Quality Assurance Regulations: Section B

Section B: Validation

 

B1. The validation of courses

Validation is the process by which the University approves proposed programmes of study as University awards. It applies to degree courses, modules, short courses and other forms of provision. Proposals may involve new provision or changes to existing provision. Changes to existing provision are considered within the context of the course or courses to which they contribute. Validation at the University follows a risk-based approach.

 

All courses delivered at Queensgate should not include more than 20% online delivery. Guidance on the validation process, including indicative timescales and its relationship to marketing and recruitment activity, is published by RSO.

 

B2.   Title of a course of study

The suitability of a proposed course title is considered as part of validation. The course title that appears on the award certificate must be approved through the validation process and must not be changed without the approval of UTLC, acting on behalf of Senate.

 

Single-subject titles may be used where subsidiary studies do not make a substantial contribution to the course. Where the main subject does not form a sufficient proportion of the course, the title “Subject A and/with Combined Studies” may be used.

 

Where courses include more than one subject in the title, Section C of these QA Regulations should be read alongside this section.

 

B3.   Proposing a course or module development

Proposals for a new or revised course or module are normally included on the Validation Schedule, which is maintained by RSO. Schools notify RSO of proposed developments by submitting an outline proposal on the University’s curriculum-management system.

 

For new or substantially revised courses only

(This does not apply to amendments to existing provision.)

 

The following documentation must be submitted to RSO for approval by the PVC (T&L):

 

• A Validation Rationale document that demonstrates:
  • How the proposed course fits within the existing University portfolio
  • How it supports School and University strategic priorities
  • How academic viability and financial sustainability have been established
• Confirmation from the Dean that the proposal has been considered and approved by the School Leadership Team (SLT), including any resource implications
• Confirmation from the Director of Marketing, Communications and Student Recruitment that appropriate market research has been undertaken and that there is a viable graduate careers route following graduation

 

Once approved by the PVC (T&L), RSO determines the appropriate level of validation.

 

B4.   Types of validation events

The University operates two types of validation event: Tier 1 and Tier 2. The level of validation required is determined by factors including course level and structure, significance of change, risk, novelty, professional context, validation history, and the extent of cross-disciplinary delivery. Further guidance is published by RSO.

 

B5.   Documents required for validation

Validation documentation must be submitted to RSO no later than three weeks before the scheduled validation event. Detailed guidance on documentation requirements is published by RSO and the following outlines the minimum documentation normally required:

 

B5.1. Confirmation and resource approval (new and substantially revised courses only)

For new courses, the following written confirmations are required (in addition to those set out in B3 above):

 

• Approval by the PVC (T&L)
• Approval by the Director of Computing and Library Services that appropriate computing facilities and sufficient library resources are available to support delivery
• Immigration Compliance has confirmed that visa requirements are met, where applicable
• Timetabling has confirmed that delivery is feasible
• Full details of course management and staffing arrangements, including:
  • Identification of the Course Leader
  • CVs or profile links for all staff contributing to delivery

 

B5.2. Non‑standard provision

For non-standard provision (including short courses, continuing professional Development (CPD) and degree apprenticeship courses), confirmation must be provided that:

 

Disability Services have been consulted regarding:

• The availability of appropriate student support
• Any additional resourcing requirements.

 

B5.3. Validation rationale

The Validation rationale document provided as part of the outline proposal for the provision.

 

B5.4. Course specification

A full course specification must be provided and must include:

 

1. Mapping of course learning outcomes to:
   • Modules
   • Subject Benchmark Statements, QAA Characteristic Statements and/or other relevant sector documents (for example apprenticeship standards)
2. Integration of:
   • Personal Development Planning (PDP)
   • Huddersfield Graduate Attributes
   • Professional or Statutory Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements, where applicable
3. An outline assessment schedule
4. Module delivery schedules for each intake
5. Identification of the relevant Course Assessment Meeting (CAM) model

 

B5.5. Module and supporting documentation

The following supporting documentation must also be submitted:

 

• All contributing module specifications
• A completed Inclusive Design Checklist for Learning, Teaching and Assessment
• Confirmation of support from the external examiner (for existing provision)
• A draft course handbook
• Where applicable, an annotated version of the course's entry on the University's online prospectus, highlighting any implications related to Consumer and Markets Authority (CMA) requirements

 

B5.6. Cross‑school provision

Where a course involves delivery across more than one School, the validation event must include representation from all participating Schools.

 

B6.   Preparing documentation for validation

The Dean has oversight of all validation documentation and must confirm alignment with the University Teaching and Learning Strategy, relevant institutional policies and inclusive design requirements.

 

B7.   Appointment of validation panels

Validation panels are appointed by RSO on behalf of UTLC. The membership, composition and eligibility criteria for validation panels are set out in guidance published by RSO.

 

B8.   Validation panel discussions and schedule

Validation panels consider a range of matters, including academic quality, coherence, learning outcomes, assessment, delivery (including digital delivery), staffing expertise, physical and learning resources, inclusivity, and alignment with institutional strategy. Any conditions or recommendations must be clearly stated in the validation report.

 

RSO ensures documentation is circulated in advance and prepares the event schedule in consultation with the panel Chair and proposing team.

 

B9.   Approving and responding to validation reports

The validation report process includes preparation of a draft report, factual checking by attendees, circulation of the confirmed report to UTLC, institutional consideration of outcomes, and monitoring of responses by the Dean.

 

Following successful validation, approved course and module specifications must be published in the University’s curriculum-management system.

 

B10. Appeals against validation outcomes

Schools may submit an appeal to UTLC via the Dean. UTLC will convene an independent group to consider the appeal.

 

B11. Changes to validated courses and modules

Tier 1 panels may approve minor changes to validated courses and modules in accordance with University guidance. Where changes have CMA implications, the Course Leader is responsible for securing CMA approval in line with the University’s CMA procedures.

 

B12. Review of validation activity

RSO may periodically review Tier 1 and Tier 2 validation activity and report outcomes to UTLC.

 

B13. Discontinuation of courses

Where a course is discontinued, the course team must prepare an exit strategy for affected students. The strategy must be approved by the School Leadership Team and monitored through RSO and UTLC.