................................... 165

8.8.1
Criteria for associate college status ............................................................... 165
8.8.2
Process by which associate college status is conferred ................................ 165
8.8.3
Monitoring and review of partnership arrangements for associate colleges ... 166

Approved: Academic Standards Committee, May 2005
Revised: October 2013
Section 8
Page 150 of 170

Quality Assurance and the Management of Standards
8.01
Register of collaborative provision

Section 8
Page 151 of 170
Section 8
Quality Assurance and the Maintenance of Standards
8.1
Introduction
Harper Adams University has established partnerships and strategic alliances with a
number of organisations both in the United Kingdom and overseas (Annex 8.01).
These partnerships include arrangements for the validation of courses delivered in
whole or in part within the partner organisation and for the conferral of Harper Adams
University awards on students who have studied in or with partner organisations.
Substantial mutual benefits may arise from such partnerships as they can:
provide a wider pool of specialist staff expertise and physical resources;
broaden the academic portfolio of both partners;
widen educational opportunities for students;
promote student access and progression through lifelong learning;
increase student numbers;
promote collaborative research;
raise the profile and competitiveness of the partners regionally, nationally and
internationally.
Such collaborative arrangements must, however, operate under principles and

procedures which ensure that the standard and currency of Harper Adams University
awards are maintained and the quality of the student experience is not prejudiced.
The arrangements for assuring the quality and standards must therefore be as
rigorous, secure and open to scrutiny as those applied at Harper Adams University.
The details of these arrangements are set out in this section and are in accord with
the precepts of section 2 of the QAA Code of practice for the assurance of quality and
standards in higher education (on collaborative provision and flexible and distributed
learning). The Collaborative Programmes Management Committee oversees the
arrangements associated with awards run in collaboration with others, as set out in
Section 2.11.
Partners may include educational establishments and organisations that support the
professional development of their employees or clients, through collaborative
workforce development programmes. For programmes that are developed with, and
for, employers and that are no more than 80 credits in volume, arrangements for the
approval of such programmes are stipulated in Section 3.10. The arrangements by
which these programmes are monitored and reviewed are set out in the definitive
documentation arising from the considerations of the Programme Approvals
Committee (PAC). The management arrangements approved by PAC are required to
align with the principles in Section 8.2 and the associated good practice set out in
section 2 of the QAA Code of practice for the assurance of quality and standards in
higher education (on collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning).
For all programmes leading to awards of Harper Adams University which are greater
than 80 credits, the arrangements set out in Section 8 apply.

Section 8
Page 152 of 170
8.2
Partnership Principles
In developing partnerships, Harper Adams University Academic Board has
established the following principles:
a. All programmes and awards established under partnership arrangements shall
be under the ultimate academic authority of the Harper Adams University
Academic Board and this authority is not subject to delegation.
b. Collaborative arrangements shall be established only when the Academic
Board or, when specifically delegated, one of its sub-committees, can assure
itself that the ethos, staff, resources, facilities and learning environment of the
prospective partner meet Board expectations and provide an environment
appropriate for the pursuit of higher education.
c. Provision in partner institutions validated by Harper Adams University shall be
appropriate to the mission of Harper Adams University.
d. Arrangements for the assurance of quality and the maintenance of standards
shall be as set out in the other sections of the Academic Quality Assurance
Manual, but additional arrangements shall be established for the support and
guidance of the partner organisations in discharging the responsibilities
involved.
e. All partnerships shall be governed by a contractual agreement which conforms
to these principles.
8.3
Establishment of Partnerships
8.3.1
Sequence of events
Initial contacts normally involve familiarisation visits and discussions on
specific course developments which will require the establishment of a
partnership arrangement to bring to fruition. The following procedures
shall then be adopted:
a. When informal contacts have given rise to firm proposals, approval
in principle for further work shall be obtained from the Deputy ViceChancellor and the Director of Academic Services who shall inform
the University Executive.
b. The Director of Academic Services shall, in consultation with the
members of the University Executive, initiate the procedures
required for the establishment of a partnership (see Section 8.3.2
et seq) including detailed discussions on the partnership
agreement and associated contractual obligations. The
Universitys in-house Legal Advisor, within the office of the
University Secretary, should also be consulted at this stage, to
ensure that aspects of due diligence are considered before any
contractual commitment is entered into.
c. A preliminary partnership review (Section 8.3.2) will then take
place culminating in a recommendation to Academic Board. If the
partnership is approved by Academic Board a normal course
development approval and validation event will take place, to be
held at the partner organisation.
When considering outline proposals arising from employer or client-based
organisations, the Programme Approvals Committee may permit the
preliminary partnership review considerations to be integrated into the
arrangements for considering programme proposals arising from the
partnership. Notwithstanding any such arrangement, the Universitys in-

Section 8
Page 153 of 170
house Legal Advisor must be consulted before any contractual

commitments are made on behalf of the University.
8.3.2
Preliminary partnership review

In determining whether to enter into a partnership arrangement, the
Academic Board shall reassure itself of the academic, legal and financial
status of the prospective partner. This it shall do by appointing a review
panel, normally chaired by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, which shall include
Harper Adams University staff with appropriate subject and quality
assurance experience. The panel Chair will typically request from the
head of the prospective partner documentary information and the
opportunity for the panel to visit the organisation and talk with staff and
current students or prospective learners. In addition, the panel will seek
information from existing or previous validating partners.
In a parallel review, the Director of Finance will assess and advise on any
financial risk involved (see Section 8.3.5).
In arriving at a recommendation to Academic Board, the review panel will
request from the prospective partner various documentation, including:
higher education strategic plan;
prospectus;
annual review with published accounts;
curricula vitarum of staff teaching on higher education courses;
evidence of staff development at higher education level indicating

postgraduate qualifications, experience and professional standing;
details of learning resources;
annual course monitoring reports;
External Examiner reports;
any available QAA Subject Review or Ofsted reports;
previous, current and predicted higher education student numbers

by course area;
full details of existing validation arrangements; and
previous validation reports, including any evidence of professional

body involvement.
In the case of overseas organisations, information shall also be sought

from the British Council and other governmental and non-governmental
organisations both on the status of the institution and on any cultural,
language or political influences that might affect the capacity of Harper
Adams University to assure the standards and quality of awards. Where
the proposed partnership is not with an established educational
establishment, the preliminary partnership review will consider any
relevant documentation and reference points that fulfil an equivalent role
to those items listed above.
8.3.3
Criteria for establishing partnerships

In arriving at a recommendation for the Academic Board (or Academic
Standards Committee where an integrated partnership and programme
approval process has been sanctioned), the preliminary partnership review
panel will examine the evidence against the following criteria:

Section 8
Page 154 of 170
a. The extent to which the corporate objectives, current profile and

proposed developments complement the provision of Harper
Adams University and match the University mission and support its
strategic aims.
b. The financial stability of the partner organisation, its legal status
and its capacity to enter into contractual partnership
arrangements.
c. The extent to which other partnerships or local cultural or political
influences might affect compliance with Harper Adams University
quality assurance procedures.
d. The existing track record and reputation of the prospective partner
in delivering and supporting a higher education programme.
e. Supporting evidence from previous partners of a successful track
record in delivering higher education.
f.
The assurance from independent sources that existing higher

education provision operates to high academic standards or, for
new provision, has the clear potential to do so.
g. The rigour of the existing management process, quality assurance

and assessment procedures.
h. The number, qualifications, experience and scholarly activity of the
staff and their suitability for the development and support of higher
education as proposed in programme proposals.
i.
8.3.4
The suitability of organisational resources and facilities (including,

information resources, access to books, journals and IT facilities
and dedicated study space) for the support of higher education as
proposed in programme proposals.
Risk assessment
For proposals involving a new collaborative organisation, the University
needs to consider whether the organisation is likely to be suitable for
developing and/or delivering higher education programmes. In doing so,
the University must also assess the potential risk attached to the proposed
collaborative arrangement. Initial approval of the organisation (approval in
principle) is necessary prior to seeking validation of the new collaborative
course, unless the Programme Approvals Committee has sanctioned an
integrated partnership and programme approval process. In assessing the
potential risk of a new collaborative arrangement, the assessment should
reflect:
the past track record of the proposed collaborating organisation

(criteria are listed in Table 8.1); and
the risk posed by any future threats or changes at the organisation

or in its operating environment (criteria are listed in Table 8.2).
Table 8.1: Criteria for assessing the risk associated with a new
collaborating organisation
Corporate Objectives
The organisation is an established public education body
with corporate objectives and academic values
complementary with the University. Track record is
confirmed by external reference sources.
The organisation is an established private sector
Assessment
LOW
MEDIUM
Section 8
Page 155 of 170
education body or public sector body with substantial

commitment to education and training with corporate
objectives and academic values complementary with the
University. Track record is confirmed by external
reference sources.
The organisation has not established a successful track
record in the area of the proposal and/or its corporate
values either unproven and/or educational values are not
reflected in its key corporate objectives.
Legal Status
The organisation is bona fide and properly legally
registered in its sector. It has been established for at least
five years and will be the sole party contracting with the
University.
The organisation is properly legally established, but has
been so for less than five years.
The organisation is a new legal entity still in the process of
establishment or is not in a position to take on a legal
personality in its own right.
Previous Experience of Academic or Professional
Education at Higher Education
The organisation has a successful track record in
delivering/supporting higher education at the level
proposed. References from previous higher education
partners provide supporting evidence of the successful
track record. For postgraduate provision, the organisation
has relevant research and practitioner expertise in the
subject area.
The organisation is not primarily a provider of higher
education but has substantial expertise and a proven track
record in delivering related professional education and/or
further education in the subject area.
The organisation can provide no corroborating evidence of
its success or there is evidence that its previous
experience has not met the standards required by the
University (unsatisfactory references/QAA reports) or the
organisation has no previous experience of delivering UK
higher education or similar provision, but wishes to
develop its expertise and activities in this area.
Reputation
The organisation has an established national/international
reputation in its field of expertise including professional
education/training related to its business, corroborated by
external references. There are no threats to its reputation
identified.
The organisation has an established national/international
reputation in its field of expertise, but not necessarily for
professional education/training and/or there are threats to
reputation posed by factors such as:
reports made by official bodies on its quality or
academic standards;
the nature of its business activities;
its ethical values;
its links with other partners with whom the University
would not wish to be associated.

HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
Section 8
Page 156 of 170
Management
Relative responsibilities between the University and
collaborating organisation are clear. The collaborating
organisation has the necessary expertise, staffing and
infrastructure to fulfil its responsibilities. The University
has the necessary capacity, expertise and systems in
place to exercise effective control and monitoring of what
is being done by the collaborating organisation.
Responsibilities are clear, but effective operation will rely
on a small number of experienced key individuals and it
may be difficult for the collaborating organisation and/or
University to make contingency arrangements in the case
of illness/absence of key staff. The availability of a
student support infrastructure and learning resources are
adequate, but there are concerns about longer term
viability.
A high degree of control will be delegated to the
collaborating organisation with the University operating a
minimum verification role and/or the management/
operational arrangements will depend on a small number
of staff operating at a significant distance from the
University with a high degree of autonomy. Learning
resources have not been adequately verified or are
severely limited.
Quality Assurance
The organisation has proven quality assurance
arrangements appropriate for managing and enhancing
higher education provision, including arrangements for
internal and external peer review and oversight by an
academic board or equivalent. The effectiveness of
arrangements have been corroborated by external
scrutiny (eg QAA, Ofsted or other accrediting bodies).
The organisation has quality assurance arrangements
appropriate for managing and enhancing academic
provision, but the effectiveness of arrangements cannot
be corroborated or the organisation does not have
arrangements specifically for quality assuring higher
education provision. The organisation is willing, however,
to establish these and already has arrangements for
monitoring the quality of its staff, products, processes and
customer service which have been proven to be sound
(preferably by external scrutiny) and are judged to be
equivalent to Harper Adams University.
The organisation has quality assurance arrangements
appropriate for managing and enhancing academic
provision, but the effectiveness of arrangements have
been criticised by external scrutiny.
Standards
There are appropriate arrangements proposed for the
University to assure academic standards and there is
evidence from independent sources and/or other provision
offered by the collaborating organisation of high academic
standards.
The collaborating organisation does not have a previous
track record in this area, but the University will retain tight
control for all aspects of setting and assessing standards
including providing training and support for the
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
Section 8
Page 157 of 170
organisation to develop expertise. Or, the organisation

does have a previous track record, but the evidence raises
doubts about the effectiveness of the arrangements for
assuring high standards are achieved and maintained.
There is evidence that academic standards have not been
a sufficiently high concern for the organisation previously
and arrangements have been criticised by relevant
external organisations.
Overseas
The University is familiar with the higher education
environment of the proposed country including the legal
context. The country risk assessment is low and there are
robust arrangements for managing the provision at a
distance.
The location is new to the University, but there had been
extensive research/visits to establish the requirements of
the operating environment and the capacity of both parties
to meet the requirements. All the evidence suggests that
the location is low risk and offers the potential for the
University to be successful in this location.
The location is new to the University and there is evidence
that it would be difficult to establish an effective
collaborative arrangement because of the:
legal requirements;
different cultural expectations;
high costs of liaison/delivery;
other challenges.
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
The level of risk may need to be increased if there are any potential
threats posed by changes in the organisation, its operating environment,
or the overseas location. Therefore, in assessing the level of risk attached
to each category above, it is also necessary to consider what future
threats there may be and adjust the level of risk assessment for a
particular category as necessary.
Impact of risk
Table 8.2: Risk assessing future threats

Serious impact
on well-being
of University
Impact likely
to be
significant
Minor impact
HIGH
CRITICAL
CRITICAL
MEDIUM
HIGH
CRITICAL
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
Highly unlikely
to occur
Likely, but
unlikely to
occur in the
next five years
Likely to occur
within the next
five years
Likelihood of risk occurring

Section 8
Page 158 of 170
8.3.5
Financial risk assessment

All collaborative course proposals, whether involving a new or existing
collaborating organisation, must be accompanied by a separate financial
risk assessment. The purpose of the financial risk assessment is to:
ascertain the current financial standing of the proposed

collaborating organisation;
demonstrate the financial viability of a specific collaborative course

proposal by preparing a detailed financial plan, including
projections of the Universitys costs, income and student numbers
over the life of the collaboration; and
ensure that the same financial rigour is applied to course

developments at partner organisations as at Harper Adams
University.
The financial risk assessment will be considered by the Director of

Finance and Programme Approvals Committee prior to validation and,
subject to any necessary amendments, will be used as the basis for
drafting a detailed financial annex within the formal collaborative
agreement, to be signed by the University and the collaborating
organisation. Advice will be provided via the Director of Finance at Harper
Adams University.
The financial plan for the collaborative course
As part of the Financial Risk Assessment, both partners should prepare a
detailed financial plan to include the following information:
assumed projections of income over the life of the collaboration

and the assumptions on which these are based (eg the level of
fees, student numbers, viability levels and what happens if only
minimum student numbers are reached);
assumed projections of expenditure, including the basis for

assumptions (eg Partnership Co-ordinator support, quality
assurance, external examiner and moderation processes) and
consideration of the impact on the costing basis of over/under
recruitment;
projected level of surplus expected to be generated by the

proposal and indication of any potential financial risks (eg the
costs of early termination);
student numbers over the life of the project and how the
income/expenditure assumptions change in relation to the
maximum and minimum student numbers projected;
where HEFCE funding and student numbers are to be used, a

statement of whether the numbers will belong to the University or
to the external collaborating organisation;
consideration of the costs of development, validation and student

registration fees, and who will pay for these.
Assessing the financial risk

Based on the information and evidence collected on the financial standing
of the collaborating organisation, and the detailed financial plan, the
Director of Finance will recommend a level of risk for the financial aspect
of the proposals low, medium, high or critical. The risk assessment

Section 8
Page 159 of 170
recommended should be supported by a rationale and should cite relevant

sources of evidence.
In assessing the potential financial risk attached to a new collaborative
arrangement, the following guidance should be taken into account. Where
there is good evidence of the financial well-being of the collaborating
organisation, the financial risk assessment would normally be low. The
risk should be assessed as higher where:
the credit is less clear;
there is evidence that the collaborating organisation is not
financially stable;
the financial well-being of the collaborating organisation is
predicted on optimistic projections of the financial returns of the
proposed project.
The assessment for credit-worthiness needs to be combined with the risk
assessment for the financial plan. A plan is assessed as low risk if the
projections are realistic and indicate that it is highly likely to cover its costs
and return a good contribution to its development costs within the first two
years of life and generate a surplus in future years. The risk rating will
increase to medium or high where:
8.3.6
the projected returns are unlikely to make a surplus over the life of
the project or the surplus is so small it would be easily wiped out
by changes in the cost structure;
it is difficult to predict income/student numbers due to volatility in

the market or because there are lots of completing products;
changes in other aspects are possible which will result in

increased costs and/or decreased income;
costs may increase due to termination/expensive contingency

arrangements;
it is likely that the University will need to give additional support

due to the other medium/high risk factors in the collaborating
organisation risk assessment.
Recommendation of the preliminary partnership review panel

The secretary of the review panel shall submit a report, approved by all of
the panel members, to the next meeting of the Harper Adams University
Academic Board. It should conclude with the decision of the panel which
will be one of:
rejection.
Conditions may include, for example:
further development within the prospective partner such as the
appointment of staff or the improvement in physical resources;
a limitation on the level of teaching within the partner organisation
to level 4 or 5 (Certificate or Intermediate) awards;
requests for further information.

Section 8
Page 160 of 170
8.4
Roles and Responsibilities for Supporting the Link

The interface between the partner organisation and the University is a key element in
ensuring the success of the partnership. Clear and detailed arrangements for ongoing management and monitoring of quality and standards, as well as arrangements
for student registration and entitlement, and financial arrangements, are set out in a
formal agreement between the University and partner organisation. The
arrangements for supporting UK-based, established educational providers are set out
below. The arrangements for overseas collaborations or those involving employer or
client-based organisations are set out in the arrangements approved at validation and
set out within the contractual agreement and will operate along similar principles to
those set out in Section 8.4.2 whilst taking account of the context within which the
partnership is operating when the partner is not UK based or an established
educational provider.
For links with established educational providers in the UK, the Partner organisation
shall provide a higher education manager as first point of contact in all dealings with
Harper Adams University. Both partners should identify both strategic and
operational managers within the agreement.
The roles and responsibilities have been divided into four:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor;
Partnerships Co-ordinator;
academic quality monitoring;
administrative support.
8.4.1
8.4.2
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor shall have strategic responsibility for
overseeing the arrangements of each academic partnership on behalf of
Harper Adams University. Duties will normally include:
Maintaining regular communication with Principals, Directors of

Curriculum and Directors of Finance (or equivalent) in Partner
Organisations.
Inform the University Executive and Board of Governors on

collaborative developments.
Chair Preliminary and Annual Partnership Reviews.
With other senior colleagues, chair Assessment Boards in partner

organisations.
Liaise with the Director of Academic Services, Head of Educational

Development & Quality Enhancement and the Partnerships Coordinator on operational and quality assurance issues.
Partnerships Co-ordinator
A Partnerships Co-ordinator should be appointed by the University
reporting to the Head of Educational Development & Quality
Enhancement, whose role is primarily as a critical friend to teaching staff
in the partner institution. The Partnerships Co-ordinator will be the first
point of contact, and in addition to providing academic and course
development support, has a role in the monitoring process, ensuring the
effectiveness of procedures, providing support, advice and guidance. The
duties of the Partnerships Co-ordinator will normally include the following:
Admission of students advise on admission and selection

processes, including APL/APEL claims, enabling registration
procedures.

Section 8
Page 161 of 170
8.4.3
8.4.4
Course delivery support liaise, enable review and remedy of

difficulties, reviewing student experience, assist and advise on
appointment of external examiners, ensure information on
progression to Harper Adams University is available to students.
Quality Assurance attend course committee meetings and

assessment boards, participate in the annual monitoring process,
inform the Head of Educational Development & Quality
Enhancement of any matters relevant to the partnership.
Assist in development of the course.
Liaise on staff development programmes and provide support as

appropriate.
Review programme handbooks and other key material provided to

students.
Academic quality monitoring

Arrangements for overseeing the quality assurance and monitoring of
programmes are as set out in Section 3.11.3. This role is independent
from the operation of the course in order to maximise the rigour of the
monitoring and verify processes. Additionally, the Collaborative
Programmes Management Committee (CPMC) outlined in Section 2.11
has the aims of:
Informing and sharing information on award bearing collaborative

programme activities.
Overseeing, via monitoring and review, effective and appropriate

quality assurance and enhancement procedures.
Administrative responsibilities
The University requires that both partners specify administrative contacts
responsible for the duties outlined below:
Providing the central contact for the liaison and co-ordination in

respect of course developments, approval procedures,
development plans and administrative information.
Ensuring the co-ordination of course documentation, student and

teaching materials, assessments (coursework and examinations),
moderation, recording of marks.
Co-ordinating the support for students.
Co-ordinating the assessment and recording of marks for

presentation at the appropriate examination boards.
Co-ordinating monitoring and review procedures.
Co-ordinating the enrolment of students.
Arranging staff induction and development activities for staff

teaching on Harper Adams University programmes.
Receiving and approving publicity material in advance of

publication.
Collating data and financial control.

Section 8
Page 162 of 170
8.4.5
Course management and quality assurance

Each course delivered substantially in partner educational establishments
shall be led by a member of staff from that institution. The Partnerships
Co-ordinator will provide support and guidance to the course leader and
course team, especially on Harper Adams University quality assurance
arrangements and on issues related to the ethos of higher education.
For partnerships with employer or client based organisations, the
arrangements by which programmes will be managed, including the
specific responsibilities of each partner, will be subject to approval and the
approved arrangements stipulated in a contractual agreement.
8.5
Contractual Arrangements
Once Academic Board has agreed to the establishment of a partnership, a
contractual agreement shall be drawn up. Contractual documents specify in detail
the arrangements under which the partnerships operate and identify the individuals
responsible at each level and function. Such draft agreements must be reviewed by
the Vice-Chancellor who may authorise a nominated individual to sign a final copy on
behalf of the University, on a case by case basis. On receipt of the signed
agreement, an original copy must be lodged with the Assistant Registrar
(Accreditations and Validations).
8.6
Assessment Arrangements
Assessment arrangements for courses in or with partner organisations shall normally
comply with the procedures set out in Section 5 of the Academic Quality Assurance
Manual. Variations shall be agreed where circumstances dictate, as long as
standards are not affected. Thus, in those cases in which courses are not sharing
modules with others, separate subject and course assessment boards are
inappropriate and the functions of both will be combined in one meeting. Such
variations in procedure must be agreed with the Partnerships Co-ordinator for UKbased educational establishments who may refer significant requests for variation to
the Academic Standards Committee, or, for other partners, as stipulated in the
definitive approval documents.
8.7
Monitoring and Review of Partnership Arrangements

In addition to the normal annual course monitoring process (Section 3.11),
monitoring of partnership arrangements for educational establishments, including
those based overseas, shall take place annually as follows:
a. The Vice Chancellor and Principal (or nominees) will meet formally to review
the arrangements under the agreement and consider future developments in
the rolling development plan.
b. Nominated senior staff from each institution will lead a discussion to review
the memorandum of co-operation and financial arrangement and agree
revisions at least four months before the start of each academic year.
c. An annual partnership meeting will be chaired by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor
or a nominated senior member of staff from Harper Adams with staff present
from each of the partner institutions to resolve common issues, to share good
practice and to review marketing strategies.
The purposes of the annual partnership review shall be to:
a. identify issues and good practice in the development of higher education in
the partner college, including the recruitment, development and support of
staff, the development of resources, and the higher educational ethos;
b. identify issues and good practice in operational and administrative matters;

Section 8
Page 163 of 170
c. provide an update of resources deployed in support of courses covered in the

collaboration, including staff and learning resources;
d. review the quality assurance arrangements, incorporating best practice from
the QAA Code of Practice;
e. determine action that should be taken by Harper Adams University or by the
partner institution to resolve issues and transmit good practice in these
matters.
An agenda will be agreed in advance of the review visit which may include meetings
with senior managers, the HE Manager, programme managers, course teams and
students, as appropriate.
The outcome of the visit will be a report together with a timed Action Plan.
The report of the partnership review meeting will be submitted to Academic Board, for
information, and to the Collaborative Programmes Management Committee which will
monitor progress with agreed action and agree any further action to be taken.
In addition to the normal annual course monitoring process (Section 3.11),
monitoring of partnership arrangements for workforce development partners shall
take place through an annual partnership review meeting. This will be chaired by the
sponsoring Head of Department or a nominated member of staff from Harper Adams
and will be attended by staff from each of the partner institutions, the member of
academic staff responsible for managing the partnership and by a member of the
Collaborative Programmes Management Committee.
The purposes of the annual partnership review shall be to:
a. identify issues and good practice in the collaborative provision;
b. identify issues and good practice in operational and administrative matters;
c. determine action that should be taken by Harper Adams University or by the
partner institution to resolve issues and transmit good practice in these
matters;
d. provide an update of resources deployed in support of courses covered in the
collaboration, including staff and learning resources;
e. review the partnership arrangements that are explicitly documented on the
Programme Approval Form, noting:
- activities that, in practice, have deviated from the arrangements set out
in the Programme Approval Form as a result of changing
circumstances;
- any challenges or areas of particular success;
- any changing risks to the partnership.
The outcome of the meeting will be a report on points a-e above, together with a
timed Action Plan. This report shall be compiled by the member of academic staff
responsible for managing the partnership and agreed with both the Chair and the
partner representatives.
The report of the partnership review meeting will be submitted to the Workforce
Development Course Committee Chair, and to the Collaborative Programmes
Management Committee which will monitor progress with agreed action and agree
any further action to be taken.

Section 8
Page 164 of 170
For partnerships with employer or client based organisations, periodic partnership

review arrangements will be those that are approved and recorded in the definitive
programme documentation. The outcomes of these meetings will be referred to the
Collaborative Programmes Management Committee, which will alert the Academic
Board to issues of note.
8.8
Associate College Status

8.8.1
Criteria for associate college status

An Associate College is a distinctive category of Partner College. The
status implies a close and long-term working relationship with the
University in pursuit of the common aims of service to the land-based
community and a commitment to lifelong learning. Such an arrangement
would seek to support the enhancement of:
opportunities for progression by students of the college and the
University;
education and training opportunities for both staff and students of
the college and the University; and
provision of education and training opportunities for rural business
and the community.
The granting of Associate College status by the University will confer
distinctive benefits on the college. These may include:
engagement with national initiatives (eg workforce development);
strategic collaboration in curriculum planning and development;
opportunities for joint learning and teaching initiatives and joint
funding submissions;
the sharing of facilities, resources and expertise;
use of the Universitys name and logo in promotional materials;
enhanced staff development opportunities.
Benefits to the University may include:
opportunities for development in recruitment and marketing;
opportunities to enhance the range of taught programmes;
the opportunity to further widen access to HE;
the opportunity to establish strategic regional and national
networks.
8.8.2
Process by which associate college status is conferred

Associate College status may be conferred on an existing Partner College
on request to Academic Board. The request will be granted, assuming:
a successful preliminary partnership review; followed by
five consecutive years of satisfactory recruitment to Harper Adamvalidated courses;
satisfactory annual partnership review reports; and
reciprocal membership of Academic Board (or equivalent) by the

Harper Adams Vice-Chancellor (or his nominee).
The specific details of the arrangements between Harper Adams

University and an Associate College will be the subject of written
contractual and financial agreements. Harper Adams University reserves
Section 8
Page 165 of 170
the right to approve the use of its name and logo in all instances and in
any approved promotional materials. The Collaborative Programmes
Management Committee monitors the public information of partners on a
biannual basis.
Continuation of Associate College status is dependent on a satisfactory
Annual Partnership Review and the appropriate use of the Harper Adams
logo. Withdrawal from the arrangement will be subject to a minimum
period of 12 months notice, by either party.
8.8.3
Monitoring and review of partnership arrangements for associate

colleges
The arrangements described in Section 8.7 above shall be applied.

Section 8
Page 166 of 170
Annexes
Annexes are available on request from:
Steven Barnett, Head of Educational Development & Quality Enhancement:
[email protected]
Karen Rhodes, Educational Development & Quality Enhancement Assistant:

[email protected]
Page 167 of 170
Abbreviations / Acronyms
A
AD
AF
APCL
APEL
APL
AQAM
ASC
Academic Development
Accreditation fail
Accredited Prior Certificated Learning
Accredited Experiential Learning
Accredited Prior Learning
Academic Quality Assurance Manual
B
BSc
Batchelor of Science
C
CertHE
C-level
CPMC
CPD
CPS
CV
Certificate of Higher Education

Certificate level
Collaborative Programmes Management Committee
Continuing professional development
Corporate Planning Statement
Curriculum vitae
D
DAS
DEFRA
DF
DLT
DipHE
DMC
DVC

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Director of Finance
Diploma of Higher Education
Director of Marketing & Communications
E
ECTS
ED
EDD
EU
EUST
EWNI
European Course Credit Transfer System

Enterprise Development Director
European Union
End User Support Team
England, Wales and Northern Ireland
F
FdSc
FE
FHEQ
FTE
Foundation Degree in Science

Further Education
Framework for Higher Education Qualifications
Full-time equivalent
G
GCE
GCSE
GP
GradDip
General Certificate of Education

General Certificate of Secondary Education
General Practitioner
Graduate Diploma
Page 168 of 170
H
HE
HEC
HEDQE
HEFCE
HEI
H-level
HNC
HND
HoD
HR
Higher Education
Higher Education Conference
Higher Education Funding Council for England
Higher Education Institute
Honours level
Higher National Certificate
Higher National Diploma
Head of Department
Human resources
I
ICT
IELTS
IER
I-level
IS/IT
Information and communications technology

International English Language Testing System
Individual entry route
Intermediate level
Information systems and information technology
K
KT
KTC
Knowledge transfer
Knowledge Transfer Co-ordinator
M
MBA
MEng
MIS
M-level
MPhil
MRes
Master of Business Administration

Management information systems
Masters level
Master of Research
N
ND
NVQ
National Diploma
National Vocational Qualification
O
OFFA
OIA
OMR
Office for Fair Access

Office of the Independent Adjudicator
Optical Mark Reader
P
PAC
P-credits
PDP
PgC
PgD
PGR
PhD
PI
PSF
PSP
PSRB
Programme Approvals Committee

Placement credits
Personal development planning
Postgraduate research
Doctor of Philosophy
Performance indicator
Professional Studies Framework
Professional Scholarship Programme
Professional, statutory or regulator body
Page 169 of 170
Q
QAA
Q&A
QF
QMark
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education

Questions and answers
Qualified fail
QuestionMark
R
RAE
RDAB
RDSC
Research Assessment Exercise

Research Degrees Awarding Board
Research Degrees Standards Committee
S
SAB
SU
Subject Assessment Board

Student Union
U
U
UCAS
UDip
UK
UPS
US
University
Universities & Colleges Admissions Service
University Diploma
United Kingdom
Uninterruptable power source
V
VLE
Virtual learning environment
W
WBL
Work-based learning
Page 170 of 170

Academic Quality Assurance Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academic Quality Assurance Manual

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

Academic Quality Assurance Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academic Quality Assurance Manual

University Governance & Management ........................................................................ 3

Boards & Committees - Constitution & Terms of Reference ......................................... 17

Quality Assurance of Teaching & Learning - Validation, Accreditation, Review &

Modular Scheme Framework ....................................................................................... 63

Assessment Regulations, Procedures & Moderation .................................................... 97

Management & Quality Assurance of Research ........................................................... 120

Responsibilities of Academic Staff & Students ............................................................. 139

Collaboration with Partner Organisations - Quality Assurance & the Maintenance of

Annexes .......................................................................................................................................... 167

Harper Adams University, Academic Quality Assurance Manual

Management Structure ................................................................................................. 7

Staff Representation in Decision Making....................................................................... 10

Student Representation in Decision Making .................................................................. 10

Planning Systems ......................................................................................................... 11

Risk Management ......................................................................................................... 12

Performance Development Review Academic Staff ................................................... 13

Harper Adams University, Academic Quality Assurance Manual

Terms of Reference of the University Executive

Terms of Reference of the IS/IT Group

Terms of Reference of the Course Managers and Senior Tutors Group

Terms of Reference of the Students Academic Group

Harper Adams University, Academic Quality Assurance Manual

Harper Adams University is a registered charity with a Board of Governors

Subject to the Articles of Governance, to the overall responsibility of the

Academic Board SubCommittees including

Finance & General

Health & Safety

Audit & Risk

Harper Adams University, Academic Quality Assurance Manual

The Relationship Between the Academic Board and Board of Governors

General issues relating to the research, scholarship, teaching and

The Articles of Government empower the Academic Board to establish

The Vice-Chancellor chairs the Academic Board and is an ex-officio

The Role of the University Executive and the Board of Governors

The University Executive (Annex 1.01) is authorised by the Board of

The University Executive is chaired by the Vice-Chancellor and has a core

Harper Adams University, Academic Quality Assurance Manual

presented to the Academic Board and/or Board of Governors (or their

The University Executive organises the production of major planning

The Information Systems and Information Technology (IS/IT) Group

The University Vice-Chancellor is identified in the Instrument of

The management structure immediately below the Vice-Chancellor is set

The Articles of Government require the Board of Governors to appoint a

The Director of Finance reports directly to the Vice-Chancellor on matters

Harper Adams University, Academic Quality Assurance Manual

Responsibilities for Strategies

The Deputy Vice-Chancellor has a co-ordinating role for all academic

The Director of Learning & Teaching is responsible for co-ordination of

concerning superannuation and, with the Head of IS/IT, the development

The Director of Academic Services is responsible to the Vice-Chancellor

Harper Adams University, Academic Quality Assurance Manual

of Educational Development & Quality Enhancement, who takes the lead

The relationship between the University's Academic Departments,

The five Academic Departments function as departments in terms of

A number of academic departments have research or reach-out centres

The Universitys main administrative sections, and sub-sections, are

Director of Academic Services

Harper Adams University, Academic Quality Assurance Manual