2015/16 - quality handbook – regent’s university · pdf filequality handbook...

Quality Handbook 2015/16

Quality Handbook 2015/16 Page - 2 -

Updated: 04/08/2015

Table of contents

A Context ......................................................................................................... 5

A1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 5 A2 Quality and Standards, including QAA Mapping ........................................... 8

B Quality ........................................................................................................ 17

B1 Quality Assurance Processes ..................................................................... 17 B2 Faculty/Institute Committees ...................................................................... 23 B3 Programme Committee .............................................................................. 23

C Quality Assurance and Enhancement Processes ....................................... 25

C1 Programme (Re)Validation (Approval, Review and Modification) ............... 25

C2 Summary of the Processes of Accreditation, Validation and Revalidation .. 28

C3 Summary of Arrangements for Validation/Revalidation of Programmes of Study by Regent’s University London ......................................................... 29

C4 Roles of Key Participants ........................................................................... 30 C5 Modifications to Programmes ..................................................................... 42 C6 Programme Discontinuation ....................................................................... 47

C7 Annual Programme Evaluation and Monitoring .......................................... 48 C8 Student Feedback Systems ........................................................................ 52 C9 Peer Observation of Teaching .................................................................... 54

C10 Externally validated programmes ............................................................... 58 C11 Collaborative Provision ............................................................................... 58

D Academic Regulations ................................................................................ 60

D1 Definitions ................................................................................................... 60 D2 List of Regent’s University London Programmes and Progressions and / or

Awards to which they lead .......................................................................... 63

D3 Minimum study requirements and allowable RPL ....................................... 65 D4 Breaks in Studies and withdrawal from a programme ................................ 67 D5 Examination Regulations ............................................................................ 71

D6 Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct ........................................... 80 D7 Extenuating Circumstances ........................................................................ 89

D8 Procedure for dealing with the loss of examination scripts ......................... 92 D9 Procedure for dealing with the loss of coursework assessment material .... 93 D10 Student Appeals and Complaints ............................................................... 95

E Level 3 Academic Regulations ................................................................. 100

E1 The Admission of Students to a Foundation Programme at Level 3 ......... 100

E2 Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) ......................................................... 100 E3 Registration for Foundation Programmes ................................................. 101

E4 Duration of Study ...................................................................................... 102 E5 Documentary Evidence of Study .............................................................. 103 E6 Completion of a Programme ..................................................................... 103 E7 The Teaching/Learning Year .................................................................... 104 E8 Assessment and Progression ................................................................... 104

E9 Discontinuation of Study ........................................................................... 109 E10 Programme Assessment .......................................................................... 110

F Undergraduate Level (Levels 4-6) Academic Regulations ........................ 111


F1 The Admission of Students to a Programme at Level 4 ............................ 111 F2 The Admission of Students to an Undergraduate Programme at a Higher

Level ......................................................................................................... 112 F3 Internal Programme Transfers .................................................................. 114 F4 Registration for Undergraduate Programmes ........................................... 114

F5 Duration of Study ...................................................................................... 116 F6 Documentary evidence of study ............................................................... 117 F7 Completion of a Programme ..................................................................... 117 F8 The Teaching/Learning Year .................................................................... 117 F9 Assessment and Progression ................................................................... 117

F10 Discontinuation of Study ........................................................................... 127 F11 Programme Assessment .......................................................................... 128 F12 Awards ..................................................................................................... 129 F13 Aegrotat Awards and Posthumous Awards .............................................. 137 F14 Rescinding Awards ................................................................................... 137

G Master’s Level (Level 7) Academic Regulations ....................................... 139

G1 The Admission of Students to Level 7 Programmes ................................. 139

G2 The Admission of Students to Level 7 Programmes with Advanced Standing ................................................................................................................. 140

G3 Internal Programme Transfers .................................................................. 140 G4 Registration for Master’s Programmes ..................................................... 141

G5 Duration of Study ...................................................................................... 143 G6 Documentary evidence of study ............................................................... 143

G7 Completion of a Programme ..................................................................... 144 G8 The Teaching/Learning Year .................................................................... 144 G9 Assessment and Progression ................................................................... 144 G10 Discontinuation of Study ........................................................................... 151 G11 Programme Assessment .......................................................................... 151 G12 Awards ..................................................................................................... 153

G13 Aegrotat Awards and Posthumous Awards .............................................. 158

G14 Rescinding Awards ................................................................................... 158

H Taught Doctorate Level (Level 8) Academic Regulations ......................... 160

H1 The Admission of Students to Doctoral Level Programmes ..................... 160

H2 The Admission of Students to Doctoral Level Programmes with Advanced Standing ................................................................................................... 161

H3 Internal Programme Transfers .................................................................. 162 H4 Registration for Doctoral Programme ....................................................... 162 H5 Duration of Study ...................................................................................... 164

H6 Documentary evidence of study ............................................................... 165 H7 Completion of a Programme ..................................................................... 165

H8 The Teaching/Learning Year .................................................................... 165

H9 Assessment and Progression ................................................................... 166

H10 Discontinuation of Study ........................................................................... 171 H11 Programme Assessment .......................................................................... 171 H12 Awards ..................................................................................................... 172 H13 Defined criteria for merit/distinction regulations on postgraduate

programmes and exit awards below Doctorate level ................................ 174

H14 Aegrotat Awards and Posthumous Awards .............................................. 181

J Assessment Boards and External Examiners ........................................... 183


J1 Assessment Board Requirements ............................................................ 183 J2 External examiners ................................................................................... 185

K Terms of Reference: Senate, Senate Committees and Assessment Boards ...................................................................................................... 194

K1 Academic Governance Structure .............................................................. 194

K2 Membership and Terms of Reference of Senate ...................................... 195 K3 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Senate Quality Assurance and

Enhancement Committee (SQAEC) ......................................................... 199 K4 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Senate Learning and Teaching

Committee (SLTC) .................................................................................... 203

K5 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Senate Portfolio Development Committee (SPDC) ................................................................................... 207

K6 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Senate Research Committee (SRC) ....................................................................................................... 211

K7 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Learning Resources Committee (LRC) ...................................................................................... 215

K8 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Annual Monitoring Committee (AMC) ....................................................................................................... 218

K9 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) ..................................................................................... 221

K10 Membership and Terms of the BaM Faculty Learning and Teaching Committees (FLTC) .................................................................................. 224

K11 Membership and Terms of the HASS Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee (FLTC) .................................................................................... 227

K12 Membership and Terms of Regent’s Institute of Languages and Culture Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC) ................................................ 230

K13 Membership and Terms of Reference of the BaM Faculty Research Committee (FRC) ..................................................................................... 233

K14 Membership and Terms of Reference of the HASS Faculty Research Committee (FRC) ..................................................................................... 236

K15 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Regent’s Institute of Languages and Culture Research Committee (RC) ................................. 239

K16 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Research Ethics Committee (REC) ....................................................................................................... 242

K17 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Programme Committees (PCs) ................................................................................................................. 246

K18 Membership and Terms of Reference of the (Re) Validation Panels ....... 248 K19 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Programme Planning Panel

(PPP) ........................................................................................................ 252 K20 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Research Ethics Appeals

Panel (REAP) ........................................................................................... 255 K21 Membership, Terms of Reference and Standing Orders of the University of

Wales Collaborative Centre Research Degrees Committee ..................... 257 K22 Membership, Terms of Reference and Standing Orders of the Open

University Centre for Inclusion and Collaborative Partnerships Research Degrees Committee .................................................................................. 260

K23 Assessment Boards: Structure ................................................................. 263

K24 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Assessment Boards ........... 265

Glossary ............................................................................................................ 281


A Context

A1 Introduction

A1.1 Principles

All undergraduate and postgraduate programmes on A1.1.1

offer at Regent’s University London are validated by the University. This handbook provides a regulatory framework for all of the University’s programmes.

Doctoral programmes are validated by either the Open A1.1.2

University Centre for Inclusion and Collaborative Partnerships (OUCICP) or the University of Wales. Undergraduate and postgraduate programmes previously validated by these external agencies are currently being taught out and may have validated programme-specific regulations which vary slightly to the University’s regulatory framework. Where this is the case, this will be indicated in Programme Handbooks.

A1.2 University Mission

Regent’s University London seeks to foster A1.2.1

Internationalism and Professionalism through the provision of appropriate, applied, academic programmes which embody a spirit of international understanding and mutual co-operation, allied to high level professional capability and responsibility.

The primary ambition of the University is to provide a A1.2.2

uniquely stimulating, multicultural and plurilingual, learning environment in which students aspire to become global citizens capable of contributing effectively and responsibly to a 21st century environment.

A1.3 Aims

To achieve its mission, Regent’s University London A1.3.1

seeks to welcome all prospective students with the ability and motivation who wish to apply for a place on one of Regent’s University London’s programmes of study. In so doing, the University seeks to ensure that:

(a) All staff involved in the admissions process provide equal opportunities for those who wish to apply for a place on a Regent’s University London programme of study.


(b) All applications are measured against fair, transparent and explicit programme entry criteria.

(c) This policy joins with other University policies so that the overall student learning experience at Regent’s University London is designed to advance a student’s academic career.

A1.4 Legislative and Institutional Compliance

The Recruitment and Admissions section will be A1.4.1

reviewed annually by the Senate Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee so as to ensure that any changes in: a) legislation; b) QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education; or c) validation requirements may be reflected in the principles and procedures laid out in the policy.

A1.5 Promotional Materials

All promotional materials and activities should be A1.5.1

accurate, relevant, current, accessible, and provide information that will enable applicants to make informed decisions about their options.

A1.6 Monitoring Transparency

All faculties/institutes apply the regulations within A1.6.1

section A1.8 and make clear the entry requirements for each programme. Admissions data is recorded by staff involved in the admissions process and a report is made by Programme Directors through their Annual Monitoring Report to the Senate Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee. Exact requirements for entry onto programmes of study will be made explicit in both online and hard copy prospectuses. This policy will be made available via the University website.

A1.7 Particular Institutional Strategic Goals which this section seeks to support:

Focus on the needs of its students by providing an A1.7.1

excellent environment in which they can gain the professional skills and global perspectives that will enhance their future careers.

Celebrate and apply the diversity of its staff and A1.7.2

student base to enrich the learning and collegiate experience of all.


A1.8 Admissions

Admission to a programme at Regent’s University A1.8.1

London is based on an assumption by staff involved in the admissions process that a prospective student will be able to: a) meet the intended learning outcomes of that programme; and b) successfully achieve the required standard for the award.

Decisions regarding admissions to programmes at A1.8.2

Regent’s University London are made by those equipped to make the required judgements and competent to undertake their roles and responsibilities. Programme Directors may be involved in this process.

Staff involved in the admissions process follow all A1.8.3

policies or procedures set out by Senate and its committees, and any procedures condoned as being necessary through a validation process. Transparent academic and non-academic entry requirements are agreed at validation and used to underpin judgements made during the selection process for entry.

Regent’s University London staff charged with A1.8.4

admissions must inform applicants of the obligations placed on prospective students at the time the offer of a place is made.

All students who register on programmes at Regent’s A1.8.5

University London must submit full required documentation to the Admissions Department to complete the registration process. The ‘Admissions missing documentation policy’ details the procedures for students who are unable to provide full documentation at the point of registration. This is available on request from the admissions department and on the University intranet pages.

Admissions staff inform prospective students, at the A1.8.6

earliest opportunity, of any significant changes to a programme made between the time the offer of a place is made and registration is completed; and also ensure that the prospective students are advised of the options available in the circumstances.

Admissions staff explain to applicants who have A1.8.7

accepted a place on a programme the arrangements for the enrolment, registration, induction and orientation of new students; and ensure that these arrangements promote efficient and effective integration of entrants fully as students.


Applicants who have not been offered a place on a A1.8.8degree at Regent’s University London are offered specific counselling by Admissions staff at the rejection stage of admissions. This is usually in the form of a telephone call to ensure they understand the rejection decision. Rejected applicants are informed of the reasons why they have not been offered a place and the alternatives open to them.

Applicants who are not satisfied with a decision made A1.8.9

regarding their admission onto a Regent’s University London programme may make an appeal or complaint by following the Admissions Appeals and Complaints Policy which is available upon request from a member of Admissions staff.

All programmes of study at Regent’s University A1.8.10

London have admissions regulations in place which are subject to approval by Senate (via the Senate Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee).

A2 Quality and Standards, including QAA Mapping

A2.1 What are Standards and Quality?

The phrase ‘academic standards’ refers to the A2.1.1

threshold level of achievement that a student has to reach to gain an academic award such as an Honours degree. For all academic awards, the level to reach a particular standard (a First or Upper Second class degree, for example) should be comparable across UK institutions. The maintenance of academic standards is important for securing the reputation, respect, integrity of the University amongst all its stakeholders including students, potential employers, current and potential employees and external bodies such as accrediting agencies or funding agencies.

The phrases ‘academic quality’ or ‘teaching quality’ A2.1.2

describe how well the learning opportunities available to students are managed to help them to achieve their award. They are about making sure that appropriate and effective learning, teaching, support and assessment opportunities are provided. This highlights the need to continually assess the learning opportunities that students are offered during their time on a programme and in the wider University campus community. This includes the support that they receive through classroom based teaching but also through wider learning opportunities e.g. mentoring, advising and student activities on campus.


A2.2 Who is Quality for?

Quality is for students who deserve good quality A2.2.1

learning.

Quality is for staff – i.e. professionals working in a A2.2.2learning community (Regent’s University London or another) and a wider academic discipline related to their field or subject.

Quality in higher education can be thought of as a A2.2.3

tension between two cultures: on the one hand is the concept of ‘service’ where ‘the customer is always right’ and which would measure quality largely based on customer satisfaction; at the other extreme would be “purist” academics who see themselves as custodians of specialist knowledge and therefore the sole authorities on how the student should learn.

A moderate position recognises that good quality A2.2.4

teaching, academic mentoring and feedback all make their contribution in educating students to become skilled members of an academic community and equip them with transferable skills for their future careers. A clear set of guidelines on standards and quality helps us to find such a compromise.

A2.3 Why do we need Quality Assurance?

All academic staff have their idea of what constitutes A2.3.1

good teaching and learning and standards appropriate to their subject. This can lead to the question ‘why can’t we be left alone to do our jobs?’ While politicians constantly make promises about cutting ‘red tape’, many of us feel bureaucracy is increasing - with short-term, target-driven, inspectorial regimes that feel like an affront to the professionalism and autonomy of academic staff.

However, national quality assurance procedures are a A2.3.2

fact of life, and we cannot opt out. But even if such procedures did not exist, we would still want to review our learning and teaching practices and try to improve them. For example, we need to develop an inclusive learning and teaching environment that takes into account the diverse needs of both students and staff.

In applying Quality Assurance (QA) procedures we A2.3.3

need to make academic staff feel that it belongs to and is relevant to us.


In reviewing our learning and teaching practices and in A2.3.4shaping our specific processes of assuring quality we can draw on a number of sources including national QA procedures, relating Quality to learning and student experience, and by listening and sharing existing good practice to help shape evolving policies and processes, rather than imposing centrally and/or remotely designed ones.

A2.4 What is Quality Assurance?

QA in general terms, means identifying what you are A2.4.1

trying to do, why you are doing it, and checking periodically that you are doing it rigorously and efficiently.


A2.5 What is Quality Enhancement?

As the name suggests, Quality Enhancement (QE) is A2.5.1

defined as the process of taking deliberate steps to improve the quality of learning opportunities.

This should be done both internally and externally. We A2.5.2

need to ask those involved in what we do (students and staff) about their experiences and amend the systems we operate to make improvements; and we need to assure ourselves – through the involvement of external professionals and stakeholders – that our standards and quality assurance mechanisms are (at least) as good as equivalent educational institutions.

A2.6 What is Quality Auditing?

Auditing means keeping records to prove to both our A2.6.1

own learning community and to outsiders that we are doing QA and QE.

Audit should not be a primary driver for QA and QE if A2.6.2

we believe that quality is a good thing in its own right. This can be difficult to remember in our culture of testing and targets where statistics and league tables can sometimes appear to take precedence over learning for its own value.

A2.7 How do QA and QE relate to each other?

Effective and dynamic QA systems should A2.7.1

automatically highlight opportunities for QE.

QE (innovation, development) should not compromise A2.7.2the core aims and standards of the learning programmes, but rather enhance these through disseminating best practice and current research.

Conversely, QA systems that are too narrow or too A2.7.3

rigid will not permit the innovation and potential for change inherent in QE. (For example, if we formalise and itemise learning outcomes at a micro level on a work placement or study period abroad, we may fail to take into account the rich and varied learning available within such contexts.)

Managing QA and QE amounts to managing change, A2.7.4

and so requires strategic thinking, leadership skills and sensitivity to local cultures and existing ways of working, and an awareness of relevant legislative


requirements, for example our duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and 2005.

A2.8 National Context

The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) is the national A2.8.1

body set up to ‘safeguard quality and standards in UK universities and colleges, so that students have the best possible learning experience’’.

Along with the rest of the Higher Education sector, the A2.8.2

University works within what is referred to as the ‘QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education (the Quality Code). This is comprised of Quality Code Chapters for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, national frameworks for higher education qualifications, subject benchmark statements and a range of associated guidelines. Taken together, the QAA publications represent a suite of external reference points against which all UK higher education leading to a degree award is to be measured, wherever in the world it is delivered. When Regent’s University London validates its programmes, it demonstrates to the wider sector knowledge and understanding of these reference points and takes account of them through its institutional quality assurance arrangements and programme delivery.

The Quality Code comprises of three parts: A2.8.3

A. Setting and maintaining threshold academic

standards B. Assuring and enhancing academic quality C. Information about higher education provision

The Quality Code provides guidance on maintaining A2.8.4

quality and standards for universities subscribing to the QAA.

The University maps institutional practice against each A2.8.5

of the chapters in Section B of the Quality Code:

Chapter B1 Programme design and approval Chapter B2 Admissions Chapter B3 Learning and teaching Chapter B4 Enabling student development and

achievement Chapter B5 Student engagement Chapter B6 Assessment of students and the

recognition of prior learning


Chapter B7 External examining Chapter B8 Programme monitoring and review Chapter B9 Academic appeals and student

complaints Chapter B10 Managing higher education provision

with others Chapter B11 Research degrees

As this is both an assurance and enhancement A2.8.6

exercise, the production and review of the action lists resulting from the mapping process are set and monitored by the SQAEC and operationalised by both the Academic Registrar, the Associate Director of RILC and the Associate Deans in liaison with the appropriate academic staff.

A2.9 Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ)

The main purpose of the FHEQ is to: A2.9.1

(a) provide important points of reference for setting and assessing academic standards to higher education providers and their external examiners;

(b) assist in the identification of potential progression routes, particularly in the context of lifelong learning;

(c) promote a shared and common understanding of the expectations associated with typical qualifications by facilitating a consistent use of qualifications titles across the higher education sector;


The following table summarises the levels: A2.9.2

Typical Higher Education Qualifications within each Level

FHEQ Level*

Doctoral Degrees (e.g., PhD/DPhil (including new-route PhD), EdD, DBA, DclinPsy)

8

Master's Degrees (e.g., MPhil, MLitt, MRes, MA, MSc)

7

Integrated Master's Degrees (e.g., MEng, MChem, MPhys, MPharm)

Postgraduate Diplomas

Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE)

Postgraduate Certificates

Bachelor's Degrees with Honours (e.g., BA/BSc Hons)

6

Bachelor's Degrees

Professional Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE)

Graduate Diplomas

Graduate Certificates

Foundation Degrees (e.g., FdA, FdSc)

5 Diplomas of Higher Education (DipHE)

Higher National Diplomas (HND)

Certificates of Higher Education (CertHE) 4

* Formerly, in the 2001 edition of the FHEQ, the levels were identified as Certificate (C), Intermediate (I), Honours (H), Master’s (M) and Doctoral (D) level.

A2.10 Subject Benchmark Statements (SBSs)

SBSs express expectations for standards, skills and A2.10.1

curriculum. Curriculum content expressed in a broad rather than A2.10.2

detailed way. Skills including both subject and transferable skills. A2.10.3 Standards in the form of ‘threshold’ (Third Class A2.10.4

degree) and/or ‘typical’ (Upper Second class degree) or even ‘levels of excellence’ (First Class degree).


No intention to be prescriptive or to subvert higher A2.10.5education institution (HEI) autonomy, much less to form basis for a national curriculum at HE level, but to provide basis for self-reflection, indicating possible routes rather than necessary ones.

A2.11 How SBSs relate to QA and QE

The requirement is to engage with subject A2.11.1

benchmarks rather than slavishly adhere to them (e.g. programme specification may depart from SBSs but a clear rationale will need to be given).

A programme which failed to take a benchmark into A2.11.2

consideration at all would be considered of dubious quality.

Conversely, a programme which adhered strictly to A2.11.3

SBS but with no evidence of debate and critical reflection about it would also be considered QA-weak.

When reviewing or making changes to programmes A2.11.4

(as part of QE); consideration should be taken of SBSs.

Engaging students with SBSs can be productive: do A2.11.5

they perceive any differences between what is written down and their own experience of the programme? This encourages self-reflection on the part of students and enhances their learning and skills.

A2.12 SBSs relevant to Regent’s University London

(a) Honours level General Business and Management (2007)

(b) Master’s level Business and Management (2007)

(c) Master’s level Counselling and Psychotherapy (2013)

(d) Honours level Accounting (2007)

(e) Honours level Finance (2007)

(f) Languages and Related Studies (2007)

(g) Honours level Communication, Media, Film and Cultural Studies (2008)

(h) Honours level Dance, Drama and Performance (2007)

(i) Honours level Psychology (2010)


A2.13 External accreditors applicable to Regent’s University London

United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP)

British Psychological Society (BPS)

Higher Learning Commission (HLC) of the North Central Association of Schools and Universities (for US programmes)

Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC)

Chartered Management Institute (CMI)

A2.14 Programme Specifications

A programme specification is a concise description of A2.14.1

the intended learning outcomes of a HE programme, and the means by which the outcomes are achieved and demonstrated. In general, modules or other units of study have stated outcomes, often set out in handbooks provided by institutions to inform student choice. These intended learning outcomes relate directly to the curriculum, the study and assessment methods and the criteria used to assess performance. Programme specifications show how modules can be combined into whole qualifications. However, a programme specification is not simply an aggregation of module outcomes; it relates to the learning and attributes developed by the programme as a whole and which, in general, are typically in HE more than the sum of the parts.

For the purposes of audit and review, programme A2.14.2

specifications are '...the definitive publicly available information on the aims, intended learning outcomes and expected learner achievements of programmes of study’ (Handbook for institutional audit: England and Northern Ireland, 2009).

A2.15 Key Quality Office contact information

Name Role Email Extension

Nasser Amin Quality Officer [email protected] 6108

Heather Goldie Quality Officer [email protected] 6146

Amalia Sexton Senior Quality Officer

[email protected] 6103

Rita Andrews Senior Quality Officer

[email protected] 7620

mailto:[email protected]


B Quality

B1 Quality Assurance Processes

B1.1 The University’s Boards, Committees and Support Structures

The academic governance of the University is B1.1.1

regulated by the activities of Senate and the Senate committees. Senate and its committees have oversight of all academic activities on the campus both regulatory and developmental (See Section K for Membership and Terms of Reference of the University Senate and its committees). Senate is chaired by the Vice-Chancellor of Regent’s University London as its chief academic officer, or alternatively, the Vice-Chancellor may delegate the chair to an academic nominee.

Overall, the following pages illustrate the manner in B1.1.2

which Senate and its four committees manage, regulate and audit all the academic operations of faculties and institutes of Regent’s University London. In the event of any conflict between the terms of reference of Senate and its committees then those of the former will prevail.

B1.2 Senate

The purpose of Senate is to act as the guardian of the B1.2.1

academic affairs of the University. Membership of Senate will be fully representative of the University as a whole. All stakeholders are represented including appropriate elected student officers and elected staff representatives. There is, in particular, full representation of both faculties and the Regent’s Institute of Languages and Culture on Senate (See Section K for Membership and Terms of Reference of Senate).

Senate is the forum where the strategic academic B1.2.2

development of the University is debated, critically reviewed and proposed to the Board of Trustees for approval. All matters relating to the monitoring and enhancement of the portfolio, the social and learning experience of students and the professional development of academic staff may be debated at Senate. Subject to the overall responsibility of the Board of Trustees, Senate and its various committees will:


Propose the overall academic strategy of the B1.2.3

University to the Board of Trustees and ensure that the University retains Taught Degree Awarding Powers.

Review all quality assurance and enhancement B1.2.4

procedures with the aim of setting and maintaining appropriate academic standards throughout the University.

Monitor and evaluate all accreditation and validation B1.2.5

processes and issues, maintaining close control and scrutiny of the scheduling of accreditation and validation events across the University and ensuring that sufficient support is available to meet the demands of all approved and relevant external accreditation authorities.

Approve new programme proposals and discontinue B1.2.6

programmes where appropriate.

Approve the appointment of external examiners for B1.2.7University programmes and those that are subject to the requirement of external validating bodies.

Review the quality of learning and teaching throughout B1.2.8

the University with a view to developing and making proposals for enhancement and implementing these as agreed.

Monitor the University’s contribution to public benefit B1.2.9

and assist in helping financially disadvantaged students who are academically eligible to participate in the University’s programmes.

Assure, enhance and approve academic regulations. B1.2.10 Review the quality and extent of learning resource B1.2.11

provision within the University and make recommendations where necessary.

Review the development of research and consultancy B1.2.12

within the University to ensure appropriate levels of activity across the University to sustain the development of academic excellence.

Make appropriate recommendations and communicate B1.2.13

regularly with the Directorate and Board of Trustees, via the Chair of Senate, to ensure that the level of support for students’ learning and personal development is appropriate, with specific emphasis on


learning resources, recreational and sports facilities, disability needs, student accommodation, student bursaries, scholarships and sponsorships and general student welfare.

Review the overall academic development of the B1.2.14

University, with specific reference to new academic programme initiatives (both Faculty/Institute based and cross Faculty/Institute projects), and to local, national and international collaborative partnerships, with a view to determining and sustaining overall University policy in this area.

In summary, the remit of the authority delegated to B1.2.15

Senate by the Board of Trustees is broad and encompasses all facets of academic development, enhancement, audit, and assurance

B1.3 Senate Committees

In order to carry out the work in a timely and effective B1.3.1

manner, Senate delegates designated areas of activity to its committees:

(a) Senate Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee (SQAEC)

(b) Senate Research Committee (SRC)

(c) Senate Portfolio Development Committee (SPDC)

(d) Senate Learning and Teaching Committee (SLTC)

B1.4 Membership of Committees

Ex officio members of Senate are appointed by virtue B1.4.1

of their expertise in the areas of their office. In addition, academic and professional services staff are elected by their peers to Senate to provide further views and debate. Co-optees are appointed by the relevant committee as deemed appropriate for the work of the committee. Chairs of Senate committees are ex officio. All of the committees of Senate operate from an ethical perspective to ensure that the highest standards are maintained.

B1.5 Senate Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee

The purpose of the Senate Quality Assurance and B1.5.1

Enhancement Committee (SQAEC) is to define academic standards and to assure and support enhancement of the quality of academic provision throughout the University.


It makes changes to current regulations through the B1.5.2

recommendations of the Academic Framework and Regulations Committee (AFRC).

It monitors and evaluates all accreditation and B1.5.3

validation issues, maintaining close control and scrutiny of the scheduling of accreditation and (re)validation events across the University. It receives (re)validation reports and approves (re)validation panel decisions.

Via the Annual Monitoring Committee (AMC), through B1.5.4

the Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs), it receives and reviews all the relevant external examiners reports and associated responses and action points and assesses all AMRs for validated programmes at the University including student feedback. It receives and reviews the minutes and Institutional Overview Reports from the Annual Monitoring Committee.

The committee liaises with the Senate Learning and B1.5.5

Teaching Committee to ensure high standards of pedagogical practice in the classroom.

It monitors the compliance of Assessment Boards with B1.5.6

regulations relating to student awards and receives management reports following the Finalist Assessment Board.

The SQAEC reviews the overall progress against B1.5.7

Quality Assurance benchmarks as outlined in the QAA’s Quality Code, with a view to assessing performance against pre-determined criteria linked to the retention of TDAP.

B1.6 Senate Research Committee

The purpose of the Senate Research Committee B1.6.1

(SRC) is to promote a research culture at Regent’s University London by providing a robust underpinning to teaching programmes particularly at postgraduate level, and engendering a spirit of global perspective, professionalism and entrepreneurship consistent with the values and mission of Regent’s University London itself.

It reviews the level of staff support for research and B1.6.2

consultancy across the University (e.g. sabbatical policy).


It approves the establishment of research centres and B1.6.3monitors performance against agreed measurable objectives.

It monitors and evaluates the University’s research B1.6.4

outputs (research publications: books, edited books, journal articles, review articles, reviews, conference papers [notably keynote addresses], research grants, professional distinctions and other esteem factors).

It monitors and quality assures student postgraduate B1.6.5

research registrations (PhD). It promotes business development, employer relations, sponsorships and fellowships.

It reviews all University research from an ethical B1.6.6

perspective to ensure that the highest standards are maintained.

It encourages the sharing of best practice in research B1.6.7

across the University.

The committee will play a key role in ensuring that the B1.6.8University is in a strong position to apply for Research Degree Awarding Powers (RDAP) and in the subsequent retention of these powers.

B1.7 Senate Portfolio Development Committee

The purpose of the Senate Portfolio Development B1.7.1

Committee (SPDC) is to have oversight of the University’s portfolio of programmes and academic development initiatives across the University and to approve the development of new programmes and their inclusion in the University’s portfolio.

This committee monitors and offers support and B1.7.2

guidance for new academic programme developments both within faculties and institute and across faculties and institutes (joint programme initiatives) and also considers changes to all programme titles.

It also offers advice on all internal academic B1.7.3

programme competition issues at the University.

The committee regularly receives information on all B1.7.4academic developments from the Faculty/Institute.

It monitors existing programmes to confirm continuing B1.7.5

sustainability and when necessary may determine that programmes be discontinued.


It monitors and provides overview information on local, B1.7.6national and international academic partnership arrangements with a view to sharing best practice and determining overall University policy and strategy in this area. Through the Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC), it reviews collaborative arrangements linked to study periods abroad exchange agreements, staff teaching exchanges, international collaborative research projects and in the longer term both dual degree and joint degree possibilities and overseas delivery of Regent’s University London validated programmes.

B1.8 Senate Learning and Teaching Committee

The purpose of the Senate Learning and Teaching B1.8.1

Committee (SLTC) is to review all aspects of academic issues which relate to learning and teaching for all programmes offered by the University and to ensure that the students of Regent’s University London receive high quality support to underpin and enhance their learning experience. Its remit is to support the pursuit of excellence in learning and teaching in all Regent’s University London programmes.

It has responsibility for the University’s Learning B1.8.2

Teaching and Assessment Strategy (LTAS) and the Learning Resources Strategy.

It reviews pedagogy and learning resource provision B1.8.3

(book-based, web-based and media services centred) across the University, with a view to improve and enhance these areas.

This committee receives and considers reports from B1.8.4

the Learning and Teaching Committees and Learning Resources Committee (LRC) and provides a cross University forum for the regular discussion of issues of the development and delivery of academic services.

It contributes to the development of the University’s B1.8.5

strategic plan.

It monitors provision for students with specific learning B1.8.6difficulties (e.g. dyslexia) and makes appropriate recommendations for action.

It receives reports from the Student Affairs Committee B1.8.7

(SAC) on matters relating to Learning and Teaching.


B2 Faculty/Institute Committees

Each Faculty/Institute has a Faculty/Institute Learning B2.1.1

and Teaching Committee.

The Faculty/Institute Learning and Teaching B2.1.2Committees meet three to four times per year and report to the SLTC. Their remit is to:

(a) action the University LTAS at Faculty/Institute level;

(b) monitor and evaluate the quality of the teaching delivery in the faculties/institute;

(c) consider issues arising from the peer observation of teaching scheme;

(d) promote excellence and innovation in learning, teaching and assessment;

(e) review student feedback questionnaire results;

(f) review learning resource provision and send reports to the LRC;

(g) review issues arising from minutes of programme committees;

(h) review learning and teaching issues identified by external examiners.

Beyond the academic and formal committee structure, B2.1.3

the faculties/Institute also conduct executive committee meetings, school or department staff meetings and programme team meetings.

B3 Programme Committee

Additionally, each programme has its own programme B3.1.1

committee whose remit is to:

(a) monitor the academic standards of the appropriate programmes;

(b) review and support academic enhancement measures;

(c) promote the enhancement of student learning in the relevant programmes;

(d) share best practice among staff in the relevant programmes;

(e) consider proposals for course and programme changes;

(f) consider student learning resources and student support;


(g) be accountable to the Faculty / Institute Learning and Teaching Committee.

In each programme committee student issues are B3.1.2raised and debated with staff. Student participation ensures that all aspects of the student experience, both academic and social, are regularly reviewed. Programme committees also act as a forum for the receipt of student feedback reports and for the discussion of actions taken in light of the issues raised. Issues arising from programme committee minutes are reported to the F/ILTC and ultimately to Senate.

Students have a right to expect the University to B3.1.3

respond positively to genuine points of concern raised in their feedback.


C Quality Assurance and Enhancement Processes

C1 Programme (Re)Validation (Approval, Review and Modification)

C1.1 Taught Degree Awarding Powers

The Privy Council grants taught degree awarding C1.1.1

powers (TDAP) for a fixed term period of six years to those non-publicly funded institutions who have applied and been successful in their application. The QAA states the criteria for the renewal of TDAP are that the organisation has:

(a) subscribed for the duration of those six years to the QAA (or such other external quality assurance organisation as may be specified);

(b) been subject to an external audit by the QAA; and

(c) received a judgement of confidence in the organisation made by the QAA at the time of the audit. Organisations which fail to obtain such a judgement will be given reasons for this by the QAA and will be required to prepare and carry out an action plan agreed between the organisation and the QAA. Completion of this action plan to the satisfaction of the QAA will be a criterion for the renewal of the organisation’s TDAP.

C1.2 Reviews by the Quality Assurance Agency

Regent’s University London, as a degree awarding C1.2.1

body, is subject to Institutional Review by the QAA. The QAA is introducing a common review framework for all subscribers in England and Northern Ireland through a gradual transition in 2014-2015. Details can be found on the QAA website.

This section of the Handbook is informed by the following: Applications for the grant of taught degree-awarding powers, research degree-awarding powers and university title: Guidance for applicant organisations in England and Wales (August 2004) Section of the QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education: Part A: Setting and maintaining threshold academic standards Chapter B1: Programme design and approval Chapter B5: Student engagement Chapter B8: Programme monitoring and review


C1.3 Institutional Review by Regent’s University London

Institutional Review is the means by which Regent’s C1.3.1

University London assures itself that the University is fully prepared for the delivery of an excellent student learning experience both in terms of academic standards (assurance of minimum thresholds) and quality (enhancement of academic processes). An Institutional Review will take place during the same period as an Institutional Audit; however, at any time, an Institutional Review may be instigated by the Vice Chancellor of the University on the recommendation of the Academic Registrar or Senate.

The Institutional Review event is undertaken by the C1.3.2

University once every six years. The review will take place over a two-day period and constitutes:

(a) Chair (Vice-Chancellor or nominee);

(b) three senior external academics from HE institutions who are specialists in quality assurance and enhancement, and have been appointed by the Academic Registry;

(c) a University Senior Quality Officer.

The review will include an evaluation of its academic C1.3.3strategy, quality assurance processes, learning resources, the workability of its structures and a comprehensive test-check of the overall integration of staff activity to deliver the academic programmes of study. As a result of the review, an Institutional Report will be produced, including any required actions identified through the review. This report is presented to Senate for monitoring and discussion. Production of the report will be the responsibility of the Chair, who receives assistance from the Academic Registry.

C1.4 Subject Review

Tied to Institutional Review, Subject Review looks at C1.4.1

the academic offering in cognate areas and across programmes.


C1.5 Institutional Audit

Institutional Audits are carried out to assure the C1.5.1

institution that faculties’, institutes, and departments’ internal processes are operating effectively in line with agreed institutional policy and regulations. Institutional Audits will be conducted by the Academic Registry under the direction of the SQAEC.

C1.6 Definition of Terms

For Regent’s University London the following terms C1.6.1

are applicable:

Accreditation C1.6.2

A process for verifying and approving a higher education institution (HEI) or higher education programme by an authorised external institution/body.

Validation C1.6.3

Regent’s University London or an external accreditation authority deeming a programme of study offered by Regent’s University London to be academically viable and of an appropriate standard to be offered in the public domain.

Revalidation C1.6.4

Regent’s University London or an external accreditation authority deeming a programme of study already validated being academically viable and of an appropriate standard to continue to be offered in the public domain.

Preliminary Validation Event for the validation of a new C1.6.5

programme of study.

This is where the new programme of study is evaluated and quality-assured to ascertain that it is suitably robust and can proceed to the Final Validation Event.

Preliminary Revalidation Event for the revalidation of C1.6.6

an existing programme of study.

This is where an existing programme of study is evaluated and quality-assured to ascertain that it is suitably robust and can proceed to the Final Revalidation Event.


C2 Summary of the Processes of Accreditation, Validation and Revalidation

C2.1 Accreditation

Some programmes have professional accreditation C2.1.1

which is outlined in the background document for the validation of a new degree or revalidation of an existing degree. This enables the degree to be more marketable to students and adds significant value to the programme. The process for accreditation should be initiated at a Faculty/Institute level where accreditation should be discussed at a programme level before being discussed at the Faculty/Institute Executive Committee to ensure that it is consistent with Faculty/Institute level strategy. This should then be presented to the Senate Portfolio Development Committee (SPDC) to ensure it is consistent with institutional strategy.

Usually, accreditors will wish to visit the University to C2.1.2

undertake review before accrediting the institution for a period of years. The University will then need to undergo periodic review at the end of this cycle to maintain accreditation. The accreditation process usually involves sending documents to an accreditor and then undergoing review and audit and responding to any conditions set by the accreditor within a timeframe detailed within a resulting report.

C2.2 Validation of New Degrees

When the need for a new degree is identified, the Pro C2.2.1

Vice-Chancellor (PVC) and Faculty Dean/ Institute Director (and/or Associate Dean/Associate Director) drafts a programme proposal for discussion at the appropriate Faculty/Institute Executive Committee. The PVC and Faculty Dean/Institute Director /Associate Dean or Associate Director in consultation with the Head of Student Registry seeks approval for appropriate resources to support the development of the proposed degree through consultation where appropriate with the Trustees of Regent’s University London Educational Trust and the Vice Chancellor. Following this discussion and the incorporation of any amendments, formal approval is sought from the Senate Portfolio Development Committee (SPDC). Once approval is obtained the Faculty Associate Dean/Institute Associate Director and Head of Student Registry implement internal processes and procedures


for the review and subsequent validation of the degree. The procedure is to:

(a) identify a viable Programme Development Leader;

(b) establish a Programme Team;

(c) prepare documentation for the Preliminary Validation Event;

(d) present the programme to the validation panel members.

The Programme Development Leader should refer to C2.2.2

the Validation Organisation Guidelines which are available on the Academic Registry intranet pages.

Assuming the Validation Panel at the Preliminary C2.2.3

Validation Event has recommended progression to a Final Validation Event, the Programme Team must act on the recommendations set by the panel, preparing the documentation for the Final Validation Event.

All relevant documentation is continuously reviewed by C2.2.4

the Programme Development Leader working closely with the Associate Dean/Associate Director.

C3 Summary of Arrangements for Validation/Revalidation of Programmes of Study by Regent’s University London

C3.1 Validation of a New Programme of Study

To allow adequate time for the development, validation C3.1.1

and marketing of new degree programmes, the lead-in time for the validation of a new degree is a minimum of 12 months from the date of approval by the SPDC.

C3.2 Revalidation of an Existing Programme of Study

To allow adequate time to prepare for the revalidation C3.2.1

of a degree programme, the lead-in time is a minimum of 12 months before the end of the currently validated period. The content of each individual revalidated programme is informed by a series of Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs), over the preceding years.

C3.3 Procedures and Practices

The schedule of validation, revalidation, internal C3.3.1

programme review and subject reviews are organised for each Faculty/Institute by the Associate


Dean/Associate Director by liaising with the Senior Quality Officer and the Academic Registrar. The schedule of validations and revalidation for the following academic year should be published by the July preceding that academic year.

The Senior Quality Officer, Associate Dean/Associate C3.3.2

Director, Academic Registrar and the Head of the Student Registry work closely during all (re)validation events. The Associate Dean/Associate Director on behalf of the Faculty/Institute assures the academic content of all Faculty/Institute programmes proceeding to the Preliminary and Final (Re)Validation Events. The Senior Quality Officer associated with the Faculty/Institute advises the Faculty/Institute on the dates and administrative procedures of the (Re)Validation and review process. The Student Registry provides a secretary to minute every (re)validation meeting, presenting a thorough audit trail. The Academic Registrar ensures that all (re)validation matters are effectively audited on behalf of the University.

C4 Roles of Key Participants

C4.1 Programme Director/Development Leader

The Programme Development Leader will lead a new C4.1.1

programme of study through its development to the Preliminary Validation Event and the Final Validation Event, in consultation with the Associate Dean/Associate Director and the PVC and Faculty Dean/Institute Director.

The Programme Director will lead a current C4.1.2

programme of study through the revalidation process, in consultation with the Associate Dean/Associate Director and the PVC and Faculty Dean/Institute Director.

The PVC and Faculty Dean/Institute Director and/or C4.1.3

Associate Dean/Associate Director will jointly select a programme team from across the institution in consultation with the Programme Director/Development Leader and, where appropriate, Heads of School/Departments.

The Programme Director/Development Leader will C4.1.4

lead the programme team based on the intended content and delivery of the proposed programme.


The Programme Director/Development Leader will be C4.1.5administratively supported by the Student Registry.

C4.2 Programme Team

The Programme Team is responsible for designing C4.2.1

and developing the programme in its content, delivery and assessment, and it takes responsibility for producing the programme documentation in preparation for the Preliminary and Final (Re)Validation Event.

The Programme Team consists of all or a selection of C4.2.2

the following personnel:

(a) Programme Director/Programme Development Leader

(b) Head of School/Department

(c) Academic members of staff who will teach on the programme or supervise dissertations

(d) Associate Dean/ Associate Director

(e) Senior Quality Officer

(f) Student and Programme Documents Officer (Secretary & (Re)Validation event organiser)

(g) Externals who have contributed to the development of the programme

Further staff and individuals may be invited to C4.2.3

appropriate meetings where necessary. These may be drawn from:

(a) External consultants

(b) Head of Student Registry

(c) Head of Management Information Systems

(d) Commercial Manager/Faculty/Institute Manager

(e) A specialist in Learning and Teaching

(f) Learning Resource Representatives

(g) Disability Officer

(h) Representative of the International Partnerships Office

(i) Representative of the Careers and Business Relations Department

(j) Representative of the Development and Alumni Relations Department

(k) Representative of the External Relations Department


(l) Representative of the Library

(m) Representative of the Information Technology Centre

(n) Representative of Media Services

The Programme Team will conduct a series of minuted C4.2.4development meetings in preparation for the presentation of the programme to the Preliminary (Re)Validation Event. It will also submit details of the proposed programme to external commentators who will be invited to comment critically. Such comments will be included in the programme documentation.

C4.3 University Management Team

The University Management Team consists of senior C4.3.1

University management staff. Its role is to discuss the rationale of the programme and its place within the University’s Strategic Plan, and to respond to issues of support and quality assurance for the programme across the University’s systems and services.

Common constitution of the University Management C4.3.2

Team is as follows:

(a) Dean of Students or nominee

(b) Head of School or Department

(c) Programme Director / Development Leader

(d) Director of External Relations or nominee

(e) Associate Dean / Associate Director

(f) Head of Learning Resources or nominee

(g) Other staff may be invited to attend where required

C4.4 Constitution of the (Re)Validation Panel

The (Re)Validation Panel will consist of the following C4.4.1

individuals:

(a) Chair (independent from the Programme, being either a PVC and Faculty Dean/Institute Director, Associate Dean/Associate Director, Head of School/Department, Programme Director or nominated external Chairperson);

(b) A minimum of two external panel members;

(c) Two internal academic panel members (not subject specialist);

(d) Senior Quality Officer;

(e) Secretary from the Student Registry;


(f) A student representative not associated with the programme;

(g) A Regent’s University London observer.

The members of the (Re)Validation Panel are C4.4.2approved and confirmed by the Academic Registry.

The observer is not a member of the panel but will be C4.4.3

present throughout the preliminary and the final (Re)Validation event.

The (Re)Validation Panel will be considered valid in C4.4.4

the absence of the observer and/or the student representative.

C4.5 External Panel Members

Selected by the Academic Registry from nominations C4.5.1

of subject specialists proposed by the Faculty/Institute. The external panel members will be experts in the field or fields covered by the programme. Their remit is to consider and evaluate the draft programme documentation, to engage in the (Re)Validation events as members of the panel, and finally to contribute to writing the report with any commendations, recommendations and conditions (after the Preliminary and Final (Re)Validation Event).

The external panel members will collectively have: C4.5.2

(a) experience covering the subject area(s) of the programme being (Re)Validated;

(b) experience of being a member of a programme approval and/or review panel.

The external panel members must not be associated C4.5.3

with the programme being (Re)Validated or have been associated with the programme in the past.

The Faculty/Institute must send external panel C4.5.4

member nominations to the Academic Registry at least two months before the preliminary validation event.

C4.6 Student representative on the panel

The student representative for a (Re)Validation panel C4.6.1

will be selected by the Academic Registry from suitable nominations proposed by the Student Union and the Student Engagement Manager.


The student representative’s remit is to consider and C4.6.2evaluate the programme documentation on issues relating to student experience, such as learning resources, teaching support, support for study period abroad, assessment, modular structure etc.

The student representative is a full member of the C4.6.3

(Re)Validation panel, however the panel is able to proceed in the absence of the student representative.

The student representative must be a current Regent’s C4.6.4

University London student.

The student representative on an undergraduate C4.6.5programme (Re)Validation panel must be a current second or third year undergraduate student. The student representative on a postgraduate programme (Re)Validation panel must be a postgraduate student.

The student representative must be independent of C4.6.6

the programme being (Re)Validated.

The student representative must attend a training C4.6.7session, facilitated by the Student Engagement Manager in liaison with the Academic Registry, before participating on a (Re)Validation panel.

The student representative will be remunerated for C4.6.8

their participation on a (Re)Validation panel as per the fees agreed by the Academic Registry at the beginning of each academic year.

C4.7 Preliminary (Re)Validation Event

The Preliminary (Re)Validation Event will examine the C4.7.1

proposed programme in detail. It will conduct separate meetings with the University Management Team and the Programme Team, and examine the rationale and positioning of the programme within the University’s portfolio and the support and quality systems available to the programme, together with details of module content, delivery and assessment. Finally the panel will decide at the Preliminary (Re)Validation Event on the progress of the programme and its fitness to proceed to the Final (Re)Validation Event, and if appropriate to set out appropriate recommendations.

C4.8 Final (Re)Validation Event

The Final (Re)Validation Event occurs not less than C4.8.1

eight weeks after the Preliminary (Re)Validation Event.


Following detailed examination of the programme and C4.8.2exploration of the relevant support and quality systems, it is at the Final (Re)Validation Event that the decision will be made by the Panel to either recommend approval or rejection of the proposed programme to the SQAEC. The panel may set conditions and/or recommendations for the programme team to meet.

C4.9 (Re)Validation Process in Detail

The Programme Development Leader, with the C4.9.1

Associate Dean/Associate Director and the Head of Student Registry, agrees a schedule for the series of events and communicates the schedule to the Programme Team. The full schedule is always set by working back from the Preliminary and Final (Re)Validation Event dates. In addition to this schedule, the Programme Development Leader may collaborate with any member of the team to establish and refine particular aspects of the documentation. The Programme Development Leader is also responsible with the Associate Dean/Associate Director for ensuring that both internal and external consultation takes place.

An example of internal consultation might include the C4.9.2

legislative duty to meet the needs of disabled students. In this respect, the University is aware of the need to avoid setting unreasonable barriers to study. It is the University’s responsibility to offer assessments in alternative formats (e.g. a viva voce instead of a written exam). To enact this, the Programme Development Leader would consult the University’s Disability Officer to brief the team.

Once a development team has been assembled, it C4.9.3

works together with the appointed external advisers, led by the Programme Development Leader.

All documents of the (Re)Validation are critically C4.9.4

reviewed at each stage. The panel members will receive all documentation for the Preliminary and Final (Re)Validation Events at least four weeks prior to the event, and the Academic Registry will receive from the Faculty/Institute the agreed number of copies of the full documentation within a similar timescale.

Panel members will be briefed for the Preliminary and C4.9.5

Final (Re)Validation Event by the Senior Quality Officer. The Preliminary and Final (Re)Validation Event will be organised by the Student Registry. The


Associate Dean/Associate Director advises the Programme Development Leader and Programme Team on the range of (Re)Validation issues arising as a programme moves towards completion.

C4.10 Documentation for Preliminary (Re)Validation Event

The Programme Team prepares the programme C4.10.1

documentation for the Preliminary (Re)Validation Event (available on the Academic Registry intranet pages), which includes:

(a) a draft Programme Handbook, which following an introductory section is largely made up of the appropriate regulations and the programme specification; the latter includes a curriculum map, an assessment map and the module descriptors;

(b) a Programme Development Document, which includes a completed SPDC planning template plus a summary of its development, and CVs of the academics in the Programme Team. For revalidations this will also include a critical appraisal;

(c) the University’s Quality Handbook (including policies and procedures of the University).

The documents include information on: C4.10.2

Rationale and Programme/Level Learning Outcomes

Admissions

Programme Modules, include module learning outcomes

Assessment

Teaching and Learning

Management of Programme/Pathways

Resources

Employability/alumni

Internationalism/International Partnerships Office (if Study Period Abroad is applicable)

Once signed off by the Programme Development C4.10.3

Leader and the Associate Dean/Associate Director of the Faculty/Institute, the documents for the Preliminary (Re)Validation Event will be submitted to the Academic Registry for distribution to the (Re)Validation Panel at least four weeks in advance of the event. This allows Panel members to fully digest and reflect upon the programme proposal.

The Programme Team will expect to receive an initial C4.10.4

panel response, via the Secretary to the


(Re)Validation Panel, prior to the (Re)Validation date identifying issues to be addressed on the day of the (Re)Validation event.

C4.11 Preliminary (Re)Validation Event

The Preliminary (Re)Validation Event is held at least C4.11.1

eight weeks before the Final (Re)Validation Event and includes a learning resources audit.

It is conducted by the (Re)Validation Panel, minuted C4.11.2

by the Secretary, and attended at various stages by:

(a) the Programme Team

(b) the University Management Team

The Preliminary (Re)Validation Event enables the C4.11.3Panel to engage in discussion with the University Management Team with regard to the rigour of the proposal and the ability of the institution to support it and deliver a good experience to students; and with the Programme Team to enter into meaningful academic dialogue on critical aspects such as:

teaching and learning;

the achievement of learning outcomes;

curriculum content.

The Academic Registry and the Faculty/Institute will C4.11.4agree the various agendas for the day, however the Panel may wish to change the agenda on the day, where further information is being sought.

C4.12 Common (Re)Validation Agenda

The likely agenda for a Preliminary (Re)Validation C4.12.1

Event (in no definitive order) will be as follows:

private Panel Meeting;

meeting with University Management Team;

meeting with Programme Team;

meeting with service deliverers e.g., library, IT, careers and Disability Officer, (possibly as part of University Management Team);

meeting with students;

private Panel Meeting;

Final Meeting with Programme and University Management Teams.


C4.13 Potential Outcomes of the Preliminary (Re)Validation Event

The (Re)Validation Panel will arrive at one of the C4.13.1

following conclusions at the end of the Preliminary (Re)Validation Event:

(a) the programme should proceed to the Final (Re)Validation Event;

(b) deferral of the programme for re-presentation at a further Preliminary (Re)Validation Event.

If the programme is given permission to proceed to the C4.13.2

Final (Re)Validation Event, the Chair will feed back to the Programme Team and University Management Team a set of recommendations which must be addressed in the paperwork submitted for the Final (Re)Validation Event. The documentation which is then sent for the Final (Re)Validation Event includes clear indication of the changes that have been made to the documentation following the Preliminary (Re)Validation Event, to aid the panel in its work.

Where the panel has decided that the programme C4.13.3

should proceed to the final (Re)Validation event, the panel may recommend that the programme team reschedules the final validation event to facilitate a full response to the panel’s recommendations. This should only occur where the panel is confident that the programme team, with some additional time, will be able to meet the recommendations, otherwise a deferral should be given.

If the outcome of the Preliminary (Re)Validation Event C4.13.4

is a deferral where the recommendations set by the (Re)Validation Panel cannot be met within the timescale set for (Re)Validation, then the final event will be deferred until such time as the recommendations can be met. This event will occur only where the recommendations are such that a substantial amount of time is required to address them. In the event of this outcome, the Programme Team will be required to re-present the documentation to a further Preliminary (Re)Validation Event at a later date, before proceeding to a Final (Re)Validation Event.

C4.14 Final (Re)Validation Event

The Final (Re)Validation Event will examine the C4.14.1

response(s) received from the Programme Team


addressing the recommendations outlines at the Preliminary (Re)Validation Event.

The Final (Re)Validation Event will usually be for a full C4.14.2

day depending on the complexity of the proposal and the nature of the issues identified during the programme development and the outcome of the Preliminary (Re)Validation Event.

C4.15 Documentation for Final (Re)Validation Event

The Faculty/Institute will send the following C4.15.1

documentation to the Academic Registry for distribution to panel members, at least four weeks prior to the event:

(a) a briefing paper referencing changes made as a result of recommendations set by the (Re)Validation panel at the Preliminary (Re)Validation Event;

(b) a draft Programme Handbook, which following an introductory section is largely made up of the appropriate regulations and the programme specification, the latter includes a curriculum map, an assessment map and the module descriptors;

(c) any document(s) which required updating as a result of the recommendations set by the (Re)Validation panel at the Preliminary (Re)Validation Event.

The Final (Re)Validation Event enables the Panel with C4.15.2

the University Management Team to resolve any outstanding matters with regard to the rigour of the proposal and the ability of the institution to support it and deliver a good experience to students; and with the Programme Team to resolve any outstanding matters from the Preliminary (Re)Validation Event which has not been satisfactorily addressed in the documentation submitted or arising from the response provided by the Programme Team.

The Academic Registry and the Faculty/Institute will C4.15.3

agree the various agendas, however the Panel may wish to change the agenda on the day, where further information is being sought.


C4.16 Outcomes of the Final (Re)Validation Event

The following approval recommendations are available C4.16.1

to the panel at the end of the Final (Re)Validation Event:

Full Term Approval C4.16.2

(a) A programme may be recommended for approval for a maximum of five years.

Approval may be recommended for a shorter period. C4.16.3

This may arise because, for example:

(a) the programme is a new field of study;

(b) the field of study is new to the University;

(c) changes to a programme are in prospect, possibly as a consequence of demands of a statutory or professional body.

Conditions of approval C4.16.4

(a) Conditions of approval should be used for requirements which must be fulfilled in order to ensure the programme meets the University’s regulations and the standard required for a Regent’s University London validated award. Changes which are desirable in order to enhance the quality of the programme of study, but which do not affect the threshold standard, should be brought to the attention of the University as recommendations (see below).

(b) Conditions should be expressed precisely and have a specific and realistic date set for their achievement. Programme teams must be able to understand what is required from them.

Non-approval C4.16.5

(a) The panel may decide to recommend to the SQAEC that the programme should not be approved if it has major reservations about the proposals. In this case it will offer advice about the aspects of the proposals which require further consideration and, if appropriate, give guidance about the timing of a resubmission.

Recommendations C4.16.6

(a) The panel may make recommendations for the Faculty/Institute to follow up, and a response will be required through the Annual Monitoring Report for the programme.


C4.17 The report on the panel’s findings

The secretary to the panel will draft a report, which will C4.17.1

reflect the discussions during the process and record the formal recommendation to SQAEC, together with conditions of approval and recommendations. The report will be available within four weeks of the final meeting. The report will be circulated to panel members for comment.

The final recommendation of the (Re)Validation panel C4.17.2

is forwarded to the SQAEC for final approval of the (Re)Validation panel’s decision.

C4.18 Appeals

The University will not consider appeals against panel C4.18.1

judgements, but may consider appeals about the relevant process and conduct leading to a judgement. If a deficiency in procedure or conduct is substantiated, it does not necessarily call into question the judgement, as the impact of the deficiency would have to be considered. Consistency between the evidence base and the judgements made would be a key consideration.

An allowable appeal might be about the work of a C4.18.2

panel, individual members of a panel, or a member of staff of the University. Panel members are made aware of what is expected of them both in the content of their work and in the way they carry it out. In turn, the University expects that Programme Teams will treat panel members with the respect, courtesy and professionalism necessary for a successful process.

An appeal against a decision made by a C4.18.3

(Re)Validation panel should be made in writing by the Programme Director/Programme Development Leader in agreement with the Associate Dean/Associate Director to the Academic Registrar clearly detailing the grounds of the appeal with any supporting evidence. The Academic Registrar will then raise the appeal for discussion at the next meeting of the SQAEC, who will make a final decision. The Associate Dean/Associate Director as a member of the SQAEC will notify the Programme Director/Programme Development Leader of the result of the appeal.

The following decisions are available to the SQAEC: C4.18.4

(a) Amend a condition set by the (Re)Validation Panel;


(b) Annul the decision made by the (Re)Validation panel and order a new (Re)Validation of the programme with a completely new Panel, or replace individual Panel Members;

(c) Reject the appeal.

The decision made by the SQAEC will constitute the C4.18.5final stage of the University’s procedures in the appeals process.

C4.19 Failure to recruit students after validation

If a programme fails to recruit students for three C4.19.1successive years after validation, then the programme will be required to undergo a new validation. The programme will be unable to admit any students until successfully revalidated.

C5 Modifications to Programmes

C5.1 Scope

Changes to either a module or a programme as a C5.1.1

whole is subject to approval before it can be implemented. The purpose of such approval is to ensure that any changes will maintain and where possible improve the standard of education offered through the programme concerned. In addition, modifications to a module or programme are subject to consultation with the relevant external examiner(s) as detailed below. Prior to approval, changes to a programme, existing module or the introduction of a new module is agreed by the Programme Director in liaison with the relevant Faculty/Institute Associate Dean/Associate Director and, where required, the appropriate external examiner. The Programme Director(s) and the Faculty/Institute Associate Dean/Associate Director are responsible for ensuring that the ‘cumulative impact of small/incremental changes’ (QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education on Programme monitoring and review, 2011, Chapter B8, Indicator 4) do not amount to a major change in a programme of study. Prospective modifications to the programme go through the processes detailed below.

C5.2 Changes to Modules

Academic staff should read the ‘Programme and C5.2.1

Module Change Process’ (located on the Academic Registry pages of the Regent’s University London Intranet) before requesting any changes to modules.


Changes to modules are defined as changes to: C5.2.2

a) Aims of a module; b) Pre-requisites / co-requisites; c) Learning outcomes (provided the change

does not affect the overall programme learning outcomes);

d) Learning and teaching strategy; e) Assessment weightings (e.g. 50% to 40% of

the total module mark), assessment strategy, assessment methods (e.g. exam to presentation)

f) new arrangements for collaborative provision

To request a change the requisite ‘Request for New C5.2.3Module or Amending an Existing Module ’ form must be completed (located on the Academic Registry pages of the Regent’s University London Intranet).

External examiner approval must be sought for all C5.2.4changes.

The process for requesting a change to a module is as C5.2.5follows:

The Programme Director completes and signs the C5.2.6‘Request for New Module or Amending an Existing Module’ form. The Programme Director will consult with the relevant departments, Associate Dean / Director, and external examiner(s) and seek their approval.

The proposal is received by the Faculty / Institute C5.2.7Quality Officer who will ensure that all the appropriate information has included in the proposal.

The proposal is received by the Chair of the C5.2.8Programme Planning Panel (PPP), who is a Senior Quality Officer in the Academic Registry. The PPP will verify that due process has been followed and that the modification(s) conforms to programme, University, and where appropriate the validating authority’s regulations.

The PPP will either: C5.2.9a) Approve the proposal; b) Approve the proposal subject to conditions

which will need to be met within a set timeframe;

c) Reject the proposal;


d) Request further clarification or amendment of the proposal within a set timeframe.

If approved, the change is reported at the SQAEC. C5.2.10

If the programme is externally validated, the form will C5.2.11be sent to that body for approval.

The completed form with all required documentation C5.2.12must be received by the Chair of the PPP by the set date specified by the Academic Registry, which will be approximately December each year. Proposals submitted will be for implementation at the start of the following academic year.

C5.3 Introduction of a New Module

Academic staff should read the ‘Programme and C5.3.1

Module Change Process’ (located on the Academic Registry pages of the Regent’s University London Intranet) before requesting the introduction of a new module.

A proposal for the introduction of a new module is to C5.3.2

be initiated by the relevant Programme Director in consultation with the relevant departments and Associate Dean / Director and approved by the external examiner.

To request the introduction of a new module, the C5.3.3

‘Request for New Module or Amending an Existing Module’ form must be completed (located on the Academic Registry pages of the Regent’s University London Intranet).

The proposal will be received by the Faculty / Institute C5.3.4Quality Officer who will ensure that all the appropriate information has included in the proposal.





c) Reject the proposal; d) Request further clarification or amendment

of the proposal within a set timeframe.



The completed form with all required documentation C5.3.9must be received by the Chair of the PPP by the set date specified by the Academic Registry, which will be sometime in the month of December each year. Proposals submitted will be for implementation at the start of the following academic year.

C5.4 Changes to Programmes

Academic staff should read the ‘Programme and C5.4.1Module Change Process’ (located on the Academic Registry pages of the Regent’s University London Intranet) before requesting any changes to modules.

Programme changes are defined as changes to: C5.4.2a) Programme structure; b) Educational aims and objectives; c) Programmes’ relationship to other

programmes and awards; d) Programme learning outcomes; e) Level learning outcomes; f) Changes to the learning and teaching

strategy / assessment methods (non-regulatory);

g) Distinctive features of the programme and other key information;

h) Support for students and their learning; i) Opportunities for personal development

planning for students within the programme; j) Admission criteria; k) Award criteria; l) Programme specific methods for evaluating

and improving the quality and standards of teaching and learning.

A proposal for a change to a programme is to be C5.4.3initiated by the relevant Programme Director in consultation with the relevant departments and Associate Dean / Director, and approved by the external examiner. The requisite ‘Request for a Change to Programmes’ form must be completed


(located on the Academic Registry pages of the Regent’s University London Intranet).

The proposal is received by the Faculty/Institute C5.4.4Quality Officer who will ensure that all the appropriate information has included in the proposal.




c) Reject the proposal; d) Request further clarification or amendment

of the proposal within a set timeframe. e) Recommend to the SQAEC that the

programme is revalidated if either: i. The programme has accumulated ten

changes since the last (re)validation; ii. The PPP deems that 40% of the

programme content has changed since the last (re)validation;

iii. The changes proposed to the programme are significant.



The completed form with all required documentation C5.4.9must be received by the Chair of the PPP by the set date specified by the Academic Registry, which will be sometime in the month of December each year. Proposals submitted will be for implementation at the start of the following academic year.

C5.5 Definitive Documents for All Programmes

Following the validation of a new programme or C5.5.1

module, or revision to an existing programme or module, the Faculty/Institute sends definitive programme documentation to the Student Registry and the Academic Registry.


The definitive programme documentation after a C5.5.2(Re)Validation includes:

(a) Programme Development Document;

(b) Programme Handbook;

(c) Programme Specification (this may be contained within the Programme Handbook);

(d) Module Specifications (this may be contained within the Programme Handbook).

After any changes to a programme or module(s) have C5.5.3

been made subsequent to (Re)Validation, an updated Programme Handbook and/or Module Specification must be submitted to the Academic Registry.

C6 Programme Discontinuation

Approval of programme (or pathway) discontinuation is C6.1.1

the responsibility of Senate. However, to ensure that full consideration of any proposal to discontinue a programme takes place at both Faculty/Institute and University level, responsibility for this procedure and decision has been delegated to the Senate Portfolio Development Committee. The outcome of a decision taken by the Senate Portfolio Development Committee (SPDC) is reported to Senate, via the SPDC minutes. A decision to request discontinuation should align with the objectives of the relevant Faculty/Institute plan(s).

The request must be supported by the Institute/Faculty C6.1.2

Executive Committee and the PVC and Faculty Dean/Institute Director. Following the completion of the Faculty/Institute stage of the process, the form, signed by the relevant PVC and Faculty Dean/Institute Director, is submitted to the Academic Registry for deliberation by the Senate Portfolio Development Committee.

Strategies for discontinuation (e.g. support for those C6.1.3

students completing their studies, enabling students to transfer to a suitable alternative programme elsewhere to complete their award, and amendments to the University Prospectus and marketing) may not begin until the matter has been reported and approved by the SPDC.

Following a programme discontinuation decision, C6.1.4

recruitment to all levels of the programme will cease.

Concerns against programme discontinuation C6.1.5decisions made by the SPDC can only be made on the


grounds of administrative error. The concern should be made in writing to the Chair of Senate stating clearly what the grounds of the concern are (i.e. administrative error, e.g. the wrong data being sent to the FEC and/or the SPDC). The Chair of Senate will then either choose to re-evaluate the original decision and call for a further hearing at the next Senate or will reject the appeal as it falls outside the area of administrative error.

The Programme Discontinuation form is located on the C6.1.6

Academic Registry intranet pages.

C7 Annual Programme Evaluation and Monitoring

C7.1 Purpose

The purpose of annual monitoring is to ensure that C7.1.1

programmes are being delivered in such a way as to meet their academic and professional aims and objectives in order that students have the opportunity to develop to the best of their ability. It provides an opportunity for the University and its faculties to examine how well programmes are operating in this context, and to review them in the light of the University’s Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy (LTAS).

C7.2 Annual Monitoring Report

Part of the annual monitoring process is undertaken by C7.2.1

Programme Directors through the preparation of critical Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs), templates for these reports and annual guidelines are supplied on the Academic Registry intranet pages. Typically, each Annual Monitoring Report provides an action list for the forthcoming academic year and a report on actions taken in the previous academic year.

The AMR is a summation of programme statistics C7.2.2

including data such as:

applications

enrolments

student results

disability

where appropriate, the Study Period Abroad (SPA).


The AMR also contains all external examiners’ annual C7.2.3reports and responses to those external examiners’ reports. In particular, the AMR is informed by module monitoring forms and comments on the following:

staff teaching on modules

resources for modules

changes and future developments to modules

externals brought in as guest speakers

student performance on modules.

C7.3 Approval Process

In the autumn of each year, AMRs are compiled for C7.3.1

the previous academic year. Deadlines for the production of the reports are set in line with the calendar of meetings for the SQAEC.

The Programme Directors on behalf of their C7.3.2

programme teams complete the Annual Monitoring Report. The report is then submitted to the Associate Dean/Associate Director for Faculty/Institute-level approval.

Prior to submission to the Annual Monitoring C7.3.3

Committee, the Associate Dean/Associate Director has ultimate responsibility for quality assuring the AMR and that the reports are:

prepared in line with the University template;

of a publishable standard;

delivered by the University deadline; and that

recommendations made within the reports stay within the boundaries of both the QAA Quality Code and the University regulatory framework.

The Associate Deans/Associate Director will then C7.3.4

prepare a Faculty/Institute Overview Report and present it to the Annual Monitoring Committee.

The Associate Deans/Associate Director will also C7.3.5

forward the Faculty/Institute approved AMRs to the Senior Quality Officers by an agreed deadline.

The Senior Quality Officers will review the AMRs and C7.3.6

prepare a Pro-Forma Response Report to be presented to the Annual Monitoring Committee. The Pro-Forma Response Report will identify actions


required at programme and institutional level for faculties/institutes to meet.

The Annual Monitoring Committee will approve the C7.3.7

final Pro-Forma Response Report to be sent to the faculties/institutes for action.

The Senior Quality Officers will monitor the response C7.3.8

to the Pro-Forma Response Report from the faculties/institutes and report back to the Annual Monitoring Committee.

The Annual Monitoring Committee will produce an C7.3.9

Institutional Overview Report which is presented to the SQAEC and then Senate. The Institutional Overview Report provides a summary of the year's performance and highlights the areas where attention will be focussed to enhance the quality of provision for the future. The Institutional Overview Report:

reflects on the annual monitoring process;

sets out the significant issues which have arisen at institutional level over the year;

reflects on the main issues arising from the programme reports for all validated programmes within the institution for particular validating bodies;

reflects on student feedback practice and outcomes;

reflects on Personal Development Plan policy and evaluates practice across validated provision;

sets out institutional plans for the following year;

an account of action taken or progress made in relation to any QAA or other external reviews during the year;

reflects on Regent’s University London’s engagement with the QAA Quality Code including, where applicable, an updated mapping against relevant chapters of the QAA UK Quality Code of Higher Education and any measures taken as a result;

provides information, where appropriate, about how the University has dealt with appeals, complaints and disciplinary matters, including, in particular, any cases of plagiarism which have arisen;

gives a formal compliance statement confirming that the annual monitoring process has been


comprehensively and satisfactorily carried out, and that programmes have been taught, managed and operated in accordance with procedures agreed at validation;

provides a QA flow-chart setting out the actual process undertaken.

In addition to the Institutional Overview Report being C7.3.10

submitted to the SQAEC and the report being made to Senate, the Institutional Overview Report is then presented at the Faculty and Institute Learning and Teaching Committees (F/ILTC) for feedback and reflection, and to determine any required actions. This then concludes the annual cycle of reporting.

Any programme-specific recommendations arising C7.3.11

from the AMR Action Plan are discussed at the next Programme Committee.

Should concerns be raised as a result of Annual C7.3.12

Monitoring, then an Internal Programme Review may be instigated by either the Associate Deans/Associate Director or Academic Registrar. Outcomes from such a review will be reported at the respective F/ILTC, SQAEC and Senate.

Flow chart for the process for compiling the C7.3.13

Institutional Overview for the Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs):


C8 Student Feedback Systems

C8.1 Introduction

Students play a key role in the University’s processes C8.1.1

for enhancing the quality of both its educational provision and the broader student experience. This role is based on students providing feedback on their experience at the module level together with the active role of student representatives at the Programme Committee at institutional level.

Students’ views are seen as being important for C8.1.2

informing judgements on the quality of the educational experience they obtain through studying at Regent’s University London. At the module level, it is considered important to obtain information on the quality of students’ learning. In addition, the University believes that students should be supported in expressing views and raising issues at the wider subject area and programme level, as well as, on aspects of institutional provision.

Final drafts of AMRs submitted by the Programme Director to the

Associate Dean/Associate Director of the Faculty/Institute for

approval

Once approved the AMR is submitted to the Annual Monitoring Committee, and the Senior Quality Officer.

The Senior Quality Officer will prepare a Pro-Forma Response Report for approval by the Annual Monitoring Committee.

The Annual Monitoring Committee will approve the Pro-Forma Response Report for dissemination to the faculties and institutes.

The Annual Monitoring Committee will produce an Institutional Overview Report which is then submitted to the SQAEC and to

Senate for the monitoring of actions and final approval by Senate.


C8.2 Scope

The effective involvement of students in quality C8.2.1

systems depends upon processes which:

(a) facilitate students’ confidence in providing open and frank feedback;

(b) ensure that the feedback is listened to and, where appropriate, acted upon;

(c) ensure that information is provided for students on how their views have been considered; action taken and, where appropriate, reasons why action is not taken.

The process is two-way and students have a C8.2.2

responsibility to:

(a) act responsibly and constructively in providing views;

(b) recognise that student views are one part of a wider integrated quality enhancement system;

(c) participate in the formal structures provided to elicit student comment;

(d) disseminate information to each other, initially, through the vehicle of student representatives.

There are a number of processes designed to provide C8.2.3

students with an opportunity to contribute to the assessment of the enhancement of quality:

(a) student feedback on learning at the module level;

(b) student feedback on facilities/resources supporting a learning environment;

(c) processes for obtaining feedback through the departmental review process;

(d) student representation on the Programme Committees;

(e) student representation on other University committees.

C8.3 Student Feedback at the Module Level

All students are invited to provide feedback on each C8.3.1

module that they take. The students are required to complete a questionnaire through the Student Feedback System. The feedback is distributed and collected centrally by the Student Registry.


The questionnaire reports are sent to the Module C8.3.2Tutors, Programme Directors, Heads of Departments, Heads of Schools, and Associate Deans/Associate Directors to be reviewed as part of annual monitoring. Any module-specific issues will be dealt with by Module Tutors in collaboration with Programme Directors and Heads of Department/Heads of School.

The student feedback report will enable the Associate C8.3.3

Dean/Associate Director to make informed judgements about academic staff development.

The student feedback reports and forms are passed to C8.3.4

the Associate Dean/Associate Director for generic scrutiny, to identify any outstanding indicators of either a positive or negative fashion. The Student Statistical Records Officer will prepare a report after each session to be presented at the F/ILTC and the LRC. Issues arising from ‘student feedback’, identifying generic indicators of perceived student quality are addressed at Programme Committees. This information also informs the AMR.

Informal feedback can be sought at different times C8.3.5

within a module and it is assumed that module leaders undertake this more frequently.

Students will only recognise the value of providing C8.3.6

feedback if they receive some response on how the feedback has been received and considered and whether any changes have been made as a result. In view of this, the Programme Committees and Programme Directors are an important part of the process and will be responsible for providing information to students on issues raised through the channel of:

(a) student representatives;

(b) student feedback systems.

C9 Peer Observation of Teaching

C9.1 Introduction

Academics engage in Peer Observation of teaching as C9.1.1

a facilitator of quality enhancement rather than quality management. The processes of induction, training and probation of new teaching staff, as well as those relating to performance development review are detailed in the relevant HR documents.


Peer Observation of teaching is a process whereby a C9.1.2third party observes, and provides feedback on, teaching and learning support. Its purposes are to provide feedback to the staff observed, opportunities for staff to learn from each other, and to assist with staff development. The first guiding principle of observation is that it is developmental rather than judgmental (NAFTHE).1

Peer Observation is about giving academics the C9.1.3

opportunity to reflect on their teaching and discuss it with colleagues in a formative and non-judgemental way. The needs of teaching staff at different stages in their career vary, so the scheme is not too prescriptive. These guidelines support active engagement in the process rather than impose a standard way of doing things and build on existing good practice identified across the University, thus enhancing the student learning experience.

C9.2 Aims

(a) To promote reflection on teaching and learning by both the person being observed and the observer;

(b) to enhance the students’ learning experience;

(c) to share good practice.

C9.3 Principles

(a) Peer Observation of Teaching is about sharing good practice rather than evaluating the performance of academics;

(b) it can be confidential between the academic and the observer;

(c) it should be flexible in focus and not adopt an audit approach;

(d) it should be seen as a source for personal/professional development;

(e) it can be productive in enhancing the delivery of teaching and /or the content of learning;

(f) where content is the focus a subject specialist is best placed to observe, while a specialist in another discipline can be beneficial where general pedagogy is the focus;

1 National Association for Teachers in Further & Higher Education (NATFHE) Guidelines for Higher Education branches: Peer Review & Peer Observation of Teaching, May 2002.


(g) a more informed and mutually beneficial process is facilitated where the observer has access to the module specification and any relevant materials (e.g. Blackboard site) before the observation takes place.

C9.4 Procedures

Peer Observation of teaching comprises at least one C9.4.1

formative observation per year of all full-time and fractional staff members.

The observer and the academic are free to choose C9.4.2

their partner. It can be carried out with colleagues from the same or different discipline so long as the choice is made freely by the staff in question. The type of session to be observed is determined by them. These sessions can be seminars, lectures and any other sessions of learning and teaching where observation cannot be perceived as intrusive as in the case of some clinical sessions in Regent’s School of Psychotherapy and Psychology.

The observer will be given access to the module C9.4.3

Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) site, which includes the module outline, reading lists and other learning materials.

C9.5 Preliminary Meeting

The process of peer observation starts with a C9.5.1

preliminary meeting between the observer and the academic once they have agreed to work with each other. Part of this meeting is to establish contact and trust with the other party and deal with any further clarifications particularly if the pair is fairly new to the peer observation of teaching. The pair will exchange information about the context of the observation, its content and the procedures used during the observation.

It is helpful, at this stage, if the lecturer gives the C9.5.2

observer any preparatory work that students have been given, or any copies of PowerPoint slides or other information.

Given the diversity of teaching approaches of staff, C9.5.3

and learning needs of students, there is no one ‘best way’ to teach, and hence no single checklist of points to watch out for when observing colleagues. In addition, more may be gained by establishing what aspects of his/her teaching the person being observed


would like to develop, and focus on that, than attempting to cover all aspects.

C9.6 Observation

The presence of an observer should be acknowledged C9.6.1

at the start of the session. The academic introduces the observer to students, making clear the observer is not evaluating students in any way.

The observer should make notes during the session. C9.6.2

These may be structured around the agreed focus of the session or more generally around themes suggested in the peer observation checklist.

The academic also notes down any of their own C9.6.3

thoughts about the session as soon as it ends.

C9.7 Feedback and Discussion

The final stage of the observation is the provision of C9.7.1

spoken and written feedback and its discussion. The face-to-face discussion should happen as soon as possible after the observation and should last no more than half an hour unless the parties decide otherwise. The process is not meant to be bureaucratic or unduly time consuming.

It is recommended that the exact details of the C9.7.2

observation discussion are entirely confidential and remain between the two participants. There is no need for a record of this observation to be kept centrally.

The Peer Observation Form allows for examples of C9.7.3

good practice and developmental or training needs to be identified. All Peer Observation forms are anonymous and are collated for consideration at the F/ILTC.

C9.8 Follow-up

The observer and the academic must let their Head of C9.8.1

Department/School or Programme Director (whichever is applicable) know when the observation took place so that this can be recorded for monitoring purposes. Each Faculty/Institute keeps a spreadsheet with the names of academic staff and space to record the date of their observation.

The University runs annual sessions to share and C9.8.2

disseminate examples of good practice in teaching


which may have been identified and shared through peer observation.

C10 Externally validated programmes

In addition to offering its own degrees, Regent’s C10.1.1

University London offers a selection of programmes validated by external accreditation agencies. For these external programmes, the University operates robust systems of preliminary review for the institution or a programme prior to any final accreditation/validation event. The preliminary review outcomes are reported to the external validating authority before proceeding to final accreditation or validation, whichever is applicable. The accrediting/validating institution is provided with a succinct audit trail which informs the visiting panel of issues it may wish to address.

Programmes which are externally validated must C10.1.2

follow the processes laid out by the validating body in relation to:

(a) Validation/revalidation of a programme;

(b) modifications to the programme and modules;

(c) annual monitoring.

The Programme Director/Development Leader should C10.1.3consult with the Academic Registry with regards to the requirements of the validating body in relation to the above processes.

C11 Collaborative Provision

The University’s Collaborative Provision Policy C11.1.1(informed by the University’s Internationalisation Strategy) states that the University should only engage in the following types of collaborative arrangements; (a) Articulation arrangements (b) Dual/Double awards (c) Jointly delivered programmes

The University’s regulations in conjunction with any C11.1.2specific programme regulations must be followed for all collaborative arrangements with the possible exception of joint awards where a common set of regulations may be agreed between the two collaborative partners.


Students studying at RUL are bound by the policies of C11.1.3RUL irrespective of the type of arrangement that the University may have with another partner institution.

The Register of Collaborative Arrangements can be C11.1.4found on the International Partnerships page on the Intranet at the following link: https://connect.regents.ac.uk/departments/ipo/Pages/DirectoryofPartnerandAffiliateInstitutions.aspx


D Academic Regulations

D1 Definitions

D1.1 General

A programme is defined as a specified programme of D1.1.1

study, with its own aims and learning outcomes made up from a specified set of modules, which leads to a specifically named academic award.

Academic award with specific titles are given for D1.1.2

successfully completing and passing a specified programme of study.

Programmes comprise a collection of modules, each D1.1.3

of which may be required and specified as ‘Pass/Fail’ (equivalent to a notional credit of one) or carry a specified credit value. Within any programme the values of different modules may vary.

A resit decision can be made for both coursework and D1.1.4

examination assessments. A resit does not require attendance at lectures or classes except to the extent that attendance is required in order to complete the necessary assessment.

A retake is where students are required to attend D1.1.5

classes and to complete all assignments and assessments associated with the module.

Under exceptional circumstances a student may be D1.1.6

allowed to defer an examination or the submission of coursework, or may have a previous attempt or submission to be deemed null and void.

D1.2 Credit Framework

Credit is the means by which learning outcomes D1.2.1

achievable in a given number of notional learning hours, and at a particular level are quantified. Credits are not graded.

Section D of the Handbook is informed by the following sections of the QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education: Chapter B9: Academic appeals and student complaints Chapter B6: Assessment of students and recognition of prior learning


Unless programme specific regulations utilise a D1.2.2different credit system, a full-time foundation and undergraduate workload is 120 credits per year and a full-time postgraduate workload is typically 180 credits per year. 1 credit is equivalent to 10 notional learning hours.

Credit is awarded for the achievement of specified D1.2.3

learning outcomes as determined by programme specific regulations, which are outlined in the Programme Handbooks.

With the exception of credit awarded for Recognised D1.2.4

Prior Learning (RPL), credit is sequentially accumulated by level.

Where appropriate, and programme specific D1.2.5

regulations allow, credits gained at a higher level can be used to replace insufficient credits at a lower level. However, a deficit at a higher level cannot be compensated by credits gained at a lower level.

D1.3 European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)

The European Credit Transfer and Accumulation D1.3.1

System (ECTS) is a credit system for higher education involving all countries engaged in the Bologna Process, ECTS provides common procedures to guarantee academic recognition of studies abroad. It provides a way of measuring and comparing academic credit and transferring credit from one institution to another, in helping European countries to mutually recognise periods of study abroad it also assists student mobility.

ECTS assigns credits to course components based on D1.3.2

the student workload required to achieve the objectives of the particular course of study, these objectives are usually described in terms of the learning outcomes of the course.

The workload of a full-time undergraduate student D1.3.3

during one academic year is calculated to be 60 ECTS credits. Workload refers to the average time a learner might be expected to reach the required learning outcomes.

The workload of a full-time postgraduate student D1.3.4

during one academic year is calculated to be 90 ECTS credits. Workload refers to the average time a learner


might be expected to reach the required learning outcomes.

Learning outcomes are sets of competences D1.3.5

expressing what the student will be expected to understand on completion of their studies. ECTS credits can only be obtained after appropriate assessment of the learning outcomes the student has achieved.

The Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme D1.3.6

(CATS) enables students to move credits they accumulate from one institution to another. The Scheme equates one credit (or credit point) with 10 hours of notional learning time (the time, on average, a learner takes to achieve the specified learning outcomes).

Two UK CATS credits are equivalent to one ECTS D1.3.7

credit.

D1.4 Modules

Modules are defined as discrete components of D1.4.1

assessed learning with coherent aims and learning outcomes within a programme of study.

Modules may vary in size dependent upon the level of D1.4.2

study. The sizes of modules may range from 10 credits to 60 credits and must be divisible by ten.* For example, undergraduate modules may be worth 10 or 20 credits (equating to 100 or 200 notional learning hours respectively).

Each module will be composed of a specified number D1.4.3

of notional learning hours relating to student learning activity, including contact time, directed learning, assessed work and private study (there is no minimum specified contact time).

Dependent upon programme specific regulations and D1.4.4

the number of credits assigned to a module, modules may be studied on a termly or yearly basis.

Credit values may be different in pre 2010 modules. These are in the process of being discontinued.


Levels of module: D1.4.5

FHEQ Description 3 Foundation 4 Undergraduate degree year 1 (FT undergraduate) 5 Undergraduate degree year 2 (FT undergraduate) 6 Undergraduate degree year 3 (FT undergraduate) 7 Postgraduate degree (FT postgraduate) 8 Doctorate level

A programme may have the following types of D1.4.6modules: Core; Elective; Option; Pre-requisite; Co-requisite; Project; Dissertation. A definition of each type of module is provided in the glossary.

D2 List of Regent’s University London Programmes and Progressions and / or Awards to which they lead

D2.1 Foundation Programmes (Level 3)

Students who pass programme requirements may D2.1.1

proceed directly to undergraduate programmes. Successful completion does not constitute an award under the terms of programme regulations.

D2.2 Bachelors degrees (Level 6)

BA (Hons) Fashion Design

BA (Hons) Fashion Marketing

BA (Hons) Fashion Design with Marketing

BA (Hons) Interior Design

BA (Hons) International Business

BA (Hons) International Business and Chinese Studies

BA (Hons) International Events Management

BA (Hons) Global Management (with pathways)

BA (Hons) Global Management (Global Business Management)

BA (Hons) Global Management (Global Business and Design Management)

BA (Hons) Global Management (Global Business and Sustainability Management)

BA (Hons) Global Management (Global Financial Management)

BA (Hons) Global Management (Global Marketing Management)


BA (Hons) Acting and World Theatre

BA (Hons) Screenwriting and Producing

BA (Hons) Film, TV and Digital Media Production

BSc (Hons) Psychology

BA (Hons) Visual Communication

BSc (Hons) Accounting and Finance

BA (Hons) Liberal Studies

BA (Hons) Liberal Arts [Recognition of Webster University Bachelor Degree Awards]

D2.3 Master’s Level Degree (Level 7)

PG Cert in Higher Education

PG Diploma Fashion Buying and Merchandising

PG Diploma Fashion Journalism

MA Luxury Brand Management

MA Global Management (with pathways)

MA Global Management (Marketing and Communications)

MA Global Management (Finance and Business Development)

MA Global Management (People Management and Leadership)

MA Global Management (Family Business)

MA Management (with pathways)

MA Management with International Business

MA Management with International Marketing

MA Management with Human Resource Management

MA Management with Entrepreneurial Management

MSc Finance with Specialisations

MA Psychotherapy and Counselling

MA Writing for Screen and Stage

MA Creative Leadership

MPhil in Psychotherapy and Counselling Studies

MSc Oil and Gas Trade Management

MSc Psychology


MSc Occupational and Organisational Psychology

MSc Digital Marketing and Analytics

D2.4 Doctoral Degree (Level 8)

PhD in Psychotherapy and Counselling Studies

DPsych in Counselling Psychology

DCounsPsy in Counselling Psychology

D3 Minimum study requirements and allowable RPL

D3.1 Foundation Level

Foundation programmes are at level 3 and are D3.1.1

typically two terms in length and do not allow an import of Recognition of Prior Certificated Learning (RPCL) or Recognition of (RPEL) credits.

D3.2 Undergraduate Awards

The maximum duration of study for any undergraduate D3.2.1

award is 3 years beyond the expected completion date of the programme.

Certificates in Higher Education - The total credit D3.2.2

required for an award is 120 credits at level 4 (including all core modules). The minimum study and level is 60 credits at level 4 with a maximum allowable RPCL or RPEL import of 60 credits.

Diplomas in Higher Education - The total credit D3.2.3

required for an award is 240 credits including 120 credits at level 5 and all core modules and SPA requirements if appropriate. The minimum study and level is 60 credits at level 5 with a maximum allowable RPCL or RPEL import of 120 credits (60 at level 4 and 60 at level 5).

All undergraduate degrees have a minimum expected D3.2.4

duration of 6 terms, one or more of which may be completed at an international partner university or business schools. The total minimum credit required for an undergraduate award is 360 credits including 120 credits at level 6 and a minimum of 120 credits at level 5 of which 60 may be obtained on SPA. The minimum study and level is 120 credits at level 6 and 60 at level 5 with an allowable RPCL or RPEL import of 180 credits constituting 120 at level 4 and 60 at level 5.


The maximum amount of RPCL/RPEL credit that can D3.2.5contribute to a final award is 50% of credit volume.

D3.3 Master’s Awards

The maximum duration of study for a taught master’s D3.3.1

level programme is 3 years beyond the expected completion date of the programme.

Taught Master’s degrees (MA/MSc) have a total credit D3.3.2

pass value of 180 credits at level 7 of which the dissertation is normally worth 60 credits. The typical duration of study required for the programme is 12 months of full time study (or 24 months of part time study where allowed under programme specific regulations). The minimum study and level is 180 credits at level 7 with a maximum of 60 taught credits of RPCL or RPEL import allowed. The import of RPCL/RPEL credits is determined at programme level subject to the 60 credit limit.

The Master of Business Administration (MBA D3.3.3

International Business) has a total credit pass value of 180 credits at level 7 of which the Business Project is worth 40 credits. The typical duration of study required is 12 months of full time study including 2 taught terms, a Study Period Abroad, and MBA Business Project. The minimum study level is 180 credits at level 7 with no import of RPCL or RPEL allowed.

Postgraduate Diploma. The total credit at the specified D3.3.4

level required for an award is 120 credits at level 7. The typical duration of study required is 12 months of full time study (or 24 months of part time study where allowed under programme specific regulations). The minimum study at level 7 is 120 credits at the University, with a maximum import of 40 credits for RPCL or RPEL allowed.

Postgraduate Certificate. The total credit at the D3.3.5

specified level required for an award is 60 credits at level 7 with a maximum import of 20 credits for RPCL / RPEL allowed unless otherwise stated in programme regulations. The typical duration of study required is 6 months of full time study (or 12 months of part time study where allowed under programme specific regulations).


D3.4 Research and Higher Degrees

Credit values for research and higher degrees and D3.4.1

permissible APL/RPEL credits are governed by the regulations of the validating body.

D4 Breaks in Studies and withdrawal from a programme

D4.1 Registration

All full-time and part-time students, including visiting D4.1.1

students, who are actively following a programme of study at Regent’s University London are required to renew their registration every academic period, otherwise the registration will be deemed to have lapsed. Should this occur, then students will be at risk of being withdrawn by the University.

D4.2 Authorised Break in Studies

Students may request a break in studies for a variety D4.2.1

of reasons including, but not limited to, medical, personal, financial and visa related issues, for a minimum period of one term and a maximum period of one academic year, provided that the maximum period of registration for the programme is not exceeded.

Students should discuss their situation and seek D4.2.2

advice from a member of the Student Support team. The Student Support team may refer a student to other departments to discuss specific financial implications e.g. impact on student loans, outstanding fees or University bursaries, before applying to the relevant Programme Director.

International students studying on a student visa D4.2.3

should also discuss their situation with the Student Immigration Advisory Service at the University to assess the implications on their immigration status. Regent’s University London is obliged to inform the UK Home Office of any break in studies for students whom it sponsors, which will result in the student being required to leave the UK immediately.

In reviewing the student’s request to take a break in D4.2.4

studies, the Programme Director will take into consideration the timing and duration of the break, and the possible impact on the student’s engagement with the programme and assessment and re-assessment opportunities.


Students may commence a break in studies no later D4.2.5

than two weeks before the end of teaching on the modules involved, with the specific deadline being Friday 5pm in the week prior to this. Where students miss the deadline for a break in studies the normal extenuating circumstances process applies, and will have to be followed for all remaining assignments.

In order to be valid, a break in studies must be D4.2.6

endorsed by both the student and the Programme Director in writing, specifying the duration of the break and expected return date. The break in studies will then be recorded by the Student Registry.

Any marks that the student has received for that term D4.2.7

will be forfeited and the student will be expected to restart their modules upon their return to the University.

Students who are on an authorised break in studies D4.2.8

are not registered with the University and therefore students do not have access rights to certain facilities. Students should remain in contact with the University and keep their Regent’s email account active for any important communications.

Students are subject to the University’s refund policy D4.2.9

(see Fees and Financial Assistance section).

D4.3 Students Returning from a Break in Studies

Students are responsible for making all the necessary D4.3.1

arrangements, including requesting a new visa if necessary, in order to be able to return to their studies by the agreed date.

If the student has any outstanding debts to the D4.3.2University as a result of previous study, the debt must be cleared. In exceptional circumstances, students may agree an appropriate repayment plan with the Finance Department.

Programmes and module specifications may have D4.3.3changed or been revised during the students break in studies. Where this has happened the student should seek advice from the Student Registry or the Programme Director.

Students failing to return after the agreed break in D4.3.4studies period will be withdrawn from the programme. In exceptional circumstances, whereby a student is


unable to return after one academic year, the student may request a further break in studies for a period of up to one additional academic year. The additional break in studies is subject to the provision of valid extenuating circumstances with supporting evidence and approval by the Programme Director.

D4.4 Student withdrawal from a Programme

Students seeking to withdraw from a programme of D4.4.1

study at Regent’s University London should discuss their situation and seek advice from a member of the Student Support team or Programme Director in the first instance, to ensure that an informed decision is reached.

International students studying on a student visa D4.4.2

should also discuss their situation with the Student Immigration Advisory Service at the University to assess the implications on their immigration status. Regent’s University London is obliged to inform the UK Home Office of any withdrawals for students whom it sponsors, which will result in the student being required to leave the UK immediately.

To withdraw from a programme of study the student D4.4.3

must notify the Student Registry in writing. The date of withdrawal will be the date the withdrawal is recorded. If the withdrawal is during term time, any marks that have been received for that term will therefore be forfeited.

Upon confirmation of the withdrawal, students who D4.4.4

have achieved the required number of credits to be eligible for an exit award will be offered the appropriate award.

Students will be able to return to the original D4.4.5

programme of study after two years, from the date of withdrawal, has passed. Students must go through the normal admissions process.

Where a student has accepted an exit award the D4.4.6

student cannot apply to transfer those credits through the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) scheme to another Regent’s University London programme, or the original programme of study if they decide to return after two years from the date of withdrawal.

Students are subject to the University’s refund policy D4.4.7

(see Fees and Financial Assistance section).


D4.5 Attendance and Lateness

D4.5.1 Students are expected to comply with the University’s attendance policy.

D4.5.2 If attendance falls below 75% in a module, the student will be advised to meet with a member of the Student Support Team.

D4.5.3 If attendance falls below 75% across all registered modules being recorded for attendance monitoring purposes, the student will be suspended from their studies.

D4.5.4 If a student has been suspended, they will be invited to attend a further meeting with a member of the Student Support Team to discuss the implications of their suspension. If the student has mitigating circumstances, they must provide the member of the Student Support Team with evidence of their mitigation. This evidence to be submitted to the University Extenuation Panel. Such evidence to consist of dated official documents such as medical certificates and to refer to a continuous period of absence of longer than one week.

D4.5.5 Individual module and programme guides may stipulate that attendance is mandatory for particular sessions or activities which are deemed to be essential for progression in a module or programme.

D4.5.6 A student will be marked ‘late’ for an event (lecture, seminar, tutorial etc.) if the student arrives after the event has started.

D4.5.7 Students who are recorded as ‘late’ on 40% or more of all recorded events of a module will be given one ‘penalty point’ under the ‘Student Disciplinary Policy’ (available on the Academic Registry intranet pages). The ‘Student Disciplinary Policy’ rules will apply and students are able to appeal against any decisions made.

D4.5.8.1 If a student receives two ‘penalty points’ in any given term they will be required to meet with the Dean of Students.


D5 Examination Regulations

Once a student commences an examination or D5.1.1

submits an assignment, they have deemed themselves fit to take the examination and cannot subsequently make a retrospective claim for extenuating circumstances, unless the exceptions under D5.1.2 apply.

The following exceptions will apply for assessments D5.1.2

which require attendance, such as examinations, presentations, in-class tests etc.:

(a) Students who have a valid ‘Student Support Agreement’ in place for a clinically diagnosed disorder which may affect the student’s ability to judge their fitness to take the examination, may submit an extenuating circumstances claim with appropriate medical evidence. The evidence must state that the student was not in a fit mental state to assess their fitness to take the examination.

(b) Where a student becomes ill during the examination and emergency services attend, i.e. paramedics or first aider, the student may submit an extenuating circumstances claim with appropriate medical evidence.

D5.2 Types of examinations

Open examination: candidates undertaking an open D5.2.1

examination may bring into the examination room any materials, including their own notes and textbooks.

Restricted examination: candidates undertaking a D5.2.2

restricted examination may only bring into the examination room such materials as are specifically permitted and detailed on the examination question paper, for example reference books or textbooks.

Closed examination: candidates undertaking a closed D5.2.3

examination are not permitted to bring into the examination room any materials, including their own notes, unless expressly permitted and detailed on the examination question paper.

Candidates should assume an examination is closed D5.2.4

unless they are informed otherwise by their module tutor/Programme Director.


D5.3 Examination Timetable

The Student Registry will prepare and publish a D5.3.1

timetable for all invigilated examinations.

Individual examination timetables will be published on D5.3.2each students’ online account detailing the date of the examinations, room number of the examinations and the students’ candidate number.

It is the responsibility of each individual student to D5.3.3

ensure that they have checked the timetable in relation to all modules for which they are registered, including any resit examinations. Should a clash in their timetable arise the candidate must inform the Student Registry immediately

It may be necessary for students to attend an D5.3.4

examination on days or at times other than those on which they would normally attend the University. It may also be necessary for students to sit more than one examination on any one day. Such considerations shall not normally be valid grounds for a review of the timetable.

Should the need arise, accompanying information will D5.3.5

be provided by the Student Registry with explicit directions to the location of the examination.

The timetable may be subject to changes and D5.3.6

therefore it is the responsibility of each individual student to ensure that they have checked the timetable again in relation to all the modules for which they have registered.

If for any unforeseen reason there is a need to change D5.3.7

the location, time or date of an examination, the Student Registry will communicate this information to the affected student.

D5.4 Candidate responsibilities

The Student Guide to Examination Regulations can be D5.4.1

found on the guidelines section of the Academic Registry intranet pages.

The candidate is responsible for checking in advance D5.4.2

the timetable of examinations for the modules for which they are registered. Should a clash in their examination timetable arise the candidate must inform the Student Registry immediately.


The candidate is required to ensure they have read D5.4.3the Examination Invigilation Regulations and understand that by attending an examination they are agreeing to abide by the regulations contained herein.

Candidates must bring their University identity (ID) D5.4.4

card, or other acceptable photographic identity, to each examination. Acceptable photographic identity is a passport, driving license, or CitizenCard.

Candidates may only enter an examination when D5.4.5

instructed by an invigilator and must follow all instructions given by the invigilator at all times.

Upon arrival at an examination, if a student is not on D5.4.6

the attendance list, the student will be allowed to start the examination whilst the Student Registry investigate the reason why the student is not on the attendance list. If it transpires that the student should not be taking that examination, for whatever reason, the student will be requested to leave the examination, and a note will be made on the student’s examination paper and the invigilation report.

D5.5 Invigilator Responsibilities

Please note that the Guidelines for Invigilators can be D5.5.1

found on the Academic Registry intranet pages.

Invigilators are appointed by the Assessments and D5.5.2Awards Manager / Senior Exams and Assessment Officer and may not delegate their appointment. If an invigilator is unable to invigilate an examination they must inform the Student Registry immediately.

Invigilators must ensure that they comply with the D5.5.3

regulations contained within the Examination Invigilation Regulations and any other guidelines prescribed by the University.

Invigilators must give their full attention to the D5.5.4

examination which they are invigilating and be able to observe the entire examination room.

Invigilators must not leave the candidates D5.5.5

unsupervised at any time during the examination.

Invigilators must collect all examination scripts, papers D5.5.6and any other material required from the Student Registry a minimum of 30 minutes before the start of an examination.


Upon arrival invigilators must ensure that the D5.5.7examination room is suitable for an examination to occur.

Invigilators must place face down on the desk the D5.5.8

examination paper (i.e. question paper) and ensure that each desk is equipped with a copy of each of the materials as described in the rubric of the question paper.

Invigilators must not admit candidates to the room until D5.5.9

the room is fully prepared.

Invigilators must check the identity of each candidate D5.5.10for the examination and ensure each candidate signs against the recorded name on the examination register.

Invigilators must state the following to all candidates D5.5.11

prior to the start of an examination: Please check your examination paper title on the front cover to see that it is the correct paper, and if not please raise your hand and wait for an invigilator to approach to you.

Invigilators must read the examination rules, provided D5.5.12

by the Student Registry, to candidates prior to each examination.

Invigilators must ensure the examination begins and D5.5.13

ends at the prescribed times. Should an evacuation take place the regulations under D5.7 will apply.

At the end of the examination, and before dismissing D5.5.14

candidates, invigilators must:

(a) collect all answer scripts and check that the front cover has been completed;

(b) verify that the number of answer scripts match the number issued.

The invigilator shall arrange for scripts and calculators D5.5.15

to be collected and checked against the attendance register.

All invigilators must complete the Examination D5.5.16

Invigilation Report Form at the end of the examination.

D5.6 Standard examination regulations

Candidates with individual student support D5.6.1

agreements in place may have specific reasons as to why certain aspects of the examination invigilation


regulations cannot be followed. These allowances will be clearly articulated in the student support agreement. Where a student support agreement is not in place or not applicable to a particular rule, candidates must comply with the standard invigilation regulations.

Candidates who have two examinations on the same D5.6.2

day, and due to the additional time granted to them under their individual support arrangements do not get a break between examinations; must be given a supervised break at the end of the first examination.

For any examination with more than one student there D5.6.3

must be a minimum of two invigilators per examination room.

There must be one invigilator present at all times in D5.6.4

the examination room. For closely linked rooms, the second invigilator may monitor multiple rooms

Student ID cards: D5.6.5

(a) Candidates for examination must display on their desks at all times their student or other acceptable photographic identity card (for example, passport);

(b) During the examination the invigilator will verify the attendance of each candidate, confirming their identity against the ID card and ask the candidate to sign the register;

(c) Candidates who, for religious reasons, keep their face covered will be required to go to a private room with a female invigilator before the exam begins, to confirm their identity.

Candidates who present themselves for an D5.6.6

examination deem themselves fit to take the examination and the regulation found in section D5.1.1 of this handbook would apply for any extenuating circumstances claims.

Candidates must ensure that they begin and end the D5.6.7

examination during the prescribed examination time only. Candidates may not continue to write on their examination paper once the prescribed examination time has ended.

Candidates may not leave the examination within half D5.6.8

an hour of its commencement, or enter an examination more than half an hour after the start.


Candidates who arrive late for an examination will not D5.6.9be given any additional time under any circumstances.

Candidates will not be permitted to temporarily leave D5.6.10

the room during the examination except to visit the lavatory. All candidates leaving the examination room must be accompanied by an invigilator.

Invigilators will record the names of candidates who D5.6.11

for any reason temporarily leave the examination room and the times they leave and return. A candidate who leaves the examination room without obtaining an invigilator’s permission shall be deemed to have withdrawn from the examination. Such action must be reported to the Student Registry and recorded on the Examination Invigilation Report Form.

At the end of the examination all candidates must D5.6.12

remain seated and not communicate with other candidates until dismissed by the invigilator. Candidates may not leave the examination room within 15 minutes of the finishing time.

Candidates must not bring unauthorised material to D5.6.13

their desk. All notes and materials, including electronic devices capable of storing or retrieving relevant material, or of communicating inside or outside the examination room, must be removed from pockets and placed with other unauthorised material in a suitable place away from the examination desks unless authorised in specific circumstances e.g. open book exam. The invigilators will direct candidates to place their notes, books, bags, coats, hats, etc. at the back of the hall or in another suitable place away from examination desks.

Mobile phones and any other communication devices D5.6.14

must not be used during the examination. All devices must be switched off and stored in a suitable place away from the examination desks. Candidates caught with any form of communication device in their possession will be deemed to have breached the examination invigilation regulations and will be subject to the appropriate academic misconduct regulations.

Candidates may not use their own calculators for D5.6.15

examinations. Before any exam with calculators, the invigilator must ask the candidates to perform a test calculation before the exam starts on the calculators provided. Should a candidate report a calculator provided by the University as faulty, the invigilator must set aside and deliver the calculator to the


Student Registry for checking when the exam is finished. The candidate will be provided with a replacement calculator immediately.

Candidates may not use dictionaries during an D5.6.16

examination.

Smoking is not permitted during an examination. D5.6.17

Only water, soft drinks and cough sweets are allowed D5.6.18into the examination room at the discretion of the invigilator.

Candidates must not bring with them equipment, such D5.6.19

as audible alarm watches or personal stereos, which may disturb other candidates or present the possessor with the possibility of gaining an unfair advantage.

Candidates must not attempt to communicate with D5.6.20

anyone other than the invigilators during the examination. To attract an invigilator’s attention the candidate should raise a hand and remain seated until an invigilator is able to speak with him/her.

In the event of a candidate causing a disturbance, an D5.6.21

invigilator should take appropriate action, bearing in mind the interests of other candidates. This may involve warning the candidate that his/her behaviour may lead to exclusion from the examination if an invigilator considers that the situation justifies such action. Any such action must be reported to the Student Registry and recorded on the Examination Invigilation Report Form.

If an invigilator suspects a candidate of cheating, D5.6.22

he/she should act to ensure that the case can be effectively investigated following the examination. Notes or other unauthorised materials should be taken from the candidate and a short report of the occurrence, including the time, recorded on the candidate’s script and the Examination Invigilator’s Report Form. The candidate should be allowed to continue the examination, unless the nature of the misdemeanour interferes with other candidates, for instance where the candidate suspected of cheating refuses to co-operate with the invigilator. At the end of the examination, any materials taken from the candidate, together with a report of the incident, should be sent to the Student Registry, which will be responsible for ensuring that the Academic Misconduct Board considers the case. The invigilator has the right to require a student to empty his/her


pockets in the presence of a witness, being another invigilator or member of staff.

A candidate who will not accept the authority of an D5.6.23

invigilator may be excluded from the examination. Should this situation arise a report must be made to the Student Registry and recorded on the Examination Invigilator’s Report Form.

The Chief Examination Invigilator must report to the D5.6.24

Student Registry, any incidents during the examination which may have affected any candidates’ performances and these should be recorded on the Examination Invigilator’s Report Form. The Student Registry will bring any such information to the attention of the assessment board.

If a candidate suspects another candidate of cheating D5.6.25

in an examination they should raise their hand and inform the invigilator. The invigilator will deal with this as noted in the regulations in this section.

The Student Registry shall release completed scripts D5.6.26

to the appropriate academic member of staff for marking, only after they have been checked against the attendance sheet.

D5.7 Fire alarm/evacuation proceedings

Before the examination has begun: D5.7.1

(a) If candidates are in an examination room and the examination has not yet started the invigilator will instruct the candidates to leave the room. All materials, answer booklets, question papers etc., must remain in the room;

(b) Provided that the evacuation does not last longer than 30 minutes, candidates will be permitted to return to the examination room and resume the examination when the evacuation is over. Time lost due to the evacuation will be added to the examination time. Evacuations that last for more than 30 minutes will result in the termination of the examination. A new examination, with a new set of questions, will be rearranged for an alternate day;

(c) Candidates may leave the examination at the original scheduled end time however they will not be eligible to apply for extenuating circumstances or for a review of their mark should they choose to leave early. No candidate will be permitted to leave within the final 15 minutes of the examination.


During the examination: D5.7.2

(a) Candidates will be instructed to leave the examination room and leave all materials (question papers, answer booklets, notepaper etc.) on their desks;

(b) Invigilators must supervise the candidates throughout the evacuation and ensure the candidates do not talk to each other during this time;

(c) Candidates remain under examination conditions throughout the evacuation and are subject to the same penalties if they breach any of the examination invigilation regulations;

(d) Invigilators must note the time and duration of the evacuation;

(e) Provided that the evacuation does not last longer than 30 minutes, candidates will be permitted to return to the examination room and resume the examination when the evacuation is over. Time lost due to the evacuation will be added to the examination time. Candidates may leave the examination at the original scheduled end time however they will not be eligible to apply for extenuating circumstances or for a review of their mark should they choose to leave early. No candidate will be permitted to leave within the final 15 minutes of the examination;

(f) Evacuations that last for more than 30 minutes will result in the termination of the examination. A new examination, with a new set of questions, will be rearranged for an alternate day.

(g) Where an examination is conducted on multiple sites and an evacuation is required at one of the sites; the same examination events at all other locations must also be stopped for the same length of time. If it is not possible to resume the exam at the location of the evacuation, then the other events of the same exam must also be stopped and rescheduled.

D5.8 Use of computers in an examination

All candidates who require a computer to undertake an D5.8.1

examination must do so in a dedicated computing room.


The invigilator will ensure before the commencement D5.8.2of the examination that all editing features within the software (for example spell-check) are disabled. Access to the internet must also be disabled.

Candidates must log in to each computer with a D5.8.3

secure log in, provided by the Student Registry, unless otherwise instructed.

The invigilator will ensure that documents can be D5.8.4

saved to two separate sources: the designated drive and a USB port (provided by the Student Registry).

Appropriately timed reminders must be given to the D5.8.5

candidates throughout the examination to save their work. Isolated incidents of computer failure will not be compensated.

Any examinations undertaken through Blackboard D5.8.6

must be “open book”. “Restricted” or “closed” examinations must follow the standard examination format and may only access the materials/software which are required to complete the examination.

Candidates who attempt to access files, the internet or D5.8.7

any other document or software which is not permitted in the rubric of the examination paper will be subject to the academic misconduct regulations and penalised accordingly.

Secure printing will be completed by the invigilator. D5.8.8

The candidate must sign the “sign-in” sheet and initial their printed paperwork to confirm the work is their own.

Candidates are not permitted to retain a copy of their D5.8.9

work.

No additional time will be given to candidates using a D5.8.10computer unless this is clearly prescribed in the student support agreement or if an IT failure is acknowledged by the University.

D6 Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct

D6.1 Academic Integrity:

The practice of approaching academic and scholarly D6.1.1

work honestly, by completing one’s own work, by attributing and acknowledging sources when


necessary and by not relying on dishonest means to gain advantage.

D6.2 Academic Misconduct/Unfair Practice:

Any act whereby a person may obtain an unpermitted D6.2.1

advantage for himself/herself or for another. This shall apply whether the candidate acts alone or in collusion with another/others. Any action or actions shall be deemed to fall within this definition whether occurring during, or in relation to, a formal examination, a piece of coursework, or any form of assessment undertaken in pursuit of a qualification. These include (but are not limited to) plagiarism, collusion, falsification, and cheating.

D6.3 Institution

The QAA stipulates that all aspects of assessment D6.3.1

should be carried out ‘in a way which ensures the integrity of the assessment process and in turn the integrity of the academic standards of each award.’(QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education on Assessment of students and the recognition of prior learning, 2013, Chapter B6, Indicator 11).

The QAA stipulates that institutions ‘operate effective D6.3.2

policies, regulations and processes which ensure that the academic standard for each award of credit or a qualification is rigorously set and maintained at the appropriate level, and that student performance is equitably judged against this standard’” (QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education on Assessment of students and the recognition of prior learning, 2013, Chapter B6, Indicator 1).

The University promotes academic integrity through: D6.3.3

(a) Providing information about academic integrity and academic misconduct policy at student orientations and at staff inductions;

(b) Providing a secure system for the hand-in of student work;

(c) Providing a secure system for the return of student work;

(d) Ensuring that appropriate systems of identity check and invigilation occur for examinations;

(e) The use of electronic plagiarism-detection software (such as Turnitin) for assessed work;


(f) Providing students with the University’s Study Skills Handbook;

(g) Supporting staff development to improve learning and teaching strategies for academic integrity.

D6.4 Disciplinary Policy for Academic Misconduct

The QAA requires institutions to ‘operate processes D6.4.1

for preventing, identifying, investigating and responding to unacceptable academic practise.’.’ (QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education on Assessment of students and the recognition of prior learning, 2013, Chapter B6, Indicator 14). The QAA also requires institutions to ensure that all regulations and processes are ‘explicit, transparent and accessible to all intended audiences.’ (QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education on Assessment of students and the recognition of prior learning, 2013, Chapter B6, Indicator 2).

D6.5 Responsibilities of Students and Regent’s University London

Regent’s University London will provide all students D6.5.1

with access to the Study Skills Handbook. It is the responsibility of each student to read the Study Skills Handbook and follow the rules contained therein. It will not be deemed an acceptable defence for a student to claim they were not aware of the rules and regulations regarding academic misconduct.

D6.6 Types of Offences

Plagiarism D6.6.1

Using without acknowledgement another person’s words or ideas and submitting them for assessment as though it were one’s own work; for instance by copying, translating from one language to another or unacknowledged paraphrasing. Plagiarism is theft of another’s intellectual property.

Examples of plagiarism include: D6.6.2

Use of any quotation(s) from the published or unpublished work of other persons, whether published in textbooks, articles, the Web, or in any other format, which have not been clearly identified as such by being placed in quotation marks and acknowledged.


Use of another person’s words or ideas that has been slightly changed or paraphrased to make it look different from the original

Summarising another person’s ideas, judgements, diagrams, figures, or computer programmes without reference to that person in the text and the source in the bibliography.

Use of services of essay banks and/or any other agencies.

Use of unacknowledged material downloaded from the Internet.

Re-use of one’s own material (or resubmission of previously assessed work from another module) except where authorised by the department/programme.

Collusion D6.6.3

Work that has been undertaken by or with others is submitted and passed off as solely the work of one person. This also applies where the work of one candidate is submitted in the name of another. Where this is done with the knowledge of the originator, both parties can be considered to be at fault.

Fabrication of Data D6.6.4

Making false claims to have carried out experiments, observations, interviews or other forms of data collection and analysis, or acting dishonestly in any other way.

Falsification of Evidence D6.6.5

Presentation of evidence of special circumstances which is false or falsified or which in any way misleads or could mislead Boards of Examiners.

Cheating D6.6.6

The means by which a candidate gains or attempts to gain unfair advantage in examinations, tests and coursework

Breaching of the Examination Regulations in Section D5.

Any breach of the Examination Regulations, whether intentionally or unintentionally will be regarded as academic misconduct.

D6.7 Procedures for Misconduct Investigation and Penalties


When an academic staff member suspects D6.7.1misconduct, for example, plagiarism within a piece of work, s/he must first establish whether the evidence verifies the suspicion. This might be through consulting secondary sources, internet searches or plagiarism detection software such as Turnitin or by conducting a viva voce with the student.

For a first minor offence the following regulations will D6.7.2

apply:

(a) EITHER:

The student admits to a first minor academic misconduct and the lecturer/tutor applies the following penalty: the assessment is repaired and capped at the pass mark;

The lecturer/tutor informs the Assessment and Awards Manager in the Student Registry of the academic misconduct;

The Assessment and Awards Manager logs the misconduct on the student’s record in the Student Records System (SITs). The process is completed, and there is no requirement for this to go to the Academic Misconduct Board.

(b) OR:

The student disputes that they have committed a first minor academic misconduct, in which case the full academic misconduct process should be followed as detailed below.

If misconduct of an individual can be evidenced, the D6.7.3

tutor/lecturer informs the Assessment and Awards Manager of the misconduct and forwards all the appropriate evidence to the Student Registry.

If group work misconduct can be evidenced, the D6.7.4tutor/lecturer informs the Assessment and Awards Manager of the misconduct and forwards all the appropriate evidence to the Student Registry. To include evidence against individual(s) or the group as a whole.

The Assessment and Awards Manager convenes an D6.7.5

Academic Misconduct Board which will consist of the following members:

Three independent permanent members of academic staff, one of whom shall be Chair;

Assessment and Awards Manager (non-voting member).


The independent academic staff will be selected from D6.7.6

a group of 10 academic staff appointed to the position each year by the Assessment and Awards Manager.

The Assessment and Awards Manager’s role is to D6.7.7

ensure that all Academic Misconduct Boards are consistent in the application of the regulations, and advise the panel on regulatory and/or procedural issues.

A Secretary will be appointed to the Board to record all D6.7.8

decisions and recommendations made.

The student is invited to represent themselves to the D6.7.9Board either in person or via a written statement. Where a student chooses to attend the Board they may be accompanied by a fellow student or a student union representative. However, meetings are not arranged around the student’s availability.

The lecturer/tutor involved in the academic misconduct D6.7.10

case may attend the Academic Misconduct Board should they choose to do so.

The Board will convene twice each term, the first D6.7.11

meeting will be mid-term (around the 8th week) and the second meeting will take place after the final examinations.

The Board reviews the information presented and D6.7.12

decides whether the student has committed an offence. If the Board decides an offence has been committed, the Board will recommend a penalty to the Subject Board to ratify.

The Subject Board cannot overturn the decision of the D6.7.13

Academic Misconduct Board but may, if appropriate, review the penalty applied.

Where the Academic Misconduct Board decides that D6.7.14

no academic offence has occurred, all records relating to the incident will be deleted from the student’s file.

The student will be informed by the Student Registry D6.7.15

within one week of the Academic Misconduct Boards meeting as to the outcome and, where appropriate, the recommended penalty. If academic misconduct has occurred the student will be formally notified of the final penalty applied once the Subject Board has met to ratify the recommendation of the Academic Misconduct Board. The student must be given


feedback which states what the penalty is and why it has been applied.

If a student disagrees with the decision made by the D6.7.16

Subject Board, they should refer to the Regent’s University London ‘Student Appeals and Complaints’ regulations contained in section D8.

D6.8 Viva Voce procedures

Where an academic staff member suspects that the D6.8.1

work submitted is not entirely the student’s own work, then a viva voce examination may be held to verify the authenticity of the student’s work. A viva voce may be held to verify the authenticity of any assessment where academic misconduct is suspected.

The student must be informed of the reasons the viva D6.8.2

voce is taking place before the viva voce, and will be asked to bring his/her sources for the work in question to the viva voce.

The student must be given a minimum of 24 hours’ D6.8.3

notice of the viva voce.

If the student fails to attend the viva voce or requests D6.8.4alternative dates, then the student will be offered two further dates. If the student fails to attend any of the 3 given dates that have been offered, then the student will not be offered any further dates and a decision will be made by the viva voce panel based on the evidence available, and, where appropriate, a report will be submitted to the academic misconduct panel.

The membership of the viva voce panel will be: D6.8.5

(a) Chair - Head of School/Department or nominee.

(b) Two academic staff members with knowledge of the relevant discipline, one of whom will be the academic staff member who requested the viva voce examination and the other one shall be independent of the module.

As this is an examination of the student’s knowledge D6.8.6

of the assessment submitted the student may not be accompanied by a friend or supporter unless by prior agreement of the Chair. This will only be given if it is required to accommodate the student’s disability or other special needs.

Students may not have legal representation at a viva D6.8.7

voce examination.


Staff must make notes of the meeting as this can form D6.8.8

the evidence base for the Academic Misconduct Board or any future investigations. Notes can be taken by a panel member or a designated note-taker, where a third party note-taker is employed they cannot be involved in the discussions or the decision making process.

During the viva voce the student will be asked D6.8.9

questions relating to his/her submission.

The panel will consider the student’s responses and D6.8.10will inform the student of the panel’s decision within one working day of the viva voce. The panel’s decision will be that:

(a) The student has satisfied the panel the assessment submitted by the student is his/her own work and no further action will be taken.

(b) The student has not satisfied the panel the assessment submitted by the student is his/her own work and the panel will be forwarding the case to the Academic Misconduct Board.

If the panel needs to conduct further investigations D6.8.11

they will inform the student within 24 hours of the viva voce examination of the need to conduct further investigation and that a decision will be provided within 5 working days. In exceptional cases where the panel requires more than three working days to conduct the investigation and make a decision they will inform the student of the date by which they will provide their decision.

Where the panel concludes that the student has not D6.8.12

satisfied the panel the assessment submitted by the student is his/her own work, the full academic misconduct process should be followed as detailed below. A report from the Chair of the viva voce panel should be included as part of the evidence base against the student.

D6.9 Level of Offence

Academic misconduct offences are split into three D6.9.1

categories: ‘minor’, ‘major’, and ‘severe’.

Minor Offences D6.9.2


(a) Inappropriate use of referencing system which includes but is not limited to the following:

Unattributed quotations;

Persistent inappropriate paraphrasing;

Multiple missing, incorrect, or incomplete citations;

Inclusion of whole paragraphs or sections of unattributed work.

Major Offences D6.9.3

(a) After committing a confirmed minor offence, the second confirmed minor offence will be deemed to be a major offence.

(b) Examples of major offences include but are not limited to the following:

Submission of the same piece of work, or major part thereof, for assessment;

Breaching the Examination Invigilation Regulations (with the exception of those listed under Severe Offences);

The lending of work which has been submitted for assessment to another student2;

Collusion;

Cheating.

Severe Offences D6.9.4

(a) After committing two confirmed major offences, the third confirmed major offence will be deemed to be a severe offence.

(b) Examples of severe offences include but are not limited to the following;

Buying work from essay services or similar;

Commissioning work from individuals or organisations;

Obtaining access to an unseen examination or test prior to the start of an examination/test;

2 Note: Students should treat their academic work as their own property. It is

the student’s responsibility to protect their own work. Students should ensure that electronic copies of their work are stored securely and cannot be copied or stolen by another person.


Impersonating another person during an examination or arranging for another person to impersonate you during an examination;

Evidence of extensive Collusion;

Evidence of extensive Cheating;

Fabrication of data;

Falsification of evidence.

D6.10 Penalties

The penalty applied will be dependent on the evidence D6.10.1

and seriousness of any attempt to deceive. In the case of group work this will be evidence against individual(s) or the group as a whole.

Minor: The student must resubmit the assessment, D6.10.2

correcting the misconduct. The component will be capped at the component pass mark (i.e. 40% for foundation and undergraduate programmes, 50% for postgraduate programmes).

Major: No right to resit/resubmit the work. The student D6.10.3

must retake the module and the module will be capped at the pass mark. If a student chooses to take a different module (where applicable) the alternative module will also be capped at the pass mark.

Severe: The panel has two recommendations D6.10.4

available to them:

(a) Suspend the student for one academic term;

(b) Expel the student from the University (there is no right of return if a student is expelled).

Any penalty imposed as the result of an academic D6.10.5

misconduct investigation overrides any decision taken with regard to an extenuating circumstance claim or that of an assessment board.

D7 Extenuating Circumstances

D7.1 Valid grounds for Extenuating Circumstances

Extenuating circumstances are defined as serious D7.1.1

unforeseen, unpreventable circumstances that significantly disrupt a student’s ability to complete an assessment.

Provided that they have notified the relevant member D7.1.2

of Student Services staff, students with long term or


chronic illness are supported through individual support arrangements. It is therefore anticipated that students with long term or chronic illness will not submit extenuating circumstances claims in relation to these conditions, unless they suffer a sudden deterioration of their condition around the assessment period. Where that occurs, students would need to meet the conditions relating to extenuating circumstances.

The definition of ‘extenuating circumstances’ is not D7.1.3

exhaustive and will include:

(a) Illness with certified evidence.

(b) Death or serious illness of a close member of the family/partner/friend.

(c) Unforeseen and evidenced University computer network or systems failure.

(d) Unforeseen and evidenced failure in the system of communication between the student and the Student Registry.

(e) Any other circumstance deemed to be reasonable by the University e.g. force majeure.

Extenuating Circumstances may be submitted in D7.1.4

relation to any assessment, for the:

(a) non-submission of an assessment by the deadline set, or in the case of a resubmission by the agreed University reassessment deadline;

(b) non-attendance of an assessment requiring attendance, e.g. presentation, test, examination, viva voce or performance.

D7.2 Procedures

If a student needs to bring extenuating circumstances D7.2.1

to the attention of the University, then he or she must provide the Student Registry with a completed Extenuating Circumstances Request Form, together with the appropriate documentation.

D7.3 Timing of Submission

In order for the claim to be accepted for consideration D7.3.1

the student must inform the Student Registry before the deadline for the assessment to be handed in, or the date of an assessment requiring attendance (examination, test, or presentation).


Retrospective approval of extenuating circumstances D7.3.2will only be granted where a student falls ill and is unable to contact the Student Registry on the day. In such cases, the student must inform the Student Registry within ten working days and submit an extenuating circumstances form within twenty-four hours of returning to the University.

D7.4 Documentary evidence

All claims must be substantiated by independent D7.4.1

documentary evidence. This must be an official document and include the dates during which the circumstances applied.

The evidence provided must be original. Photocopied D7.4.2

or faxed copies will not be accepted.

Medical evidence must be in the form of a medical D7.4.3certificate or a doctor’s letter, and must state the period of illness, be legible and signed by the doctor. Self-certification will not be accepted.

Medical evidence must be from a doctor registered D7.4.4

with the General Medical Council, or the equivalent overseas registration body.

In the event of a death of a close member of D7.4.5

family/partner/friend, a death certificate must be provided.

Documentary evidence must be in presented in D7.4.6

English, where necessary, translations must be provided using an authorised translator.

D7.5 Extenuating Circumstances Board

All extenuating circumstances claims will be D7.5.1

considered by an Extenuating Circumstances Board.

The Extenuating Circumstances Board will decide D7.5.2whether a student has valid grounds for failing to submit or participate in an assessment.

The Extenuating Circumstances Board can only make D7.5.3

a decision on a claim based on the evidence submitted.

For an extenuating circumstances claim to be D7.5.4

accepted the following conditions must be met by the student:


(a) the documentary evidence provided by the student must meet the specific conditions relating to documentary evidence as set out in section D7.4;

(b) the documentary evidence confirms that the circumstances were unforeseen and unpreventable and relates directly to the timing of the assessment(s) affected.

The Student Registry will inform the student of the D7.5.5

decision made by the Extenuating Circumstances Board within five working days of the Board.

D8 Procedure for dealing with the loss of examination scripts

D8.1 This procedure is also applicable to in-class tests and in cases where the examination script has been damaged beyond legibility by the University.

In the event that the University is unable to locate an D8.1.1examination script, the Student Registry has responsibility for liaising with the relevant invigilator (or other appropriate member of staff) to establish that the student attended the examination and that an examination script was collected from the student.

If an examination script cannot be located following a D8.1.2thorough investigation, the Assessment and Awards Manager shall inform the student in writing.

Consideration shall first be given as to whether the D8.1.3examination constitutes one or more component parts of the relevant module.

Where the examination constitutes one of two D8.1.4component parts of the module, this will be referred to the appropriate examination board for consideration of awarding a mark that is in the best interest of the student.

Where the module is composed of more than two D8.1.5components, an averaged mark shall be awarded to the lost examination assessment to be calculated by an arithmetic mean average of the non-affected components within the module.

In cases where the weighting of the affected D8.1.6examination assessment is 100% of the module, the student shall normally be offered the opportunity to sit the examination again at the earliest available opportunity. The resulting mark of this attempt will not


be capped at a pass mark for the module. An unseen examination rubric will be provided to the student for any attempt taken in these circumstances.

In cases where the student is unable to attend the D8.1.7examination, an alternative assessment may be offered. This is at the discretion of the Programme Director with the approval of the External Examiner.

In instances where a student declines the option of a D8.1.8attempt stated at D8.1.6, a Progression and Finalist Board shall have the discretion to award credit in respect of the examination assessment. However, the minimum pass mark for the assessment shall be awarded in such circumstances.

For modules at NQF Levels 3 or 4, the Student D8.1.9Registry shall report the loss of the examination script and the subsequent actions taken to the relevant Subject Board for ratification.

For modules at NQF Levels 5, 6 or 7, the Student D8.1.10Registry shall report the loss of the examination script and the subsequent actions taken to the appropriate external examiner. This shall occur prior to the Student Registry reporting the loss of the examination script and the subsequent actions taken to the relevant Subject Board for ratification

In instances where an examination script that has D8.1.11been deemed to be lost is subsequently located after the procedures above have been applied, the located examination script shall be marked. The mark awarded to the located examination script shall be compared with that of the examination mark for the second attempt and the higher of the two marks shall be awarded to the student in respect of that examination.

D9 Procedure for dealing with the loss of coursework assessment material

In the event that the University is unable to locate a D9.1.1coursework assessment, the Student Registry has responsibility for liaising with all relevant staff who may have received or handled the coursework assessment to ensure that a thorough investigation is conducted. The investigation should include an exhaustive search of electronic devices, where appropriate.

If a coursework assessment cannot be located D9.1.2following a thorough investigation, the Assessment and Awards Manager shall inform the student in


writing and request that the student provide, within one working day, a copy of their submission, where possible. Students should be instructed by the Student Registry to ensure that they always retain a copy of any submitted coursework assessment, where appropriate.

In instances where a student cannot provide a copy, or D9.1.3where the nature of the coursework assessment precludes the provision of a copy, consideration shall first be given as to whether the coursework assessment constitutes one or more component parts of the relevant module.

Where the coursework assessment constitutes one of D9.1.4two component parts of the module, the University shall award the mark achieved in the corresponding other element to the coursework assessment.

Where the module is composed of more than two D9.1.5components, an averaged mark shall be awarded to the lost coursework assessment to be calculated by an arithmetic mean average of the non-affected components within the module.

a) In cases where the weighting of the affected coursework assessment is 100% of the module, the student shall normally be offered the opportunity to resubmit the coursework assessment at the earliest available opportunity. The resulting mark of this submission will not be capped at a pass mark for the module.

b) In instances where a student declines the option of the submission stated above, a Subject Board shall have the discretion to award credit in respect of the coursework assessment. However, the minimum pass mark for the assessment shall be awarded in such circumstances.

For modules at NQF Levels 3 or 4, the Student D9.1.6Registry shall report the loss of the coursework assessment and the subsequent actions taken to the relevant Subject Board for ratification.

For modules at NQF Levels 5, 6 or 7, the Student D9.1.7Registry shall report the loss of the coursework assessment and the subsequent actions taken to the appropriate external examiner. This shall occur prior to the Student Registry reporting the loss of the coursework assessment and the subsequent actions taken to the relevant Subject Board for ratification.


In instances where coursework material that has been D9.1.8deemed to be lost is subsequently located after the student the procedures above have been applied, the coursework shall be marked. The mark awarded to the located coursework shall be compared with that of the coursework submitted at the second attempt and the higher of the two marks shall be awarded to the student in respect of that coursework assessment.

D10 Student Appeals and Complaints

The University will ensure the following procedures are D10.1.1adhered to. Students should note that all documentation submitted will remain confidential.

The University of Wales requires Regent’s University D10.1.2London to apply an alternative appeals and complaints procedure for students studying on University of Wales validated programmes. The ‘Student Appeals Procedure: University of Wales validated programmes only’ document can be found on the Regent’s University London Academic Registry intranet page, and on Blackboard. The document is also available from the Student Registry.

D10.2 Grounds for Appeal

An Appeals Board composed of senior academic and D10.2.1

academic-related staff from across the University, excluding members of staff who have been involved with the relevant programme/student whose results are being considered, will identify the grounds on which it is asking the relevant assessment board to reconsider its decision if it decides that there are grounds for review.

No circumstances shall constitute ground for appeals D10.2.2

apart from the following:

(a) Either that the candidate has established to the satisfaction of the Appeals Board that the assessment was missed due to a previously undisclosed illness or any other factors which the candidate was unable, or for valid reason unwilling, to divulge before the relevant assessment board reached its decision. The candidate’s request must be supported by medical certificates or other documentary evidence acceptable to the Appeals Board;

(b) Or that the Appeals Board is satisfied on the evidence produced by a candidate or any other


person that there has been a material administrative error; or that the assessments were not conducted in accordance with current regulations for the programme or special arrangements formally agreed; or that some other material irregularity relevant to the assessments has occurred.

Disagreement with the academic judgement of an D10.2.3

assessment board in assessing the merits of an individual element of assessment cannot constitute grounds for an appeal, nor complaints about the delivery or management of a programme expressed only after assessment.

D10.3 Stage 1: Initial Assessment by the University

To be considered, an appeal must be submitted in D10.3.1

writing to the Student Registry not more than 10 working days after the publication of the results from any assessment period.

Students are advised to seek advice from the Student D10.3.2

Support Team and/or the Student Registry prior to submitting their appeal with regards to the evidence and information required on the Appeals Form.

Two senior members of University staff, one from the D10.3.3

Student Registry and a quality officer from the Academic Registry, reviews the appeal within 5 working days of receipt and makes an assessment on whether the student has grounds for appeal.

Where the two members of staff decide that there are D10.3.4

no grounds for appeal then the appeal will be rejected. The student will be informed in writing by the Student Registry of this decision within two working days of the deadline for appeal. If the student disagrees with the decision made at Stage 1 they may have the option of submitting a further appeal to the Academic Registrar (Stage 3).

Where the decision at Stage 1 is that the student does D10.3.5

have grounds for appeal, the appeal will progress to Stage 2.

D10.4 Stage 2: Appeals Board

A senior member of the Student Registry will arrange D10.4.1

an Appeals Board meeting to consider the student appeals submitted within 5 working days of the Stage 1 outcome. Members will receive the appeals


documentation in advance of the meeting. The senior member of the Student Registry will attend the whole duration of the meeting, and may be asked questions for clarification. The student is invited to attend the meeting, and may be accompanied by a fellow student or a student union representative should they choose to do so. However, meetings are not arranged around the student’s availability. If necessary, a representative of the assessment board, or other relevant members of staff may be invited to attend.

After considering all evidence, the Appeals Board will D10.4.2

reach a decision to either dismiss or uphold the appeal.

The Student Registry, on behalf of the Chair of the D10.4.3

Appeals Board, will provide a letter to be sent to the student who has appealed, outlining the reasons for reaching the decision, and advising him/her of their right to appeal to the Academic Registrar (Stage 3).

The student should expect to be notified in writing of D10.4.4

the decision made for appeals considered by an Appeals Board within two working days of the Appeals Board meeting.

Where the appeal is upheld a recommendation must D10.4.5

be made for reconsideration by the relevant reconvened assessment board within 10 working days, subject to the availability of members. The assessment board, after duly considering the evidence, shall agree either to amend or confirm its original decision. The procedures must allow for examiners who agree to amend their decision but who are uncertain about the most appropriate alternative recommendation, to seek additional evidence of the student’s performance. The additional evidence could be obtained either through reassessment at the next opportunity, through a viva voce examination, or through another form of assessment appropriate to the student’s circumstances and to the requirements of the programme of study.

D10.5 Stage 3: Appeal to the Academic Registrar

To be considered, an appeal to the Academic D10.5.1Registrar must be submitted in writing to the Academic Registry not more than 10 working days after the notification of the decision at either Stages 1 or 2.


If a student is unable to meet the deadline for appeal D10.5.2at Stage 1 as outlined in D8.3.1 on the grounds of valid extenuating circumstances supported by compelling and independent documentary evidence, the student may appeal directly to Stage 3. In this case the student must appeal to Stage 3 before the start of the next academic term. Appeals submitted to Stage 3 after the start of the next academic term will not be considered.

A student will have the right to request that their D10.5.3

appeal is reconsidered by the Academic Registrar within 10 working days of receipt of notification of the outcome of stages 1 or 2, in cases where:

(a) a student believes that a decision on their appeal has not taken account of all relevant information, because additional evidence comes to light, which due to exceptional circumstances were not provided at Stages 1 or 2;

(b) a student believes that there has been a material procedural irregularity in the appeals process;

(c) a student believes that there has been procedural unfairness in the appeals process.

If the Academic Registrar, or nominee, determines that D10.5.4

there are grounds for a review of an appeal decision, they will convene a Review Board within 10 working days of receipt.

The members of the Review Board will be drawn from D10.5.5

the membership of the SQAEC and a Secretary will be provided from the Academic Registry. Members who have an interest in the application or has had involvement in the decisions made at Stages 1 or 2 cannot be a member of the Review Board.

After considering all evidence, the Review Board will D10.5.6

reach a decision to either dismiss or uphold the appeal.

The Academic Registrar, or nominee, will provide a D10.5.7

Completion of Procedures letter to be sent to the student who has appealed to outline the reasons for reaching the decision and, where appropriate, advise the student of their right to appeal to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.

The student should expect a decision to be made for D10.5.8

appeals submitted to the Academic Registrar within two working days of the Review Board meeting.


The decision of the Review Board will constitute the D10.5.9final stage of the University’s procedures in the appeals process.

Where the appeal is upheld a recommendation must D10.5.10be made for reconsideration by the relevant reconvened assessment board within 10 working days, subject to the availability of members. The assessment board, after duly considering the evidence, shall agree either to amend or confirm its original decision. The procedures must allow for examiners who agree to amend their decision but who are uncertain about the most appropriate alternative recommendation, to seek additional evidence of the student’s performance. The additional evidence could be obtained either through reassessment at the next opportunity, through a viva voce examination, or through another form of assessment appropriate to the student’s circumstances and to the requirements of the programme of study.

D10.6 Student Complaints

Students should follow the “Student Complaints D10.6.1

Policy”, available on the Academic Registry intranet pages, if they wish to complain in relation to different aspects of their relationship with Regent’s University London. These aspects include personal relationships with academic or administrative staff, any complaints in respect to any services, such as accommodation, catering, Finance, Student Registry, etc., and any complaints in respect of academic programmes or the delivery of such programmes.

http://intranet/facultiesandschools/academicregistry/Policies/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2ffacultiesandschools%2facademicregistry%2fPolicies%2fConfirmed%20Policies&FolderCTID=0x012000BC308C051B3D704E909B065B105B9B2F&View=%7b2A821EB3%2d5E4A%2d4D74%2d8850%2dFF0AEF076DDE%7d

http://intranet/facultiesandschools/academicregistry/Policies/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2ffacultiesandschools%2facademicregistry%2fPolicies%2fConfirmed%20Policies&FolderCTID=0x012000BC308C051B3D704E909B065B105B9B2F&View=%7b2A821EB3%2d5E4A%2d4D74%2d8850%2dFF0AEF076DDE%7d


E Level 3 Academic Regulations

E1 The Admission of Students to a Foundation Programme at Level 3

E1.1 Requirements

The minimum entry requirement to a foundation E1.1.1

programme at level 3 is 5 GCSEs (including English) at grade A-C or equivalent. All applicants must have successfully completed GCSE Mathematics or equivalent.

Where an applicant’s first language is not English, E1.1.2

and/or where an applicant possesses qualification other than those indicated above, evidence of level 5.5 attainment in the IELTS (International English Language Testing Scheme), and/or TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) score of at least 74 (Internet-based test), and/or a Cambridge Advanced Certificate or international equivalent and/or a pass in the University’s own English Language Proficiency Test.

Applicants requiring a visa to study in the UK must also E1.1.3

meet the specific English Language requirements of the UK Border Agency.

In cases where additional or alternative qualifications E1.1.4

and/or experience are required, details are set out in the relevant programme handbook.

The decision of the University will be final. E1.1.5

E2 Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL)

RPL credit is not awarded to students undertaking level E2.1.1

3 foundation programmes at Regent’s University London.

Section E of the Handbook is informed by the following sections of the QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education: Chapter B2: Admissions Chapter B3: Learning and teaching Chapter B4: Enabling student development and achievement Chapter B6: Assessment of students and recognition of prior learning


E3 Registration for Foundation Programmes

E3.1 Registration requirements and Definitions

Students entering a programme at Regent’s University E3.1.1

London are expected to complete the programme within the time specified within programme regulations. Unless stated otherwise within programme regulations, minimum and maximum periods of registration for any student on a Regent’s University London foundation level 3 programme are as outlined under section E4.

Registration may be defined as the process through E3.1.2

which students formally agree to be a student member of the University for the whole, or part of, the academic year.

By registering, the student has agreed to abide by the E3.1.3

University regulations and to become liable for fee payments.

The University uses the registration period to check and E3.1.4

update key personal information in the student record.

E3.2 Registration Requirements

All full-time, part-time and visiting students actively E3.2.1

following a programme of study at Regent’s University London must register at the commencement of their studies. Students who have been suspended cannot register. Students who have taken a break in their studies and returned partway through the academic year must register before they can recommence their programme.

Students failing to provide Admissions Officers with E3.2.2

original transcripts from their previous studies by the end of their first registration period may be required to withdraw from their programme.

E3.3 Registration Conditions for New Entrants

The Admissions Department will provide new students E3.3.1

with detailed instructions on how and when they may register. The admissions process must be completed.

If there are any outstanding debts to the University as a E3.3.2

result of previous study, the debt must be cleared. In exceptional circumstances, students may have agreed an appropriate repayment plan with the Finance


Department, who will then remove the fees identifier from the student record.

Any outstanding evidence needed to meet admissions E3.3.3

conditions, as outlined within the regulations of the programme for which the student is registering, must be provided to allow the student to register with a Fully Registered status.

E3.4 Registration Conditions for Continuing Students

Programme Handbooks contain Academic Calendars E3.4.1

that inform students when registration will commence.

If there are any outstanding debts to the University as a E3.4.2result of previous study, the debt must be cleared. In exceptional circumstances, students may have agreed an appropriate repayment plan with the Finance Department, who will then remove the fees identifier from the student record.

E3.5 Registration Conditions for Students returning from Suspension or Break in Studies

The suspension or break in studies process must be E3.5.1

complete.

If there are any outstanding debts to the University as a E3.5.2result of previous study, the debt must be cleared. In exceptional circumstances, students may have agreed an appropriate repayment plan with the Finance Department, who will then remove the fees identifier from the student record.

E3.6 Registration Method

Students must register via the SITS: E-vision portal. E3.6.1

Timetables cannot be accessed unless this task has been completed.

E4 Duration of Study

E4.1 Minimum Duration

The minimum duration of study for a programme leading E4.1.1

either to a named award or to direct entry onto a programme of a higher order shall not be less than the minimum length specified for the programme in the validated definitive document.


E4.2 Maximum Duration

All students are expected to complete foundation E4.2.1

programmes within the prescribed time. However, in documented cases of extenuating circumstances, the maximum duration of study for a student registered on a foundation programme may be extended to the maximum duration as outlined below. There shall, however, be no guarantee about the length of time for which a programme or its component modules shall be available.

Students may apply to their Programme Director for a E4.2.2

break in their studies for a period of up to one academic year. Should the Programme Director agree to the request, considering that the reasons for the request are valid and taking into account the implications of the timing and duration of the break for the student’s engagement with the programme and with assessment and reassessment opportunities, then the Programme Director may agree to a break in studies. The Programme Director will then report the matter to the next Progression and Finalist Board.

The maximum duration of study for any Foundation E4.2.3

award is two years beyond the expected completion date of the programme, subject to extenuating circumstances: e.g., deferral granted for documented medical reasons.

E5 Documentary Evidence of Study

Documentary evidence of study may be made available E5.1.1

by the University in a variety of forms, for the convenience of students. They may be variously termed:

(a) Certificates (or Records) of attendance;

(b) Certificates (or Records) of programme completion and progression onto Undergraduate programmes within the University at level four;

(c) Transcripts (or lists) of modules taken, with assessments results.

E6 Completion of a Programme

Successful completion of a programme requires the E6.1.1

achievement of the specified learning outcomes set out in the Programme Specification.


Criteria specified for each programme defines the E6.1.2standards required for successful completion and are set out in the Programme Handbooks.

For any award, credit at a higher level can count in place E6.1.3

of credit at a lower level.

E7 The Teaching/Learning Year

The standard teaching/learning year for foundation E7.1.1

programmes totals 30-36 weeks including assessment periods. However, variations to standard patterns are permitted where specified within validated programme specific documentation.

E8 Assessment and Progression

E8.1 Introduction

Assessment on foundation programmes is conducted at E8.1.1

two levels: firstly, at module level and, secondly, at programme level. Subject Boards determine marks for each module. Progression and Finalist Boards receive marks for approval from the Subject Boards and determine progression.

E8.2 Progression

The programme and module learning outcomes of level E8.2.1

3 offerings ensure appropriate student development towards ‘undergraduate readiness’, particularly in respect to the acquisition of skills deemed requisite for successful performance at level 4, as set out in the Programme Learning Outcomes.

The progression regulations are as follows where no E8.2.2

fast-track option applies:

(a) Students must achieve a total of 120 credits in level 3 programmes integrated within an undergraduate programme, before progressing to the next level of study. The following exception applies for level 3 programmes which are integrated within an undergraduate programme:

(b) A maximum of 20 failed credits may be carried into the next level, i.e. a minimum of 100 credits must have been passed at level 3 before students can progress to level 4. The student must retake and pass the failed credits at the next available opportunity before progressing further.


(c) According to the exception stated above students can therefore progress into the next level with a minimum of 100 passed credits.

(d) Students can study a maximum of 80 credits in a term at a time.

(e) Students can study a maximum of 140 credits in an academic year at any time.

The progression from module to module may also be E8.2.3

pre-determined by module prerequisites. Students cannot be scheduled to undertake any module unless they have completed all the noted prerequisites.

Students who have failed more than 20 credits on a level E8.2.4

cannot progress to the next level and will be invited to meet with a member of the Student Support Team.

Students re-joining a programme following a suspension E8.2.5of studies cannot progress to the next term and / or level and will be required to retake the term from which they were suspended.

In cases where US style undergraduate programmes are E8.2.6made up of modules divisible by 12 credits, (such as the US style BA Liberal Studies programme), alternative progression regulations will apply:

Students must achieve a total of 120 credits in level 3 E8.2.7programmes integrated within an undergraduate programme, before progressing to the next level of study. The following exception applies for level 3 programmes which are integrated within an undergraduate programme:

A maximum of 24 failed credits may be carried into the E8.2.8next level, i.e. a minimum of 96 credits must have been passed at level 3 before students can progress to level 4. The student must retake and pass the failed credits at the next available opportunity before progressing further.

E8.3 General Moderation Regulations

At foundation level, the following moderation policy E8.3.1

applies:

Exceptional moderation at level 3 E8.3.2

(a) Where a student has failed a component of assessed work with a weighting of 20% or above, the assessed work for this module will be internally moderated to determine whether this is the appropriate outcome.


Requirements for internal moderation E8.3.3

(a) All module assessments will have a marking scheme and marking criteria.

(b) For in-class tests, it is the responsibility of the module tutor or module/pathway leader to ensure fairness and transparency.

(c) All written examinations on foundation programmes will be blind marked with candidate numbers rather than names.

E8.4 Role of the First Marker

Throughout the work, the first marker writes short E8.4.1

comments or detailed ticks and crosses where appropriate to indicate how the final mark was arrived at.

In the case of work to be returned to students, the first E8.4.2

marker will write substantive comments – in clearly legible writing or preferably word-processed text - about the work as a whole on the front of the module work coversheet, or a formal sheet that the module tutor is using in agreement with the Programme Director. If extra space is required, these comments should be indicated on a separate sheet. This may not apply in cases where it is not appropriate for the assessment, such as short answer, multiple choice, listening tests or mathematical-based tests.

It is the responsibility of the marker to ensure that E8.4.3

accurate marks have been entered into the SITS system.

E8.5 Return of Marked Coursework/Assessments

The University will always aim to return marked E8.5.1coursework/assessment to students in a timely manner. As a guide, students should receive marked coursework / assessment within two weeks and no longer than four weeks.

E8.6 Assessment of Modules

The following regulations shall apply to the assessment E8.6.1of modules to determine whether the module has been passed, a resit of a component(s) is required or a retake of the module is required.

Once a student commences an examination or submits E8.6.2

an assignment, they have deemed themselves fit to take the examination or complete the assignment and the


regulation found in section D5.1.1 of this handbook would apply for any extenuating circumstances claims submitted.

E8.7 Pass Regulations

All Foundation modules have a minimum pass mark for E8.7.1

assessments. The pass mark is 40%.

For a student to receive a pass on a module they must E8.7.2achieve a minimum Total Module Mark (TMM) (weighted average of the grades achieved for all assessment tasks) of 40%.

If the TMM is below 40% the module will be deemed a E8.7.3

fail and students will be required to resit the failed component(s). If a student subsequently fails the resit and the TMM remains below 40% the student will be required to retake the module. The maximum number of retakes permitted per module is one.

Subject boards consider all modules failed by students E8.7.4

and determine whether the required action will be a resit of the failed component(s). Where a student has already resat a component, the board will not recommend a further resit of that component, and a retake of the module will be required.

Where a Subject Board has granted a resit of a E8.7.5

component(s) within a module, then the student will automatically be given a resit on the failed components of the module (below 40%).

Where a student has been withdrawn from a module and E8.7.6

therefore failed that module due to a breach of the attendance regulations, the student will be required to retake the module in accordance with the Attendance and Lateness regulations contained in Section D of this handbook. The maximum number of retakes permitted per module is one.

E8.8 Resit Regulations

When a student has failed a module, a resit of the failed E8.8.1

component(s) may be permitted.

Students who are suspended due to absences do not E8.8.2have the right to resit any failed component(s) and will be required to retake the module(s). The maximum number of retakes permitted per module is one.


Details of regulations as they apply to individual E8.8.3programmes (e.g. the number of modules/credits that can be resat and examination schedules) are contained within the individual programme handbooks. Information on the assessment procedures and weighting of individual assessments are contained in the module outlines.

The maximum mark obtainable for any module which a E8.8.4

student has completed a resit in is a minimum pass for that module, i.e. the TMM will be capped at 40%.

When required to resit an examination a student must do E8.8.5

so at the next available opportunity, i.e. on the next occasion at which the examination is offered.

When required to resit coursework a student must do so E8.8.6

by the deadline given.

Students who fail a module after a resit will be required E8.8.7to retake the module. The maximum number of retakes permitted per module is one.

E8.9 Retake Regulations

Students will be required to retake the module if they E8.9.1

have failed a module after a resit. The maximum number of retakes permitted per module is one.

No student who has passed a module or who has E8.9.2

received a condoned pass in respect of that module may retake it in order to achieve a higher mark.

No student may retake any module on more than one E8.9.3

occasion.

The maximum mark obtainable for any module which a E8.9.4student has completed a retake in is a minimum pass for that module, i.e. the TMM will be capped at 40%.

Where a module is not available for whatever reason a E8.9.5

student required to retake that module may be required to substitute an alternative module of the same level in order to meet the requirements of the particular foundation programme.

Where a student is required to retake an elective module E8.9.6

they may elect to choose an alternative module at the same level to the required credit levels. The maximum mark obtainable for any elective module which a student has completed a retake in is a minimum pass for that module, i.e. the TMM will be capped at 40%.


E8.10 General Principles

Unauthorised absence from an examination or failure to E8.10.1

submit coursework by the due date will constitute failure in that component of assessment.

Under exceptional circumstances a student may be E8.10.2

allowed to defer an examination or the submission of coursework. Where such exceptional circumstances become apparent after the examination or the submission date the Subject Board may grant a deferral retrospectively. Notification of the exceptional circumstances must be made within a specified time of the examination/submission date and by following the Extenuating Circumstances procedures outlined in section D7.

E8.11 Alternative Assessment

It is sometimes necessary to assess a student by means E8.11.1

of an alternative method. This may be due to an issue of accessibility or it may be due to practical or logistical circumstances, such as the availability of other students and/or facilities. In all cases, the Course Leader/Programme Director will set an alternative assessment designed to evaluate the extent to which the student has achieved the learning outcomes attached to the particular assessment. The proposed alternative assessment will be approved by the external examiner. In cases where accessibility requires an alternative assessment, the Disability Officer will be consulted.

E8.12 Deferrals

A1.1.1 Where the Subject Board has granted a deferral based

on extenuating circumstances, the mark achieved will not be subject to a penalty or a cap.

E8.13 Support for non-progressing students

Students who are unable to progress to level 4 of the E8.13.1

programme should contact the Student Support Team to discuss support arrangements.

E9 Discontinuation of Study

There are constraints on the total period of registration E9.1.1

for each programme of study (see section E4). There may also be specific requirements in respect of the rate of progression, or restrictions on the total number of modules which an individual student can resit or retake


during the period of their registration. Details of any such restrictions are given in the individual programme specification.

E10 Programme Assessment

E10.1 Responsibilities of Assessment Boards

The appropriate assessment boards will consider each E10.1.1

student's overall performance at the completion of all modules relating to a level of study. The relevant assessment board will receive marks awarded and render decisions about progression. Additionally, where applicable, the relevant assessment board will also confirm the names of students who have passed level 3 at a standard commensurate with students directly entering onto BA or BSc (Hons) programmes.

The responsibility of assessment boards is to make E10.1.2

judgements on student performance within its own approved regulations.

E10.2 The Assessment of Modules

Unless specified differently within programme specific E10.2.1

regulations then the following will apply in foundation level 3 programmes.

In-module assessments are submitted by fixed dates E10.2.2

during the year. Students are given written details at the start of a module of the assessment scheme for the module, and of the arrangements and timetable according to which assessed work should be submitted. Students are required to submit coursework as prescribed by the relevant module outline booklet.

Students will be assessed by the appropriate Subject E10.2.3

Board in all modules studied, and marks for each module will be approved by the appropriate Subject Board.

All modules shall be assessed in accordance with the E10.2.4

module's published assessment methods. Arrangements for students with a disability/specific learning difficulty requiring reasonable adjustments for examinations may be found on the Academic Registry pages of the Regent’s University London intranet.

All modules must provide a numerical mark for all E10.2.5

assessments.


F Undergraduate Level (Levels 4-6) Academic Regulations

F1 The Admission of Students to a Programme at Level 4

F1.1 Minimum Requirements

The minimum entry qualifications are specified in F1.1.1

individual programme regulations and cover:

A number of passes at GCSE grade (to be stated) or F1.1.2above (including Mathematics and English) or for some programmes a minimum of Level 2 Key/Basic skills in Literacy, Application of Number/Numeracy and Information Technology will also be considered.

AND

A minimum number of awards (to be stated) from GCE A F1.1.3levels or equivalent. In terms of equivalence, achievement at a lower level will be subsumed into the higher level, i.e. AS points will be subsumed into the A level points for the same subject and is not acceptable for entry alone.

OR

Successful completion of a recognised level 3 or Access F1.1.4Programme; the full International, European and Welsh Baccalaureate; other qualifications as deemed acceptable by the University.

Where an applicant's first Language is not English, F1.1.5

and/or where an applicant possesses qualifications other than those indicated above, evidence of level 6 attainment in the IELTS (International English Language Testing Scheme) and/or a TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) score of at least 550 (paper test)/213 (computer test) and/or a pass in the University’s own English Language Proficiency Test.

Section F of the Handbook is informed by the following sections of the QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education: Chapter B2: Admissions Chapter B3: Learning and teaching Chapter B4: Enabling student development and achievement Chapter B6: Assessment of students and recognition of prior learning


Applicants requiring a visa to study in the UK must also F1.1.6

meet the specific English Language requirements of the UK Border Agency.

Programme admission regulations are detailed in F1.1.7

Programme Handbooks and set out:

(a) The entry criteria and the means by which students will be judged for entry onto that programme, e.g. passes in several GCE A levels and written tests;

(b) Any English language requirements. If required, the University minimum IELTS score is:

All Foundation programmes 5.5

All Undergraduate programmes 6.0

All Postgraduate programmes 6.5

(c) Any other exceptional entry routes onto programmes;

(d) Recognition of prior learning;

(e) Any other requirements (such as specific professional requirements).

All applicants are considered with due reference to the F1.1.8

University’s Equal Opportunities Policy, and any current anti-discrimination legislation.

The decision of the University will be final. F1.1.9

F2 The Admission of Students to an Undergraduate Programme at a Higher Level

The stage at which admission takes place will be F2.1.1

dependent upon the number of credits previously achieved but will not be allowed at a stage beyond halfway through a programme.

Applicants who claim credit for prior learning as a means F2.1.2

of entering a programme at other than level 4 may have:

(a) Certified evidence of prior learning which has been acquired by either:

satisfactory completion of a programme of study; or

a professional or vocational qualification.

(b) Uncertified personal experience which may be tested or a combination of both.


Assessment of such prior learning or experience may F2.1.3lead to the award of credits prior to the commencement of study, or of admission with advanced standing.

F2.2 Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL)

Applicants may be admitted to a programme of study F2.2.1

with ‘advance standing’ providing that this is permissible within programme regulations. Where this is applicable programme regulations state:

(a) That prior learning will be mapped against the intended programme learning outcomes and that a record of recognised RPL will be stored with the applicant’s record;

(b) Up to what level of a programme applicants with ‘advanced standing’ will be allowed to join;

(c) Regent’s University London’s acceptance of credit from other institutions of higher education is subject to the following conditions:

1. The transcript is an official transcript from the

initiating institution. (An official translation should be provided where relevant).

2. The transferred module must be similar in

scope, content and competency to a Regent’s University London module.

3. The transferred credit must have a Pass grade

(e.g. a “C” grade), or higher.

4. All transfer students must subsequently complete at least three terms at Regent’s University London.

5. Credits are awarded at the point of an offer

being made to a student. Transcripts presented later will not be considered for credit.

6. Academic credits which meet the above

conditions are not an automatic entitlement, but are at the discretion of Regent’s University London’s Programme Directors.


F3 Internal Programme Transfers

Subject to any programme specific requirements, and F3.1.1

with the permission of both Programme Directors, students may be allowed to transfer from one undergraduate programme within Regent’s University London to the same point on another, providing that the intended programme learning outcomes and the curriculum can be demonstrated to be equivalent. Where the intended programme learning outcomes and the curriculum are demonstrably different, then the regulations regarding RPL above will apply.

F4 Registration for Undergraduate Programmes

F4.1 Registration Requirements and Definitions

Students entering degree programmes at Regent’s F4.1.1

University London are expected to complete their degrees within the time specified within programme regulations. Unless stated otherwise within programme regulations, the maximum duration of study for any student on a Regent’s University London degree is as outlined under section F5.

Registration may be defined as the process through F4.1.2which students formally agree to be a student member of the University for the whole, or part of, the academic year.

By registering, the student has agreed to abide by the F4.1.3University Regulations, and to become liable for fee payments.

The University uses the registration period to check and F4.1.4update key personal information in the student record.

F4.2 Registration Requirements

All full and part-time students, including visiting students, F4.2.1

who are actively following a programme of study at Regent’s University London, must register at the commencement of their studies and every term thereafter. Students who are in a period of suspension cannot register. Students who have taken a break in their studies and return partway through the academic year must register before they can recommence their programme.

Students failing to provide Admissions Officers with F4.2.2original transcripts from their previous studies by the end


of their first registration period may be required to withdraw from their programme.

F4.3 Registration Conditions for New Entrants

The Admissions Department provides new students with F4.3.1

detailed instructions on how and when they may register.

If there are any outstanding debts to the University as a F4.3.2result of previous study, the debt must be cleared. In exceptional circumstances, students may have agreed an appropriate repayment plan with the Finance Department, who will then remove the fees identifier from the student record.

Any outstanding evidence needed to meet admissions F4.3.3conditions, as outlined within the regulations of the programme for which the student is registering, must be provided to allow the student to register with a Fully Registered status.

F4.4 Registration Conditions for Continuing Students

Programme Handbooks contain Academic Calendars F4.4.1



F4.5 Registration Conditions for Students returning from Suspension or Break in Studies

The suspension or break in studies process must be F4.5.1

complete.



F4.6 Registration Method

Students must register via the SITS: E-vision portal. F4.6.1


F5 Duration of Study

F5.1 Minimum Period

The minimum duration of study for a programme leading F5.1.1

to an award shall not be less than the minimum length specified for the programme in the validated definitive document. The only exception to this regulation will be where a student has been recognised for prior learning.

F5.2 Maximum Period

All students are expected to complete their F5.2.1

undergraduate degrees within the prescribed time for their allotted programme. However, in documented cases of extenuating circumstances, the maximum duration of study for a student on an undergraduate programme may be extended to the maximum duration of study as outlined below. There shall, however, be no guarantee about the length of time for which a programme or its component modules shall be available.

Students are required to renew their registration on a F5.2.2

programme every academic period, otherwise the registration will be deemed to have lapsed. Should this occur, then a student may be considered for re-admission to the same programme, as long as the lapse in registration was not a consequence of academic failure.

Students may apply to their Programme Director for a F5.2.3

break in studies for a period of up to one academic year. Should the Programme Director agree to the request, considering that the reasons for the request are valid and taking into account the implications of the timing and duration of the break for the student’s engagement with the programme and with assessment and reassessment opportunities, then the Programme Director may agree to a suspension of studies. The Programme Leader will then report the matter to the next Progression and Finalist Board.

The maximum duration of study for any undergraduate F5.2.4award is 3 years beyond the expected completion date of the programme.


F6 Documentary evidence of study

Documentary evidence of study may be made available F6.1.1


Certificates (or Records) of attendance;

Certificates (or Records) of credit;

Certificates (or Records) of achievement;

Transcripts (or lists) of modules taken, with the results of any assessments.

Such documents are not in themselves awards, although F6.1.2

they may accompany awards.

F7 Completion of a Programme

Successful completion of a programme requires the F7.1.1


Credit points specified for each award define the F7.1.2

minimum number and level of specific credit gained by following an approved programme required for an award (see section F8 below).

For any award, credit at a higher level can count in place F7.1.3


F8 The Teaching/Learning Year

The standard teaching/learning year for undergraduate F8.1.1

programmes consists of two terms, which total 30 weeks including assessment periods. However, variations to standard patterns are permitted where specified within validated programme specific documentation.

F9 Assessment and Progression

F9.1 Introduction

Assessment is conducted at two levels: firstly, at module F9.1.1

level and then secondly at programme level. Subject Boards determine marks for each module. Progression and Finalist Boards receive marks for approval from the Subject Boards and determine progression.


F9.2 Progression within an Undergraduate Programme

The programme and individual learning outcomes of the F9.2.1

degree ensure appropriate student development towards ‘graduateness’ and ‘learner autonomy’. In respect of these two key concepts, progression regulations must be set out in validated programme regulations to satisfy the Progression and Finalist Board that students have achieved a level 4, 5 or 6 profile respectively before progression is allowed. The regulations aim to ensure that students make every effort to pass all subjects studied in order to progress.

The specific structure of a programme requires close F9.2.2

monitoring of student progress on a term by term basis.

(a) Where there is a language requisite, the minimum language level will be found in the programme handbook. On the return from SPA a student must meet the University progression regulations as outlined in section F9.2.4 to progress to the next level.

(b) SPA students progressing from level 5 to level 6 must have completed 120 credits at level 4.

(c) Additional requirements may be outlined in the programme handbook.

The progression regulations are as follows: F9.2.3

Students must achieve a total of 120 credits at each F9.2.4

level before progressing to the next level of study. The following exception applies:

(a) A maximum of 20 failed credits may be carried into the next level. The student must retake and pass the failed credits at the next available opportunity before progressing further.

(b) According to the exception stated above students can therefore progress into the next level with a minimum of 100 passed credits.

(c) Students can study a maximum of 80 credits in a term at a time.

(d) Students can study a maximum of 140 credits in an academic year at a time.

The progression from module to module may also be F9.2.5

pre-determined by module prerequisites. Students cannot be scheduled to undertake any module unless they have completed all the noted prerequisites.


Students who have failed more than 20 credits on a level F9.2.6cannot progress to the next level and will be invited to meet with a member of the Student Support Team.

Students joining an undergraduate programme with F9.2.7

advanced standing should align with a specific semester within a level with the exception of up to 20 credits trailing from a previous level in accordance with the progression regulations found in section F9.

Where the assessment of RPL credits means that F9.2.8

students are straddling different semesters within levels, the aim is to align them to one semester when they are first due to be considered by a Progression and Finalist Board for progression from one level to the next.

Students re-joining a programme following a suspension F9.2.9

of studies cannot progress to the next term and / or level and will be required to retake the term from which they were suspended.

In cases where US style undergraduate programmes are F9.2.10made up of modules divisible by 12 credits, (such as the US style BA Liberal Studies programme), alternative progression regulations will apply:

Students must achieve a total of 120 credits at each F9.2.11level before progressing to the next level of study. The following exceptions apply.

A maximum of 24 failed credits may be carried into the F9.2.12next level. The student must retake and pass the failed credits at the next available opportunity before progressing further.

According to the exception stated above students can F9.2.13therefore progress into the next level with a minimum of 96 passed credits.

Students can study a maximum of 84 credits in a term at F9.2.14a time.

Students on the BA Liberal Studies programme may be F9.2.15permitted to register for elective modules from Level 5 and Level 6 concurrently; this does not apply to Major credit modules however. The following programme specific regulations apply:

Students may register for up to two Level 6 elective F9.2.16modules in Level 5, if they opt to do this, they may also register for up to two Level 5 electives in Level 6.


Students may therefore progress from Level 5 to Level 6 F9.2.17with a minimum of 96 passed credits with 24 credits from either Level 5 or Level 6 and 120 credits passed from Level 4.

F9.3 General Moderation Regulations

At undergraduate level, the following moderation policy F9.3.1

applies:

Level 4: Level 4 work is zero weighted for degree classification and therefore no internal moderation is required (see below).

Level 5 - 6: Level 5 and Level 6 work is internally moderated on a sampling basis (see below).

A University internal moderation form must be used. F9.3.2

F9.4 Exceptional Internal Moderation at Level 4

At level 4, where a student has failed a component of F9.4.1

assessed work with a weighting of 20% or above, the assessed work for this module will be internally moderated to determine whether this is the appropriate outcome.

F9.5 Internal Moderation at Level 5

Internal moderation at level 5 refers to the process by F9.5.1

which a second academic member of staff reviews a sample of assessment pieces/examination scripts to ensure consistency of marking standards and fairness and equity of each student mark/grade. The moderator is able to see the comments made by the first marker as well as the grade awarded.

A sample of assessments contributing to 20% or more F9.5.2

towards the total mark for a module will be internally moderated.

The sample will be moderated internally and will include F9.5.3

a range across the classification bandings and all borderlines; all failures and all first class passes for all modules contributing to the degree classification will be internally moderated.

A minimum of 10% of all assessed work from each relevant classification band or 10 pieces of work overall will be moderated (whichever is greater). Where the total number of assessed pieces is fewer


than 10, all assessed pieces of work will be internally moderated.

All module assessments will have a marking scheme and marking criteria.

For in-class tests, it is the responsibility of the module tutor or module/pathway leader to ensure fairness and transparency.

All written examinations on undergraduate programmes will be blind marked with candidate numbers rather than names.

Samples of assessed work will be marked by the module tutor or tutors and internally moderated by another staff member with relevant expertise.

F9.6 Role of the First Marker at Level 5

Throughout the work, the first marker writes short F9.6.1


In the case of work to be returned to students, the first F9.6.2

marker will write substantive comments – in clearly legible writing or preferably word-processed text - about the work as a whole on the front of the module work coversheet, or a formal sheet that the module tutor is using in agreement with the Programme Director. If extra space is required, these comments should be indicated on a separate sheet. This may not apply in cases where it is not appropriate for the assessment, such as short answer, multiple choice, listening tests or mathematical-based tests.

On completion, the first marker will pass all the work F9.6.3

including the detailed marking criteria and moderation form to the internal moderator who will construct the necessary sample.

F9.7 Role of the Internal Moderator at Level 5

The overall objective of the internal moderator is to F9.7.1

check that the range and distribution of marks awarded is appropriate.

The sampled assessments are checked taking account F9.7.2

of:

(a) whether the marking corresponds to the detailed marking criteria or marking scheme;


(b) whether the resulting total mark seems appropriate for the level;

(c) whether all the marks for the assessment are appropriate in their distribution and representative of the full band range;

(d) Whether there are any anomalies across all the marks (for example, a significant proportion of fails or a significant proportion of first) and what are the reasons behind them;

(e) whether the work covers the necessary objectives and learning descriptors;

(f) whether the feedback is helpful and sufficient for the individual student to know what was well done and what was poorly done.

F9.8 Completing the Internal Moderation Process at Level 5

Where the internal moderator identifies any issues F9.8.1

relating to the sample the first marker and moderator must meet to discuss these issues. It is not the role of the internal moderator to change specific marks within a sample.

Where agreement is reached between the first marker F9.8.2

and the internal moderator regarding any issues, the first marker must amend/adjust marks/grades on all scripts/pieces accordingly. The letter ‘M’ for “moderated” must be added.

It is necessary to record on the form that moderation has F9.8.3

taken place and the outcome. Comments on the marking are written on the form for coursework (not on the script). The form is then forwarded to the first marker who will record the final marks through the SITS system.

Following the process it is the responsibility of the F9.8.4

module leader to ensure that accurate marks have been entered into the SITS system.

F9.9 Internal Moderation at Level 6

Internal moderation at level 6 refers to the process by F9.9.1

which a second academic member of staff reviews a sample of students’ work to ensure both consistency of marking standards and fairness and equity of each student mark/grade. The moderator is able to see the comments made by the first marker as well as the grade awarded.


A sample of assessments contributing to 20% or more F9.9.2towards the total mark for a module will be internally moderated.

The sample will be moderated internally and will include F9.9.3

a range across the classification bandings and all borderlines; all failures and all first class passes for all modules contributing to the degree classification will be internally moderated.

A minimum of 10% of all assessed work from each relevant classification band or 10 pieces of work overall will be moderated (whichever is greater). Where the total number of assessed pieces is fewer than 10, all assessed pieces of work will be internally moderated.





All dissertations on undergraduate programmes will be second marked independently prior to the first marker and moderator meeting. Where agreement cannot be reached between first marker and moderator; a third marker will be selected by the Programme Director. In the event of continued disagreement the Programme Director will act as final internal arbiter and may choose to seek the opinion of the external examiner.

F9.10 Role of the Internal Moderator at Level 6

The moderator must consider: F9.10.1



(c) whether the work covers the necessary objectives and learning descriptors;


(d) whether the feedback (where appropriate) is helpful and sufficient for the individual student to know what was well done and what was poorly done.

Moderators do not provide additional feedback to students. F9.10.2

F9.11 Completing the Internal Moderation Process at Level 6

Where the moderator disputes the first marker’s grade F9.11.1

then the first marker and moderator must confer and resolve such differences.

Where agreement is reached between the first marker F9.11.2

and moderator, the first marker must amend/adjust marks/grades on the affected scripts/pieces accordingly. If agreement is not reached, a third marker will be asked to resolve the issue.

Following the process, it is the responsibility of the F9.11.3


F9.12 Return of Marked Coursework/Assessments

The University will always aim to return marked F9.12.1coursework/assessment to students in a timely manner. As a guide, students should receive marked coursework/assessment within two weeks and no longer than four weeks.

F9.13 External Moderation

The module leader in consultation with the Student F9.13.1

Registry constructs a sample of moderated work representative of all classification bands to be made available for external moderation.

The sample of moderated work should include a range F9.13.2

across the classification bandings, all borderlines, all fails and all firsts/distinctions.

External examiners have the right to view all F9.13.3

assessments in modules/programmes for which they are responsible.

F9.14 Assessment of Modules

The following regulations shall apply to the assessment F9.14.1of modules to determine whether the module has been passed, a resit of a component(s) is required or a retake of the module is required.


Once a student commences an examination or submits F9.14.2an assignment, they have deemed themselves fit to take the examination or complete the assignment and the regulation found in section D5.1.1 of this handbook would apply for any extenuating circumstances claims submitted.

F9.15 Pass Regulations

All undergraduate modules have a minimum pass mark F9.15.1

for assessments. The pass mark is 40% at undergraduate level.

For a student to receive a pass on a module they must F9.15.2

achieve a minimum Total Module Mark (TMM) (weighted average of the grades achieved for all assessment tasks) of 40%.

If the TMM is below 40% the module will be deemed a F9.15.3

fail and students will be required to resit the failed component(s). If a student subsequently fails the resit and the TMM remains below 40% the student will be required to retake the module. The maximum number of retakes permitted per module is one.

Subject boards consider all modules failed by students F9.15.4

and determine whether the required action will be a resit of the failed component(s). Where a student has already resat a component, the board will not recommend a further resit of that component, and a retake of the module will be required.

Where a Subject Board has granted a resit of a F9.15.5


Where a student has been withdrawn from a module and F9.15.6


F9.16 Resit Regulations

When a student has failed a module, a resit of the failed F9.16.1


Students who are suspended due to absences do not F9.16.2have the right to resit any failed component(s) and will


be required to retake the module(s). The maximum number of retakes permitted per module is one.

Details of regulations as they apply to individual F9.16.3

programmes (e.g. the number of modules/credits that can be re-sat and examination schedules) are contained within the individual programme handbooks. Information on the assessment procedures and weighting of individual assessments are contained in the module outlines.

The maximum mark obtainable for any module which a F9.16.4

student has completed a resit in is a minimum pass for that module, i.e. the TMM will be capped at 40%.

When required to resit an examination a student must do F9.16.5

so at the next available opportunity, i.e. on the next occasion at which the examination is offered.

When required to resit coursework a student must do so F9.16.6


Students who fail a module after a resit will be required F9.16.7to retake the module. The maximum number of retakes permitted per module is one.

F9.17 Retake Regulations

Students will be required to retake the module if they F9.17.1

have failed a module after a resit. The maximum number of retakes permitted per module is one.

No student who has passed a module or who has F9.17.2

accepted a condoned pass in respect of that module may retake it in order to achieve a higher mark.

No student may retake any module on more than one F9.17.3

occasion.

The maximum mark obtainable for any module which a F9.17.4student has completed a retake in is a minimum pass for that module, i.e. the TMM will be capped at 40%.

Where a module is not available for whatever reason a F9.17.5

student required to retake that module may be required to substitute an alternative module of the same level in order to meet the requirements of the degree programme.

Where a student is required to retake an elective module F9.17.6

they may elect to choose an alternative module at the same level to the required credit levels. The maximum


mark obtainable for any elective module which a student has completed a retake in is a minimum pass for that module, i.e. the TMM will be capped at 40%.

F9.18 General Principles

Unauthorised absence from an examination or failure to F9.18.1


Under exceptional circumstances a student may be F9.18.2

allowed to defer an examination or the submission of coursework. Where such exceptional circumstances become apparent after the examination or the submission date the Subject Board may grant a deferral retrospectively. Notification of the exceptional circumstances must be made within a specified time of the examination/submission date and by following the Extenuating Circumstances procedures outlined in section D7.

F9.19 Alternative Assessment

It is sometimes necessary to assess a student by means F9.19.1


F9.20 Deferrals

Where the Subject Board has granted a deferral based F9.20.1


F9.21 Support for non-progressing students

Students who are unable to progress from one level to F9.21.1

another should contact the Student Support Team to discuss support arrangements.

F10 Discontinuation of Study


There are constraints on the total period of registration F10.1.1

for each programme of study (see F5). There may also be specific requirements in respect of the rate of progression, or restrictions on the total number of modules which an individual student can resit or retake during the period of their registration. Typically this will take the form of a minimum number of modules successfully passed within a defined period of time. Details of any such restrictions are given in the individual programme specification.

F11 Programme Assessment

Responsibilities of Assessment Boards F11.1.1

The appropriate assessment boards will consider each F11.1.2

student's overall performance at the completion of all modules relating to a level of study. The relevant assessment board will receive marks awarded, and make decisions regarding progression and awards.

The relevant assessment board will produce a statement F11.1.3

of the marks awarded and credits gained at each level for each student and will confirm the programme status of each student. Where a student has satisfied the requirements for an intermediate award (below that of Honours Degree), this will also be stated.

Where a student is eligible for the award of an Honours F11.1.4

Degree, the Progression and Finalist Board will award a classification according to the regulations for the award.

Where a module has a specific pre-requisite module, the F11.1.5

pre-requisite module must be passed before a student proceeds to that module.

The responsibility of each assessment board is to make F11.1.6

judgements on student performance within approved regulations.

F11.2 Assessment of Modules

Unless specified differently within programme specific F11.2.1

regulations then the following will apply:

In-module assessments must be submitted by fixed F11.2.2dates during the year. Students are given written details at the start of a module of the assessment scheme for the module, and of the arrangements and timetable according to which assessed work must be submitted.


Students are required to submit coursework as prescribed by the relevant module outline booklet.

Students will be assessed by the appropriate Subject F11.2.3

Board in all modules studied.

All modules shall be assessed in accordance with the F11.2.4module's published assessment methods. Arrangements for students with a disability/specific learning difficulty requiring reasonable adjustments for examinations and specific guidelines may be found on the Academic Registry pages of the Regent’s University London intranet.

Marks for each module will be assigned by the F11.2.5

appropriate Subject Board.

All modules must provide a numerical mark for all F11.2.6assessments.

F12 Awards

F12.1 Criteria for Awards

Criteria for the undergraduate awards are shown below. F12.1.1

Specifically validated undergraduate level awards may include exit points for certificates and diplomas.

Certificates for undergraduate awards produced by F12.1.2

Regent’s University London will be issued within three months of the date of the Progression and Finalist Board.

F12.2 Award of a Certificate of Higher Education

To qualify for the award of a Certificate of Higher F12.2.1

Education, a student must have passed modules worth at least 120 credits at level 4 or higher.

Credits above level 4 may be counted towards the F12.2.2

Certificate of Higher Education, but may not then be counted again towards a subsequently taken higher award.

A student must complete any other requirement for level F12.2.3

4 as specified within programme specific regulations (e.g. work placement requirements).

A student may elect to receive the Certificate or to F12.2.4

continue studying for a higher award.


F12.3 Award of a Diploma of Higher Education

To qualify for the award of a Diploma of Higher F12.3.1

Education, a student must have passed modules worth at least 240 credits, including 120 at level 5.

Level 6 credits counted towards a Diploma of Higher F12.3.2

Education may not be counted separately towards a subsequently taken higher award.

A student must complete any other requirement for level F12.3.3

5 as specified within programme specific regulations (e.g. work placement requirements/study period abroad).

A student may elect to receive the Diploma or to F12.3.4

continue studying for a higher award.

F12.4 Award of a Non-Honours Degree

To qualify for the award of a Non-Honours degree a F12.4.1

student must have been awarded at least 300 credits overall, including at least 120 credits at levels 4 and 5, and 60 credits at level 6.

A student must complete all other requirements of the F12.4.2

award as specified within programme specific regulations (e.g. work placement requirements/study period abroad).

The Non-Honours award is an unclassified degree. F12.4.3

F12.5 Award of an Honours Degree

To qualify for the award of an Honours degree a student F12.5.1must have been awarded at least 360 credits overall, including at least 240 credits at levels 5 and 6, of which at least 120 credits are at level 6.

A student must complete all other requirements of the F12.5.2


The class of degree will be determined in accordance F12.5.3

with the provisions of the Percentages and Degree Classification section (F12.10). The minimum requirements for each class of award are provided below.

F12.6 Condonement


A Progression and Finalist Board is able to award a F12.6.1condoned pass in failed modules totalling a maximum of 20 credits.

The purpose of the condonement regulation is to offer an F12.6.2

opportunity for a Progression and Finalist Board to award a “Condoned Pass” to a student who is due to graduate and who has narrowly failed in a module(s) totalling a maximum of 20 credits in his or her final year. A student who meets the following conditions will be considered for a “Condoned Pass”:

The student has 20 credits of resits or reassessment outstanding at a Progression and Finalist Board that prevents them from graduating;

The student must have achieved a TMM of 37-39% in the module(s) that are being considered for condonement;

Students who have failed a resit of a component(s) in a module cannot be granted a condoned pass in that module;

Student must have passed all other modules at level 5 and 6 with a minimum TMM of 45% in each module.

In cases where the programme is made up of modules F12.6.3divisible by 12 credits, such as the US style BA Liberal Studies programme, a student who meets the following conditions will be considered for a “Condoned Pass”:

The student has 24 credits of resits or reassessment outstanding at a Progression and Finalist Board that prevents them from graduating;

The student must have achieved a TMM of 37-39% in the module(s) that are being considered for condonement;

Students who have failed a resit of a component(s) in a module cannot be granted a condoned pass in that module;

Student must have passed all other modules at level 5 and 6 with a minimum TMM of 45% in each module.

The Progression and Finalist Board has discretion over F12.6.4the award of a condoned pass, and will consider the overall profile of the student and any professional, statutory or regulatory body requirements.


The overall module mark will remain unchanged and will F12.6.5be included in the calculation of the student’s final classification. The transcript will show the original final TMM but will have a ‘CP’ added to illustrate that this is a ‘Condoned Pass’.

F12.7 Exit awards

A student may only receive one award in respect of any F12.7.1

programme of study.

If a Progression and Finalist Board decides that a F12.7.2student should be excluded from their programme of study as a result of a disciplinary or academic misconduct investigation; or if a student withdraws from their programme of study (for any reason), the Board will recommend to the Progression and Finalist Board that the student is awarded the highest award for which the student is eligible.

Where a student has been excluded from a programme F12.7.3

as a result of a disciplinary or academic misconduct investigation; or a student withdraws from their programme of study (for any reason), the student’s profile will be reviewed by a Progression and Finalist Board. The Progression and Finalist Board will offer the highest award for which the student is eligible.

If a student accepts a lower award they may not return to F12.7.4

the original programme of study nor apply to transfer those credits to another Regent’s University London programme.

F12.8 Classification Weighting

In line with best practice across the higher education F12.8.1

sector, the Regent’s University London model for determining the classification of an award is that only levels 5 and 6 of an undergraduate programme of study count towards final degree classification.

The method for determining final classification is based F12.8.2

on a credit based average of the Total Module Marks, weighted as follows:

Level 5 30% towards final classification

Level 6 70% towards final classification

The credit based average calculation will be determined F12.8.3as follows:


All modules are split into 10 credit modules, therefore a 40 credit module is split into four 10 credit modules and the mark will be counted four separate times;

The average of all the 10 credit modules at level 6 is calculated and multiplied by 0.7 (to give the 70% weighting);


The two weighted marks are combined to give the final degree classification.

Where a programme contains a Study Period Abroad F12.8.4

term, and/or a Work Placement term and/or the student has RPL credits, where in each case only credits are brought into the programme, the following calculation method must be used:

All modules are split into 10 credit modules, therefore a 40 credit module is split into four 10 credit modules and the mark will be counted four separate times


Using only the modules at level 5 which have marks available, the average of those 10 credit modules is calculated and multiplied by 0.3 (to give the 30% weighting);


Variation to the University framework outlined above F12.8.5must only be under exceptional circumstances to meet professional, statutory and/or regulatory body requirements as specified in the programme handbook.

In cases where the programme is made up of modules F12.8.6divisible by 12 credits, such as the US style BA Liberal Studies programme, the credit based average calculation will be determined as follows:

All modules are split into 12 credit modules, therefore a 36 credit module is split into three 12 credit modules and the mark will be counted three separate times;





F12.9 Borderline (Marginal) Cases

After the final degree classification has been calculated, F12.9.1

any student achieving an overall credit weighted average minimum of 39, 49, 59 or 69 will be classified as a borderline student. In determining the average there will be no rounding up, i.e. 68.99 does not become 69. Students in the borderline category will be awarded the higher classification if they meet the following conditions:

a total of 60 credits out of 120 credits at level 6 must be at the higher level classification. No more than 20 credits out of the 120 credits at level 6 can be at the lower level classification i.e. lower than the current calculated classification.

In cases where the programme is made up of modules divisible by 12 credits, such as the US style BA Liberal Studies programme, the following will apply. A total of 60 credits out of 120 credits at level 6 must be at the higher level classification. No more than 24 credits out of the 120 credits at level 6 can be at the lower level classification i.e. lower than the current calculated classification.

F12.10 Percentages and Degree Classification

Tariff F12.10.1

70% - 100% = First Class

60% - 69% = Upper Second Class

50% - 59% = Lower Second Class

40% - 49% = Third Class

0% - 39% = Fail

A student who, by completion of programme F12.10.2requirements, has received, or is eligible to receive, an award, may not submit additional work for assessment for the purpose of improving an award classification.

Credits gained for a module may be counted towards F12.10.3only one named degree award and the interim awards which constitute the programme culminating in that final named degree award or other such study as is deemed


by a Progression and Finalist Board to be equivalent to an interim award of that programme.

In order to determine the appropriate award in each F12.10.4individual case, the Progression and Finalist Board will exercise discretion and will take into account, for example:

the requirements of professional and/or accrediting bodies;

the extent to which programmes are designed for students with certificated or assessed prior learning which merits admission with advanced standing.

F12.11 Recognition of Webster University Bachelor Degree Awards

A Regent’s University London degree award will be F12.11.1made in recognition of the overall sum of learning of the student graduating from a Webster University programme completed at Regent’s American College London. Criteria for the undergraduate awards are shown below. The unclassified non-Honours Degree will be an award of BA Liberal Arts. The classified Honours Degree will be an award of BA (Honours) Liberal Arts.

Award of an unclassified non-Honours Degree F12.11.2

(a) To qualify for the award of an unclassified non-Honours Degree, a student must have passed five classes worth at least 3 credit hours per class, at the upper level Webster module codes.

(b) Upper level Webster module codes are 3000 or 4000 level coded classes as outlined in the Webster University undergraduate catalogue.

(c) A student should have achieved a minimum of 50% of their Webster University credits at Regent’s American College London, to be eligible for the Regent’s University London recognised degree.

(d) A student must have been awarded a Webster University Bachelor degree to be eligible for the Regent’s University London recognised degree.


Award of a classified Honours Degree F12.11.3

(a) To qualify for the award of a classified Honours Degree, a student must have passed eight classes worth at least 3 credit hours per class, at the upper level Webster module codes.

(b) Upper level Webster module codes are 3000 or 4000 level coded classes as outlined in the Webster University undergraduate catalogue.

(c) A student should have achieved a minimum of 50% of their Webster University credits at Regent’s American College London, to be eligible for the Regent’s University London recognised degree.

(d) A student must have been awarded a Webster University Bachelor degree to be eligible for the Regent’s University London recognised degree.

Classification Weighting F12.11.4

(a) The classification weighting is only applicable to the classified Honours Degree: BA (Honours) Liberal Arts.

(b) The classification weighting is not applicable to the unclassified non-Honours Degree: BA Liberal Arts.

(c) To determine the final classification the student’s Grade Point Average will be calculated using the highest eight upper level class marks achieved on the student’s programme of study.

(d) The credit based average calculation will be determined as follows:

The average of eight classes with a minimum of 3 credit hours per class will be taken.

(e) An equivalence scale will be used to convert the credit based average calculation into a UK recognised class, see F12.11.5 below.

Conversion scale and Degree Classification F12.11.5

Grade Point Average Recognised degree classification

3.80 or higher First

3.50-3.79 Upper Second

3.00-3.49 Lower second

2.70-2.99 Third

In order to determine the appropriate award in each individual case, the Regent’s University London Progression and Finalist Board will apply the criteria as outlined in the Recognition of Webster University Bachelor Degree Awards section above.


F13 Aegrotat Awards and Posthumous Awards

F13.1 Consideration

Before an Aegrotat or Posthumous Award is granted F13.1.1

consideration should be made as to whether the award will cause offence or undue stress to the incapacitated student, the relatives of the deceased or others within the school.

F13.2 Aegrotat Awards

When an assessment board decides that there is F13.2.1

insufficient evidence of a student’s performance to award a degree with pass or honours classification, but is satisfied that the student would have achieved the required standard but for certified illness/absence/valid reason then an Aegrotat Award may be awarded. The award will be dependent upon the student’s level, as follows:

(a) Level 4 Certificate of Higher Education

(b) Level 5 Diploma of Higher Education

(c) Level 6 Honours Degree

Aegrotat awards are unclassified. Should an Aegrotat F13.2.2award be awarded posthumously then the following condition will not apply.

Before such an award is made the student must indicate F13.2.3

that they are willing to accept the award and understand that this implies waiving the right to be reassessed.

F13.3 Posthumous Awards

Any award listed in student programme handbooks may F13.3.1

be conferred posthumously by the Progression and Finalist Board and accepted on the student’s behalf by an appropriate individual. For classified awards, all conditions for the award must be satisfied. Where all conditions are not met to make a classified award, then the Progression and Finalist Board will decide whether to award an Aegrotat Award (as outlined above). The certificate will not refer to the award being conferred posthumously.

F14 Rescinding Awards


F14.1 Academic Misconduct

The Vice Chancellor or his nominee may rescind any F14.1.1

RUL award which has previously been conferred on a student following recommendation from the next available Progression and Finalist Board that it has been established that either academic misconduct has taken place or the original decision of the award was made on misleading or incorrect evidence.

A Progression and Finalist Board may rescind academic F14.1.2

credit including credit awarded by RPL where new evidence has now come to light concerning academic misconduct or the original evidence presented for the credit is seen to have been falsified, misleading or incorrect. For students who are suspended as a result of academic misconduct and have incorrectly progressed, these students must be required to retake or take those modules which they either passed or were compensated for under false pretences.


G Master’s Level (Level 7) Academic Regulations

G1 The Admission of Students to Level 7 Programmes

G1.1 Minimum Requirements

The minimum entry qualifications are specified in G1.1.1

individual programme regulations but are generally:

(a) An Honours degree from a British University, or a qualification deemed to be equivalent by the Programme Director; and/or

(b) Such other qualifications or appropriate experience as the Programme Leader deems to be equivalent.

(c) Where an applicant's first Language is not English, and/or where an applicant possesses qualifications other than those indicated above, evidence of level 6.5 attainment in the IELTS (International English Language Testing Scheme) and/or a TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) score of at least 575 and/or a pass in the University’s own English Language Proficiency Test. Applicants requiring a visa to study in the UK must also meet the specific English Language requirements of the UK Border Agency.

Programme admission regulations are listed in G1.1.2

Programme Handbooks and set out:

(a) The entry criteria and the means by which students will be judged for entry onto that programme, e.g. degree pass level and written tests.

(b) Any English language requirements; if required, the University minimum IELTS score is 6.5.

(c) Any other exceptional entry routes onto programmes.

(d) Recognition of prior learning.


Section G of the Handbook is informed by the following sections of the QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education: Chapter B2: Admissions Chapter B3: Learning and teaching Chapter B4: Enabling student development and achievement Chapter B6: Assessment of student and recognition of prior learning


All applicants are considered with due reference to the G1.1.3

University’s Equal Opportunities Policy.

The decision of the University will be final. G1.1.4

G2 The Admission of Students to Level 7 Programmes with Advanced Standing

G2.1 Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL)

Applicants may be admitted to a programme of study G2.1.1

with ‘advance standing’ providing that this is permissible. Where this is applicable, programme regulations state:

That prior learning will be mapped against the intended G2.1.2

programme learning outcomes and that a record of recognised RPL will be stored with the applicant’s record;

Up to what level of a programme applicants with G2.1.3

‘advanced standing’ will be allowed to join;

Regent’s University London’s acceptance of credit from G2.1.4other institutions of higher education is subject to the following conditions:

(a) The transcript is an official transcript from the initiating institution. (An official translation should be provided where relevant).

(b) The transferred module must be similar in scope, content and competency to a Regent’s University London module.

(c) The transferred credit must have a Pass grade (e.g. a “C” grade), or higher.

(d) All transfer students must subsequently complete at least 120 credits of their programme at Regent’s University London.

(e) Credits are awarded at the point of an offer being made to a student. Transcripts presented later will not be considered for credit.

(f) Academic credits which meet the above conditions are not an automatic entitlement, but are at the discretion of Regent’s University London’s Programme Directors.

G3 Internal Programme Transfers


Subject to any programme specific requirements, and G3.1.1

with the permission of both Programme Directors, students may be allowed to transfer from one postgraduate programme within Regent’s University London to the same point on another, providing that the intended programme learning outcomes and the curriculum can be demonstrated to be equivalent. Where the intended programme learning outcomes and the curriculum are demonstrably different, then the regulations regarding RPL above will apply.

G4 Registration for Master’s Programmes

G4.1 Registration Requirements and Definitions

Students entering degree programmes at Regent’s G4.1.1

University London are expected to complete their degrees within the time specified within programme regulations. Unless stated otherwise within programme regulations, the maximum period of registration for any student on a Regent’s University London degree is as outlined under G5.

Registration may be defined as the process through G4.1.2


By registering, the student has agreed to abide by the G4.1.3

University Regulations, and to become liable for fee payments.

The University uses the registration period to check and G4.1.4


G4.2 Registration Requirements

All full and part-time students, including visiting students, G4.2.1

who are actively following a programme of study at Regent’s University London must register at the commencement of their studies and every term thereafter. Students who are in a period of suspension cannot register. Students who have taken a break in their studies and return partway through the academic year must register before they can recommence their programme.

Students failing to provide Admissions Officers with G4.2.2

original transcripts from their previous studies by the end of their first registration period may be required to withdraw from their programme.


G4.3 Registration Conditions for New Entrants

The Admissions Department provides new students with G4.3.1


If there are any outstanding debts to the University as a G4.3.2result of previous study, the debt should be cleared. In exceptional circumstances, students should have agreed an appropriate repayment plan with the Finance Department, who will then remove the fees identifier from the student record.

Any outstanding evidence needed to meet admissions G4.3.3

conditions, as outlined within the regulations of the programme for which the student is registering, should be provided to allow the student to register with a Fully Registered status.

G4.4 Registration Conditions for Continuing Students

Programme Handbooks contain Academic Calendars G4.4.1


If there are any outstanding debts to the University as a G4.4.2result of previous study, the debt must be cleared. In exceptional circumstances, students may have agreed an appropriate repayment plan with the Finance Department, who will then remove the fees identifier from the student record.

G4.5 Registration Conditions for Students returning from Suspension or Break in Studies

The suspension or break in studies process must be G4.5.1

complete.

If there are any outstanding debts to the University as a G4.5.2result of previous study, the debt must be cleared. In exceptional circumstances, students may have agreed an appropriate repayment plan with the Finance Department, who will then remove the fees identifier from the student record.

G4.6 Registration Method

Students must register via the SITS: E-vision portal. G4.6.1Timetables cannot be accessed unless this task has been completed.


G5 Duration of Study

G5.1 Minimum Period

The minimum duration of study for a programme leading G5.1.1

to an award shall not be less than the minimum length specified for the programme in the validated definitive document. The only exception to this regulation will be where a student has been recognised for prior learning (see section above).

G5.2 Maximum Period

All students are expected to complete their postgraduate G5.2.1

degrees within the prescribed time for their allotted programme. However, in documented cases of extenuating circumstances, the maximum period of registration for a student on a postgraduate programme may be extended to the maximum duration of study as outlined below. There shall, however, be no guarantee about the length of time for which a programme or its component modules shall be available.

Students are required to renew their registration on a G5.2.2


Students may apply to their Programme Director for a G5.2.3

break in studies for a period of up to one academic year. Should the Programme Director agree to the request, considering that the reasons for the request are valid and taking into account the implications of the timing and duration of the break for the student’s engagement with the programme and with assessment and reassessment opportunities, then the Programme Director may agree to a break in studies. The Programme Director will then report the matter to the next Progression and Finalist Board.

The maximum duration of study for a taught master’s G5.2.4

degree is 3 years beyond the expected completion date of the programme.

G6 Documentary evidence of study


Documentary evidence of study may be made available G6.1.1



(b) Certificates (or Records) of credit;

(c) Certificates (or Records) of achievement;

(d) Transcripts (or lists) of modules taken, with the results of any assessments.

Such documents are not in themselves awards, although G6.1.2


G7 Completion of a Programme

Successful completion of a programme requires the G7.1.1


Credit points specified for each award define the G7.1.2

minimum number and level of specific credit gained by following an approved programme required for an award.

For any award, credit at a higher level can count in place G7.1.3


G8 The Teaching/Learning Year

The standard teaching/learning year for postgraduate G8.1.1

programmes may consist of semesters, trimesters or terms. The standard teaching/learning year for postgraduate programmes consists of 1800 notional learning hours including assessment periods, and an additional period allotted for the writing up of a dissertation. Variations to standard patterns are permitted where specified within validated programme specific documentation.

G9 Assessment and Progression

G9.1 Introduction

Assessment is conducted at two levels: firstly, at module G9.1.1level and then secondly at programme level. Subject Boards determine marks for each module. Progression and Finalist Boards receive marks for approval from the Subject Boards and determine progression.


G9.2 Progression within an Postgraduate Programme

All programmes, except where professional accreditation G9.2.1

does not permit, shall have a single progression point even though it is within the same level as all other modules. That progression point being entry to a ‘dissertation’ or ‘capstone’ module.

The pre-requisite for the ‘dissertation’ or’ capstone’ G9.2.2

module must be passed in order for progression into the ‘dissertation’ or’ capstone’ module to take place.

Student will be permitted to progress into the dissertation G9.2.3

or ‘capstone’ module trailing up to 20 credits. Except where all or part of those trailing credits represents a failed first attempt at the pre-requisite for the ‘dissertation’ or’ capstone’ module.

Where the application of these rules requires the G9.2.4

revalidation of a whole programme they will come into effect when that programme is next due for revalidation.

There will be some programmes that have a variety of G9.2.5

intake points where a separate board outside of those held at the end of each term may be required.

A ‘capstone’ module is one that is a summation of G9.2.6

previous modules and or experiential learning that form the validated programme.

A ‘capstone’ module will be identified as such in the G9.2.7

programme handbook and will have clearly identified pre-requisite(s) which have to be passed to permit progression onto the ‘capstone’ module.

Upon validation or revalidation, programmes without a G9.2.8

‘dissertation’ module will have to identify a module as a ‘capstone’.

G9.3 Internal Moderation at Postgraduate Level

Internal moderation at level 7 refers to the process by G9.3.1

which a second academic member of staff reviews a sample of students’ work, to ensure both consistency of marking standards and fairness and equity of each student mark/grade. The moderator is able to see the comments made by the first marker as well as the grade awarded.

A sample of assessments contributing to 20% or more G9.3.2

towards the total mark for a module will be internally moderated.


The sample will be moderated internally and will include G9.3.3

a range across the classification bandings and all borderlines; all failures and all distinction class passes for all modules contributing to the degree classification will be internally moderated.

A minimum of 10% of all assessed work from each relevant each classification band or 10 pieces of work overall will be moderated (whichever is greater). Where the total number of assessed pieces is fewer than 10, all assessed pieces of work will be internally moderated.





All dissertations on postgraduate programmes will be second marked independently prior to the first marker and moderator meeting. Where agreement cannot be reached between first marker and moderator; a third marker will be selected by the Programme Director. In the event of continued disagreement the Programme Director will act as final internal arbiter and may choose to seek the opinion of the external examiner.

A University internal moderation form should be used. G9.3.4

G9.4 Role of the First Marker

Throughout the work, the first marker writes short G9.4.1


In the case of work to be returned to students, the first G9.4.2

marker will write substantive comments – in clearly legible writing or preferably word-processed text – about the work as a whole on the front of the module work coversheet, or a formal sheet that the module tutor is


using in agreement with the Programme Director. If extra space is required, these comments must be indicated on a separate sheet.

On completion, the first marker will pass all the work G9.4.3


G9.5 Role of the Internal Moderator

The internal moderator must consider: G9.5.1






(f) whether the feedback (where appropriate) is helpful and sufficient for the individual student to know what was well done and what was poorly done.

Moderators do not provide additional feedback to G9.5.2

students.

G9.6 Completing the Internal Moderation Process

Where the moderator disputes the first marker’s grade G9.6.1


Where agreement is reached between the first marker G9.6.2

and moderator, the first marker must amend/adjust marks/grades on the affected scripts/pieces accordingly. If agreement is not reached, a third marker will be asked to resolve the issue.

Following the process it is the responsibility of the G9.6.3



G9.7 Return of Marked Coursework/Assessments

The University will always aim to return marked G9.7.1coursework/assessment to students in a timely manner. As a guide, students should receive marked coursework/assessment within two weeks and no longer than four weeks.

G9.8 External Moderation

The module leader in consultation with the Student G9.8.1

Registry constructs a sample of moderated work to be made available for external moderation.

The sample of moderated work should include a range G9.8.2


External examiners have the right to view all G9.8.3


G9.9 Assessment of Modules

The following regulations shall apply to the assessment G9.9.1of modules to determine whether the module has been passed, or a resit of a component(s) is required or a retake of the module is required.

Once a student commences an examination or submits G9.9.2

an assignment, they have deemed themselves fit to take the examination or complete the assignment and the regulation found in section D5.1.1 of this handbook would apply for any extenuating circumstances claims submitted.

G9.10 Pass Regulations

All postgraduate modules have a minimum pass mark G9.10.1

for assessments. The pass mark at postgraduate level is 50%.

For a student to receive a pass on a module they must G9.10.2

achieve a minimum Total Module Mark (TMM) (weighted average of the grades achieved for all assessment tasks) of 50%.

If the module has been failed, i.e. the TMM is below 50% G9.10.3

the student will be required to resit the failed component(s). If a student subsequently fails the resit and the TMM remains below 50% the student will be


required to retake the module. The maximum number of retakes permitted per module is one.

Subject assessment boards consider all modules failed G9.10.4

by students and determine whether the required action will be a resit of the failed component(s). Where a student has already resat a component, the board will not recommend a further resit of that component, and a retake of the module will be required.

Where a Subject Board has granted a resit of a G9.10.5


Where a student has been withdrawn from a module and G9.10.6


G9.11 Resits

When a student has failed a module, a resit of the failed G9.11.1


Students who are suspended due to absences do not G9.11.2have the right to resit any failed component(s) and will be required to retake the module(s). The maximum number of retakes permitted per module is one.

Details of regulations as they apply to individual G9.11.3

programmes (e.g. the number of modules/credits that can be resat and examination schedules) are contained within the individual programme handbooks. Information on the assessment procedures and weighting of individual assessments are contained in the module outlines.

The maximum mark obtainable for any module which a G9.11.4

student has completed a resit in is a minimum pass for that module, i.e. the TMM will be capped at 50%..

When required to resit an examination a student must do G9.11.5

so at the next available opportunity i.e. on the next occasion at which the examination is offered.

When required to resit coursework a student must do so G9.11.6



Students who fail a module after a resit will be required G9.11.7to retake the module. The maximum number of retakes permitted per module is one.

G9.12 Retakes

Students will be required to retake the module if they G9.12.1

have failed the module after a resit. The maximum number of retakes permitted per module is one.

No student who has passed a module or who has G9.12.2


No student may retake any module on more than one G9.12.3

occasion.

The maximum mark obtainable for any module which a G9.12.4student has completed a retake in is a minimum pass for that module, i.e. the TMM will be capped at 50%.

Where a module is not available for whatever reason, a G9.12.5

student required to retake that module may be required to substitute an alternative module of the same level in order to meet the requirements of the degree programme.

Where a student is required to retake an elective module G9.12.6

they may elect to choose an alternative module at the same level to the required credit levels. The maximum mark obtainable for any elective module which a student has completed a retake in is a minimum pass for that module, i.e. the TMM will be capped at 50%.

G9.13 General Principles

Unauthorised absence from an examination or failure to G9.13.1


Under exceptional circumstances a student may be G9.13.2

allowed to defer an examination or the submission of coursework. Where such exceptional circumstances become apparent after the examination or the submission date, the Subject Board may grant a deferral retrospectively. Notification of the exceptional circumstances must be made within a specified time of the examination/submission date and by following the Extenuating Circumstances procedures detailed in section D7.


A student achieving less than 50% in the G9.13.3project/dissertation may, on the recommendation of the Subject Board, be permitted to resubmit a referred project or dissertation for reassessment within one calendar year of the submission of the original project/dissertation. Only one resubmission of the original project or, in exceptional circumstances, the resubmission of a new project/dissertation, will be allowed.

G9.14 Alternative Assessment

It is sometimes necessary to assess a student by means G9.14.1


Where the learning is experiential then a form of G9.14.2

alternative assessment agreed by the external must be available except where such experiential learning is part of a professional requirement.

G9.15 Deferrals

Where the Subject Board has granted a deferral based G9.15.1


G10 Discontinuation of Study

There are constraints on the total period of registration G10.1.1

for each programme of study (see G5). There may also be specific requirements in respect of the rate of progression, or restrictions on the total number of modules which an individual student can resit or retake during the period of their registration. Typically this will take the form of a minimum number of modules successfully passed within a defined period of time. Details of any such restrictions are given in the individual programme specification.

G11 Programme Assessment


G11.1 Responsibilities of Assessment Boards

The appropriate assessment board will consider each G11.1.1

student's overall performance at the completion of all modules relating to a level of study. The relevant assessment board will receive marks awarded, and make decisions regarding progression and awards.

The relevant assessment board will produce a statement G11.1.2

of the marks awarded and credits gained at each level for each student and will confirm the programme status of each student. Where a student has satisfied the requirements for an intermediate award (below that of Master’s Degree), this will also be stated.

Where a student is eligible for the award of a Master’s G11.1.3

Degree, the Progression and Finalist Board will award a classification according to the regulations for the award.

Where a module has a specific pre-requisite module, G11.1.4

that module must be passed before a student proceeds to the requiring module. A condoned failure is counted as a pass (50%) for these purposes, but the mark is not altered.

The responsibility of each assessment board is to make G11.1.5


G11.2 The Assessment of Modules

In-module assessments must be submitted by fixed G11.2.1

dates during the year. Students are given written details at the start of a module of the assessment scheme for the module, and of the arrangements and timetable according to which assessed work must be submitted. Students are required to submit coursework as prescribed by the relevant module outline booklet.

Students will be assessed by the appropriate Subject G11.2.2


All modules shall be assessed in accordance with the G11.2.3module's published assessment methods. Arrangements for students with a disability/specific learning difficulty requiring reasonable adjustments for examinations and specific guidelines for staff and students may be found on the Academic Registry pages of the University intranet.

Marks for each module will be assigned by the G11.2.4



All modules must provide a numerical mark for all G11.2.5

assessments.

G12 Awards

Specifically validated Master’s level awards may include G12.1.1exit points for postgraduate certificates and diplomas. Where exit awards are available students must meet the criteria for that award as specified below.

Certificates for postgraduate awards produced by G12.1.2Regent’s University London will be issued within three months of the date of the final examination board.

G12.2 Award of a Postgraduate Certificate

To qualify for the award of a Postgraduate Certificate, a G12.2.1

student must have accumulated at least 60 level 7 credits, and should have achieved at least 50% in each module defined in the schedule of assessment.

A student may elect to receive the Postgraduate G12.2.2

Certificate or to continue studying for a higher award.

G12.3 Award of a Postgraduate Diploma

To qualify for the award of a Postgraduate Diploma, a G12.3.1student must have accumulated at least 120 level 7 credits and have achieved at least 50% in each module defined in the schedule of assessment.

A student may elect to receive the Postgraduate G12.3.2

Diploma or to continue studying for a Master’s award.

G12.4 Award of a Master’s Degree

To qualify for the award of a Master’s degree a student G12.4.1must have accumulated at least 180 level 7 credits and have achieved at least 50% in each module defined in the schedule of assessment.

A student must complete all other requirements of the G12.4.2


The class of degree will be determined in accordance G12.4.3

with the provisions of the Percentages and Degree Classification.


G12.5 Condonement

A Progression and Finalist Board is able to award a G12.5.1

condoned pass in failed modules totalling a maximum of 20 credits.

The purpose of the condonement regulation is to offer an G12.5.2

opportunity for a Progression and Finalist Board to award a “Condoned Pass” to a student who is due to graduate and who has narrowly failed in a module(s) totalling a maximum of 20 credits. A student who meets the following conditions will be considered for a “Condoned Pass”:

(a) The student has 20 credits of resits or reassessment outstanding at a Progression and Finalist Board that prevents them from graduating;

(b) The student must have achieved a TMM of 47-49% in the module(s) that are being considered for condonement;

(c) Students who have failed a resit of a component(s) in a module cannot be granted a condoned pass in that module;

(d) Student must have passed all other modules with a minimum TMM of 55% in each module.

The Progression and Finalist Board has discretion over G12.5.3

the award of a condoned pass, and will consider the overall profile of the student and any professional, statutory or regulatory body requirements.

The overall module mark will remain unchanged and will G12.5.4

be included in the calculation of the student’s final classification. The transcript will show the original final TMM but will have a ‘CP’ added to illustrate that this is a ‘Condoned Pass’.

G12.6 Exit awards

A student may only receive one award in respect of any G12.6.1

programme of study.

If a Progression and Finalist Board decides that a G12.6.2student should be excluded from their programme of study as a result of a disciplinary or academic misconduct investigation; or if a student withdraws from their programme of study (for any reason), the Board will recommend to the Progression and Finalist Board that the student is awarded the highest award for which the student is eligible.


Where a student has been excluded from a programme G12.6.3as a result of a disciplinary or academic misconduct investigation; or a student withdraws from their programme of study (for any reason), the student’s profile will be reviewed by a Progression and Finalist Board. The Progression and Finalist Board will offer the highest award for which the student is eligible.

If a student accepts a lower award they may not return to G12.6.4


G12.7 Defined Criteria for Merit/Distinction Regulations on Postgraduate Programmes

In each module that has been successfully completed a G12.7.1

student will receive a numerical mark. From these is derived a single classification which, at postgraduate level, can be a distinction, merit, pass or fail, except in programmes for which such grading classification are not appropriate, in cases of professional, threshold qualifications where a pass or fail is indicated for fitness to practice.

The method for determining final classification is based G12.7.2

on a credit based average method of the Total Module Marks (TMM).

The credit based average calculation will be determined G12.7.3

as follows:

(a) All modules are split into 10 credit modules, therefore a 40 credit module is split into four 10 credit modules and the mark will be counted four separate times;

(b) The average of all the 10 credit modules is calculated to give the final classification of the degree.

Where a programme contains a Study Period Abroad G12.7.4



(b) Using only the modules which have marks available the average of those 10 credit modules is calculated to give the final classification of the degree.


Variation to the University framework outlined above G12.7.5must be only for exceptional circumstances to meet professional, statutory and/or regulatory body requirements as specified in the programme handbook.

G12.8 Pass Award

A classification of Pass is awarded for the programme as G12.8.1

a whole if the student has passed all the required modules, i.e. has achieved 180 credits (for Master’s award) or 60 credits (for standalone Postgraduate Certificate awards) at level 7. (A classification of Fail will be given for the programme as a whole if the student has failed one or more of the modules).

G12.9 Merit Award

A student obtaining a credit weighted average mark of at G12.9.1

least 60% will be considered for a FHEQ Level 7 award with Merit.

G12.10 Distinction Award

A student obtaining a credit weighted average mark of at G12.10.1least 70% will be considered for a FHEQ Level 7 award with Distinction.

G12.11 Borderline (Marginal) Cases

After the final degree classification has been calculated, G12.11.1any student achieving an overall credit weighted average minimum of 49, 59 or 69 will be classified as a borderline student. In determining the average there will be no rounding up, i.e. 68.99 does not become 69. Students in the borderline category will be awarded the higher classification if they meet the following criteria:

(a) Master’s Award: A total of 100 credits out of 180 credits must be at the higher level classification. No more than 20 credits out of the 180 credits can be at the lower level classification i.e. lower than the current calculated classification.

(b) Standalone Postgraduate Diploma Award: a total of 80 credits out of 120 credits must be at the higher level classification. No more than 10 credits out of the 120 credits can be at the lower level classification i.e. lower than the current calculated classification.

(c) Standalone Postgraduate Certificate Award: a total of 40 credits out of 60 credits must be at the highest classification. No more than 10 credits out of the 60


credits can be at the lowest level classification i.e. lower than the current calculated classification.

G12.12 Percentages and Degree Classification

Tariff G12.12.1

Distinction = 70%-100%

Merit = 60%-69%

Pass = 50%-59%

Fail = 0%-49% *University of Wales validated programmes: D = 40-49%; F = 0-39%

For programmes with no merit/distinction classifications, G12.12.2

the following will apply:

Pass = 50%-100%

Fail = 0%-49%

A student who by completion of Programme G12.12.3requirements, has received or is eligible to receive an award may not submit additional work for assessment for the purpose of improving an award classification.

Credits gained for a module may be counted towards G12.12.4

only one named degree award and the interim awards which constitute the programme culminating in that final named degree award or other such study as is deemed by a Progression and Finalist Board to be equivalent to an interim award of that programme.

In order to determine the appropriate award in each G12.12.5

individual case, the Progression and Finalist Board will exercise discretion and will take into account, for example:

(a) the requirements of professional and/or accrediting bodies;

(b) the extent to which programmes are designed for students with certificated or assessed prior learning which merits admission with advanced standing.


G13 Aegrotat Awards and Posthumous Awards

G13.1 Consideration

Before an Aegrotat or Posthumous Award is granted G13.1.1


G13.2 Aegrotat Awards

When an assessment board decides that there is G13.2.1

insufficient evidence of a student’s performance to award a Master’s Degree with a pass classification, but is satisfied that the student would have achieved the required standard but for certified illness/absence/valid reason then an Aegrotat Award may be awarded. The award will be dependent upon the student’s level, as follows:

(a) Postgraduate Certificate

(b) Postgraduate Diploma

(c) Master’s Degree

Aegrotat awards are unclassified. Should an Aegrotat G13.2.2award be awarded posthumously then the following condition will not apply.

Before such an award is made the student must indicate G13.2.3


G13.3 Posthumous Awards

Any award listed in Programme Handbooks may be G13.3.1

conferred posthumously by a Progression and Finalist Board and accepted on the student’s behalf by an appropriate individual. For classified awards, all conditions for the award must be satisfied. Where all conditions are not met to make a classified award, then the Progression and Finalist Board will decide whether to award an Aegrotat Award (as outlined above). The certificate will not refer to the award being conferred posthumously.

G14 Rescinding Awards

G14.1.1 The Vice Chancellor or his nominee may rescind any RUL

award which has previously been conferred on a student


following recommendation from the next available Progression and Finalist Board that it has been established that either academic misconduct has taken place or the original decision of the award was made on misleading or incorrect evidence.

G14.1.2 A Progression and Finalist Board may rescind academic

credit including credit awarded by RPL where new evidence has now come to light concerning academic misconduct or the original evidence presented for the credit is seen to have been falsified, misleading or incorrect. For students who are suspended as a result of academic misconduct and have incorrectly progressed, these students must be required to retake or take those modules which they either passed or were compensated for under false pretences.


H Taught Doctorate Level (Level 8) Academic Regulations

H1 The Admission of Students to Doctoral Level Programmes

H1.1 Minimum Requirements

The minimum entry qualifications are specified in H1.1.1

individual programme regulations but are generally:

(a) An Honours degree from a British University, or a qualification deemed to be equivalent by the Programme Director and a Master’s level qualification.

(b) Such other qualifications or appropriate experience as the Programme Leader deems to be equivalent.

(c) Where an applicant's first Language is not English, and where an applicant possesses qualifications other than those indicated above, evidence of level 6.5 attainment in the IELTS (International English Language Testing Scheme) and/or a TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) score of at least 575 and/or a pass in the University's own English Language Proficiency Test.

Note: Admissions criteria specific to the particular postgraduate programme are to be included in an appendix.

Programme admission regulations are listed in H1.1.2Programme Handbooks and set out:

(a) The entry criteria and the means by which students will be judged for entry onto that programme, e.g. degree pass level, written tests, etc.

(b) Any English language requirements, which will vary according to programme applied for. If required, the University minimum IELTS score is 6.5.

(c) Any other exceptional entry routes onto programmes.

Section H of the Handbook is informed by the following sections of the QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education: Chapter B2: Admissions Chapter B3: Learning and teaching Chapter B4: Enabling student development and achievement Chapter B6: Assessment of students and recognition of prior learning Chapter B11: Research Degree


(d) Recognition for prior learning (where admissible).


All applicants are considered with due reference to the H1.1.3

University Equal Opportunities Policy, and any current anti-discrimination legislation.

The decision of the University will be final. H1.1.4

H2 The Admission of Students to Doctoral Level Programmes with Advanced Standing

H2.1 Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL)

Applicants may be admitted to a programme of study H2.1.1

with ‘advance standing’ providing that this is permissible within our accreditors’ validation regulations. In some cases, due to the nature and philosophy of the programme, especially in professional and/or practitioner doctorates, no RPL will be permitted. Where this is applicable, programme regulations state:

(a) That prior learning will be mapped against the intended programme learning outcomes and that a record of recognised RPL will be stored with the applicant’s record;

(b) Up to what level of a programme applicants with ‘advanced standing’ will be allowed to join;

(c) Regent’s University London’s acceptance of credit from other institutions of higher education is subject to the following conditions:

1. The transcript is an official transcript from the

initiating institution. (An official translation should be provided where relevant.)

2. The transferred module must be similar in scope, content and competency to a Regent’s University London module.

3. The transferred credit must have a Pass grade (e.g. a “C” grade), or higher.

4. All transfer students must subsequently complete at least 50% of their programme at Regent’s University London.

5. Credits are awarded at the point of an offer being made to a student. Transcripts presented later will not be considered for credit.

6. Academic credits which meet the above conditions are not an automatic entitlement,


but are at the discretion of Regent’s University London’s Programme Directors.

7. Any other requirements for RPL laid down by our accreditors’ validation regulations.

H3 Internal Programme Transfers

With the permission of both Programme Directors, H3.1.1

students may be allowed to transfer from one postgraduate programme within Regent’s University London to the same point on another, providing that the intended programme learning outcomes and the curriculum can be demonstrated to be equivalent. Where the intended programme learning outcomes and the curriculum are demonstrably different, then the regulations regarding RPL above will apply. Where professional bodies accredit programmes, transfer is unlikely to be permitted. This is the case for practitioner doctorates.

H4 Registration for Doctoral Programme

H4.1 Registration Requirements and Definitions

Students entering degree programmes at Regent’s H4.1.1

University London are expected to complete their degrees within the time specified within programme regulations.

Registration may be defined as the process through H4.1.2


By registering, the student has agreed to abide by the H4.1.3

University Regulations, and to become liable for fee payments.

The University uses the registration period to check and H4.1.4


H4.2 Registration requirements

All full and part-time students who are actively following H4.2.1

a programme of study at Regent’s University London must register at the commencement of their studies and every term thereafter. Students who are in a period of suspension cannot register. Students who have taken a break in their studies and return partway through the academic year must register before they can


recommence their programme. Some programmes, however, only admit students at the commencement of an academic session.

Students failing to provide Admissions Officers with H4.2.2

original transcripts from their previous studies by the end of first registration period may be required to withdraw from their programme.

H4.3 Registration Conditions for New Entrants

The Admissions Department provides new students with H4.3.1


If there are any outstanding debts to the University as a H4.3.2result of previous study, the debt should be cleared. In exceptional circumstances, students should have agreed an appropriate repayment plan with the Finance Department, who will then remove the fees identifier from the student record.

Any outstanding evidence needed to meet admissions H4.3.3

conditions, as outlined within the regulations of the programme for which the student is registering, should be provided to allow the student to register with a Fully Registered status.

H4.4 Registration Conditions for Continuing Students

Programme Handbooks contain Academic Calendars H4.4.1


If there are any outstanding debts to the University as a H4.4.2result of previous study, the debt must be cleared. In exceptional circumstances, students may have agreed an appropriate repayment plan with the Finance Department, who will then remove the fees identifier from the student record.

H4.5 Registration Conditions for Students returning from suspension or break in studies

The suspension or break in studies process must be H4.5.1

complete.

If there are any outstanding debts to the University as a H4.5.2result of previous study, the debt must be cleared. In exceptional circumstances, students may have agreed an appropriate repayment plan with the Finance


Department, who will then remove the fees identifier from the student record.

H4.6 Registration method

Students must register via the SITS: E-vision portal. H4.6.1


H5 Duration of Study

H5.1 Minimum Period

The minimum duration of study for a programme leading H5.1.1

to an award shall not be less than the minimum length specified for the programme in the programme handbook. The only exception to this regulation will be where a student has been recognised for prior learning (see section above).

H5.2 Maximum Period

All students are expected to complete their postgraduate H5.2.1

degrees within the prescribed time for their allotted programme. However, in documented cases of extenuating circumstances, the maximum duration of study for a student on a postgraduate programme may be extended to the maximum duration of study. There shall, however, be no guarantee about the length of time for which a programme or its component modules shall be available.

Students are required to renew their registration on a H5.2.2


Students may apply to their Programme Director for a H5.2.3

break in studies for a period of up to one academic year. Should the Programme Director agree to the request, considering that the reasons for the request are valid and taking into account the implications of the timing and duration of the break for the student’s engagement with the programme and with assessment and reassessment opportunities, then the Programme Director may agree to a break in studies. The Programme Director will then report the matter to the next Progression and Finalist Board.


The maximum duration of study for a taught doctoral H5.2.4

degree is stated in the Programme Handbook.

H6 Documentary evidence of study

Documentary evidence of study may be made available H6.1.1



(b) Certificates (or Records) of credit;

(c) Certificates (or Records) of achievement;

(d) Transcripts (or lists) of modules taken, with the results of any assessments.

Such documents are not in themselves awards, although H6.1.2


H7 Completion of a Programme

Successful completion of a programme requires the H7.1.1


Credit points specified for each award define the H7.1.2

minimum number and level of specific credit gained by following an approved programme required for an award.

For any award, credit at a higher level can count in place H7.1.3


At least two thirds of the credits for doctorate level study H7.1.4will be at level 8 (Doctorate level). Therefore, up to one third of the credit for a taught doctorate programme may be at level 7.

H8 The Teaching/Learning Year

The standard teaching/learning year for postgraduate H8.1.1

programmes may consist of semesters, trimesters or terms. The standard teaching/learning year for postgraduate programmes consists of 1800 notional learning hours including assessment periods, and an additional period allotted for the writing up of a dissertation. Variations to standard patterns are permitted where specified within validated programme specific documentation.


H9 Assessment and Progression

Assessment is conducted at two levels: firstly, at module H9.1.1level and then secondly at programme level. Subject Boards determine marks for each module. Progression and Finalist Boards receive marks for approval from the Subject Boards and determine progression.

H9.2 Regulations governing assessment at postgraduate level

The University requires that the quality of the marking at H9.2.1

postgraduate level is underpinned by scrutiny of more than one person internally before external moderation and/or examination. This can take two forms:

(a) internal moderation

(b) second (double) blind marking.

Either of these quality control mechanisms can be H9.2.2applied as an audit, sampling process, or as a full, universal process applied to all pieces of work.

While Programme Specifications will make specific H9.2.3

requirements, the University requires that all failing pieces of work at postgraduate level and all distinctions (where appropriate) are moderated or second marked.

H9.3 Internal Moderation at postgraduate level

Moderation refers to the process by which the work of all H9.3.1

students is reviewed by a second academic member of staff, to ensure both consistency of marking standards and fairness and equity of each student mark/grade. The moderator is able to see the comments made by the first marker as well as the grade awarded.

Any assessed piece of work contributing to 20% or more H9.3.2towards the total mark for a module will be moderated.

A University internal moderation form should be used. H9.3.3

H9.4 Role of the first marker

Throughout the work, the first marker writes short H9.4.1


In the case of work to be returned to students, the first H9.4.2

marker will write substantive comments – in clearly legible writing or preferably word-processed text – about


the work as a whole on the front of the module work coversheet, or a formal sheet that the module tutor is using in agreement with the Programme Director. If extra space is required, these comments must be indicated on a separate sheet.

On completion, the first marker will pass all the work H9.4.3


H9.5 Role of the moderator

The moderator must consider: H9.5.1






(f) whether the feedback (where appropriate) is helpful and sufficient for the individual student to know what was well done and what was poorly done.

Moderators do not provide additional feedback to H9.5.2

students.

H9.6 Completing the process

Where the moderator disputes the first marker’s grade H9.6.1


Where agreement is reached between the first marker H9.6.2and moderator, the first marker must amend/adjust marks/grades on the affected scripts/pieces accordingly. If agreement is not reached, a third marker will be asked to resolve the issue.

Following the process it is the responsibility of the H9.6.3module leader to ensure that accurate marks have been entered into the SITS system.


H9.7 Second (double) Marking

In full second marking (or double marking), the first H9.7.1

marker does not record marks or comments on the work and the second marker sees the student work without seeing the comments made or the grade awarded by the first marker. This allows for a ‘blind’ judgement to be made. Where there is a reconciliation required, a third marker, the Programme Director, will adjudicate. External examiners should not be required to adjudicate.

H9.8 Return of Marked Coursework/Assessments

The University will always aim to return marked H9.8.1coursework/assessment to students in a timely manner. As a guide, students should receive marked coursework / assessment within two weeks and no longer than four weeks.

H9.9 External Moderation

The module leader in consultation with the Student H9.9.1

Registry constructs a sample of moderated work to be made available for external moderation.

The sample of moderated work should include a range H9.9.2


External examiners have the right to view all H9.9.3


H9.10 Reassessment of Modules

The following regulations shall apply to the H9.10.1reassessment of modules unless programme specific regulations state otherwise.

H9.11 Resit and Retake Opportunities

This section sets out the arrangements approved by H9.11.1

Senate for students who fail individual modules or part(s) of modules to re-submit assignments, resit examinations and retake modules.

It does not define pass marks, which will differ between H9.11.2

undergraduate and postgraduate programmes (and may in principle differ between programmes at the same


level). Nor does it specify weightings between coursework and examination or whether each component has the same ‘pass’ mark.

Details of regulations as they apply to individual H9.11.3

programmes (e.g. the number of modules/credits that can be re-sat, examination schedules etc.) are contained within the individual programme handbooks. Information on the assessment procedures, weighting of individual assessments etc. are contained in the module outlines.

H9.12 General Principles

Students who fail certain components of the assessment H9.12.1

of a module will be allowed to resit. Marks for components that are resat are capped at 50%.

Unauthorised absence from an examination or failure to H9.12.2

submit coursework by the due date will constitute failure in that element of assessment.

Under exceptional circumstances a student may be H9.12.3

allowed to defer an examination or the submission of coursework. Where such exceptional circumstances become apparent after the examination or the submission date, the Subject Board may grant a deferral retrospectively. Notification of the exceptional circumstances must be made within a specified time of the examination/submission date.

Subject Boards consider all modules failed by students H9.12.4

and determine whether the required action will be a retake of the module or a resubmission of a component or components. Where a student has already resubmitted a component, the board will not recommend a further resubmission of that component. Where a student has failed to achieve 30% in all of the module components, the module will have to be retaken in its entirety.

Where a Subject Board has granted a resit of a H9.12.5

component(s) within a module, then the student will automatically be given a resit on the failed components of the module (below 50%). If a student subsequently does not take that resit or achieves a lower mark on the resit, the highest mark for that component will be used to calculate the TMM.

Where a student has been withdrawn from a module and H9.12.6

therefore failed that module due to a breach of the attendance regulations, the student will be required to


retake the module in accordance with the Attendance and Lateness regulations contained in Section D of this handbook. The maximum number of retakes permitted per module is one.

H9.13 Resits

The maximum mark obtainable for any resit is a H9.13.1

minimum pass for that element. If a student resubmits coursework and resits an examination the maximum mark obtainable for that module is a minimum pass.

Students who are suspended due to absences do not H9.13.2

have the right to resit any failed component(s) and will be required to retake the module(s). The maximum number of retakes permitted per module is one.

When required to resit an examination a student must do H9.13.3

so at the next available opportunity i.e. on the next occasion at which the examination is offered.

When required to resit coursework a student must do so H9.13.4


Students who fail a module after a resit will be required H9.13.5to retake the module. If this is an elective, students would be required to take alternative module(s) to the required credit value. The maximum number of retakes permitted per module is one.

Students who fail an examination or coursework for the H9.13.6

same module on a second occasion may, at the discretion of the Subject Board, be permitted to retake the module.

H9.14 Deferrals

Where the Subject Board has granted a deferral based H9.14.1


Once a student commences an examination or submits H9.14.2

an assignment, they have deemed themselves fit to take the examination or complete the assignment and the regulation found in section D5.1.1 of this handbook would apply for any extenuating circumstances claims submitted.


H9.15 Retakes

No student who has passed a module or who has H9.15.1


No student on a higher degree (master’s and doctorate) H9.15.2

may retake any module on more than one occasion

Where a module is not available for whatever reason, a H9.15.3student required to retake said module may be required to substitute an alternative module of the same level in order to meet the requirements of the degree programme.

H9.16 Alternative Assessment

It is sometimes necessary to assess a student by means H9.16.1


H10 Discontinuation of Study

There are constraints on the total period of registration H10.1.1

for each programme of study. There may also be specific requirements in respect of the rate of progression, or restrictions on the total number of modules which an individual student can resit or retake during the period of their registration. Typically this will take the form of a minimum number of modules successfully passed within a defined period of time. Details of any such restrictions are given in the individual programme specification.

H11 Programme Assessment

H11.1 Responsibilities of Assessment Boards

The appropriate assessment boards will consider each H11.1.1

student's overall performance at the completion of all modules relating to a level of study. The relevant


assessment board will receive marks awarded, and make decisions regarding progression and awards.

The relevant assessment board will produce a statement H11.1.2

of the marks awarded and credits gained at each level for each student and will confirm the programme status of each student. Where a student has satisfied the requirements for an intermediate award (below that of Doctorate Degree), this will also be stated.

Should a set of validated regulations for a programme H11.1.3

allow condonement, then the exact conditions for granting condonement within the validated regulations will take precedence and the regulations as stated in the Programme Handbook must be consulted. The mark achieved for the module(s) condoned will stand, and the credits for the module will be awarded.

Where a module has a specific pre-requisite module, the H11.1.4

pre-requisite module must be passed before a student proceeds to that module. A condoned failure is counted as a pass (50%) for these purposes, but the mark is not altered.

The responsibility of each assessment board is to make H11.1.5


H11.2 The Assessment of Modules

Students will be assessed by the appropriate Subject H11.2.1


All modules shall be assessed in accordance with the H11.2.2module's published assessment methods. Arrangements for students with a disability/specific learning difficulty requiring reasonable adjustments for examinations and specific guidelines for staff and students may be found on the Academic Registry pages of the University intranet.

Marks for each module will be assigned by the H11.2.3


H12 Awards

Specifically validated Doctoral level awards may include H12.1.1

exit points for master’s degrees, postgraduate certificates and diplomas. Criteria for the awards are specified in each doctoral programme handbook.


H12.2 Award of a Postgraduate Certificate

To qualify for the award of a Postgraduate Certificate, a H12.2.1

student must have accumulated at least 60 level 7 credits, and should have achieved at least 50% in each module defined in the schedule of assessment.

A student may elect to receive the Postgraduate H12.2.2

Certificate or to continue studying for a higher award.

H12.3 Award of a Postgraduate Diploma

To qualify for the award of a Postgraduate Diploma, a H12.3.1student must have accumulated at least 120 level 7 credits and have achieved at least 50% in each module defined in the schedule of assessment.

A student may elect to receive the Postgraduate H12.3.2

Diploma or to continue studying for a Master’s award.

H12.4 Award of a Master’s Degree

To qualify for the award of a Master’s degree a student H12.4.1must have accumulated at least 180 level 7 (or higher) credits and have achieved at least 50% in each module defined in the schedule of assessment.

A student achieving less than 50% in the H12.4.2

project/dissertation may, on the recommendation of the Final Subject Board, be permitted to resubmit a referred project or dissertation for reassessment within one calendar year of the submission of the original project/dissertation. Only one resubmission of the original project or, in exceptional circumstances, the resubmission of a new project/dissertation, will be allowed.

H12.5 Exit awards

A student may only receive one award in respect of any H12.5.1

programme of study.

Unless programme specific regulations indicate H12.5.2otherwise the following regulations will apply.

If a Progression and Finalist Board decides that a H12.5.3

student should be excluded from their programme of study as a result of a disciplinary or academic misconduct investigation; or if a student withdraws from their programme of study (for any reason), the Board will


recommend to the Progression and Finalist Board that the student is awarded the highest award for which the student is eligible.

Where a student has been excluded from a programme H12.5.4

as a result of a disciplinary or academic misconduct investigation; or a student withdraws from their programme of study (for any reason), the student’s profile will be reviewed by a Progression and Finalist Board. The Progression and Finalist Board will offer the highest award for which the student is eligible.

If a student accepts a lower award they may not return to H12.5.5


H13 Defined criteria for merit/distinction regulations on postgraduate programmes and exit awards below Doctorate level

In each module that has been successfully completed a H13.1.1

student will receive a numerical mark. From these is derived a single classification which, at postgraduate level, can be a distinction, merit, pass or fail, except in programmes for which such grading classification are not appropriate, in cases of professional, threshold qualifications where a pass or fail is indicated for fitness to practice

The method for determining final classification is based H13.1.2

on a credit based average method of the Total Module Marks (TMM).

The credit based average calculation will be determined H13.1.3

as follows:


(b) The average of all the 10 credit modules is calculated to give the final classification of the degree.

Where a programme contains a Study Period Abroad H13.1.4




(b) Using only the modules which have marks available the average of those 10 credit modules is calculated to give the final classification of the degree.

Variation to the University framework outlined above H13.1.5

must be only for exceptional circumstances to meet professional, statutory and/or regulatory body requirements as specified in the programme handbook.

Where the programme is validated by an external H13.1.6

validating body, validated programme regulations may stipulate different criteria requirement for calculating final degree classification.

H13.2 Pass Award

A classification of Pass is awarded for the programme as H13.2.1

a whole if the student has passed each module, including the dissertation, i.e. has achieved 180 credits at level 7. (A classification of Fail will be given for the programme as a whole if the student has failed one or more of the modules or dissertation.)

H13.3 Merit Award

A student obtaining a credit weighted average mark of at H13.3.1

least 60% will be considered for a Master’s award with Merit.

H13.4 Distinction Award

A student obtaining a credit weighted average mark of at H13.4.1

least 70% will be considered for a Master’s award with Distinction.

H13.5 Borderline (marginal) cases

After the final degree classification has been calculated, H13.5.1

any student achieving an overall credit weighted average minimum of 49, 59 or 69 will be classified as a borderline student. In determining the average there will be no rounding up, i.e. 68.99 does not become 69. Students in the borderline category will be awarded the higher classification if they meet the following criteria:

(a) Master’s Award: A total of 100 credits out of 180 credits must be at the higher level classification. No more than 20 credits out of the 180 credits can be at


the lower level classification i.e. lower than the current calculated classification.

H13.6 Percentages and Degree Classification (awards below Doctorate Level)

Tariff H13.6.1

Distinction = 70%-100%

Merit = 60%-69%

Pass = 50%-59%

Fail = 0%-49% *University of Wales validated programmes: D = 40-49%; F = 0-39%

For programmes with no merit/distinction classifications, H13.6.2

the following will apply:

Pass = 50%-100%

Fail = 0%-49%

A student who, by completion of Programme H13.6.3requirements, has received, or is eligible to receive, an award, may not submit additional work for assessment for the purpose of improving an award classification.

Credits gained for a module may be counted towards H13.6.4

only one named degree award and the interim awards which constitute the programme culminating in that final named degree award or other such study as is deemed by a Progression and Finalist Board to be equivalent to an interim award of that programme.

In order to determine the appropriate award in each H13.6.5

individual case, the Progression and Finalist Board will exercise discretion and will take into account, for example:

(a) the requirements of professional and/or accrediting bodies;

(b) the extent to which programmes are designed for students with certificated or assessed prior learning which merits admission with advanced standing.

H13.7 The Award of the Doctorate

Assessment of the thesis H13.7.1


(a) The examination of the thesis shall be by viva voce examination conducted by at least two examiners, one of whom shall be external to the University.

(b) The purpose of this examination will be designed to test the thesis against the criteria stated in the relevant Programme Handbook.

Award: In order to qualify for admission to the doctoral H13.7.2

degree, a candidate must satisfy the examiners:

(a) that he/she has attained a satisfactory standard in the taught element of the degree;

(b) that the thesis forms a distinct contribution to the knowledge of the field of study and affords evidence of originality and a capacity for autonomous research; and

(c) that he/she possesses a conceptual understanding of the integration of all elements of his/her studies.

H13.8 Requirements of the thesis

To qualify for admission to the doctoral degree, the H13.8.1

thesis must:

(a) consist of the candidate’s own account of his/her investigations;

(b) form a distinct contribution to the knowledge of the field of study;

(c) afford evidence of originality and a capacity for autonomous research;

(d) demonstrate understanding of the research techniques and concepts appropriate to the discipline;

(e) demonstrate the candidate’s understanding of professionalism and his/her own professional role;

(f) show awareness of the contribution of the thesis to his/her professional development;

(g) give a critical assessment of the relevant literature;

(h) describe the method of research and its findings including a discussion on those findings, and indicate in what respects they appear to the candidate to advance the study of the subject;

(i) embody the results of a practice-based research programme which may reasonably be expected of a student, taking into account the required length of the thesis and minimum period of registration for the programme;


(j) be written in English and be satisfactory in its literary and/or technical presentation and structure with a full bibliography and references;

(k) make clear the sources from which information has been derived, the extent to which the work of others has been used, and the areas which are claimed as original;

(l) be of a standard to merit publication in whole or in part or in a revised form (for example, as a monograph or as a number of articles in learned journals).

Appendices should only include material which H13.8.2

examiners are not required to read in order to examine the thesis, but to which they may refer if they wish.

A candidate must include in each copy of his/her thesis a H13.8.3

signed declaration that the work presented in the thesis is his/her own work.

A candidate is required to include a declaration of H13.8.4

accurate word length in his/her thesis.

The greater proportion of the work submitted in a thesis H13.8.5must have been carried out after the registration of the student for the degree, except that in the case of a student accepted with RPL there shall be allowance for the fact that the student commenced his/her registration at another institution.

A candidate will not be permitted to submit as his/her H13.8.6

thesis one which has been submitted for a degree or comparable award of this or any other university or institution. However a candidate shall not be precluded from incorporating in a thesis covering a wider field of work which he/she has already submitted for a degree or comparable award of this or any other university provided that he/she shall indicate on his/her entry form and also on his/her thesis any work which has been so incorporated.

A candidate may submit the results of work done in H13.8.7

conjunction with his/her supervisor, and/or with fellow research workers provided that the candidate states clearly his/her own personal contributions to the investigation and that the statement is certified by the co-researchers.

Work already published including that published in joint H13.8.8

names may be included only if it forms an integral part of the thesis and thereby makes a relevant contribution to


the main theme of the thesis. A series of publications alone is not acceptable as a thesis.

Work undertaken during registration for the degree as H13.8.9

part of other elements of the degree may be included in the thesis provided the student indicates on the entry form and also on the thesis any work which has been so incorporated.

A thesis must be presented for examination in a final H13.8.10form in accordance with the instructions issued by the Academic Registrar of the University.

The title of the candidate’s thesis must be approved by H13.8.11the candidate’s supervisor.

After the examination has been completed and before H13.8.12the degree is awarded, successful candidates are required to submit to the Academic Registrar, for lodging in the Institute library, the required number of copies of the thesis in the format specified in the instructions issued by the Academic Registrar, if the copies of the thesis submitted for examination did not conform with this specification.

H13.9 Entry to Examination for the Thesis

A candidate shall be examined in accordance with the H13.9.1

regulations in force at the time of his/her entry or re-entry.

The decision to submit a thesis in any particular form H13.9.2

rests with the candidate alone.

A student may submit a thesis for examination only after H13.9.3the minimum registration period has passed.

The student’s supervisor shall report that he/she has H13.9.4

completed the course in accordance with the regulations before a candidate is admitted to the examination for the degree.

The student must submit the entry form at least three H13.9.5

months before the submission of the thesis; this will initiate the procedure for the appointment of examiners.

To assist in the appointment of suitable examiners, the H13.9.6

student is required to submit with his/her entry form a short description of the content of the thesis in about 300 words to assist in the appointment of suitable examiners.


If the candidate has not submitted his/her thesis for H13.9.7examination within 12 months from the submission of the entry form for the examination, the entry will be cancelled unless for special reasons the candidate’s supervisor and the Programme Director requests otherwise.

Prior to the oral examination, the candidate will be H13.9.8

required to submit an electronic copy and two paper copies of his/her thesis printed and bound in accordance with instructions obtainable from the Academic Registrar. A candidate may be required to provide a third copy of his/her thesis if a third examiner is appointed at any stage in the examination process.

A candidate is required to bring to the oral examination a H13.9.9

printed copy of his/her thesis paginated in the same way as the copies submitted to the examiners, and a copy of the statement to which reference is made above.

A student must submit his or her thesis for examination H13.9.10within one year of completion of his or her course of study at the Institute. A student wishing to submit the thesis at a later date may do so only with the approval of the Programme Director.

H13.10 Availability of the thesis

It is a requirement for the award of the degree that one H13.10.1hard bound copy of a successful thesis is placed in the University library and one electronic copy to be made available for public reference.

At the time of entry to the examination candidates for the H13.10.2degree will be required to sign a declaration confirming that the work presented is their own, is fit for examination and that a copy may be made available for public reference.

A candidate may apply to the Progression and Finalist H13.10.3Board for restriction of access to his or her thesis and/or the abstract for a period of up to two years on the grounds, for example, of commercial exploitation or patenting or in other very exceptional circumstances. In all other circumstances, a thesis will be placed in the public domain following the award of the degree.

H13.11 The Outcome of the Viva Voce

Both examiners conduct the viva voce and each H13.11.1examiner is required to write a preliminary report on their views about the thesis prior to the viva voce


examination. Then after the viva voce the examiners write on the same report whether their initial thoughts about the thesis/candidate remain the same and, if not, why not.

The supervisor(s) may be present at the viva voce with H13.11.2the permission of the externals, such permission being sought prior to the day of the viva voce.

The recommendation for the final viva voce report shall H13.11.3be one of the following:

(a) The candidate be awarded the degree;

(b) The candidate be awarded the degree subject to minor amendments – for example, correcting spellings and typographical errors; such amendments being undertaken within two months of the viva voce examination and prior to the examiners submitting their report to the Research Degrees Committee;

(c) The candidate be permitted to represent the thesis in a revised format within a period of twelve months, or sooner, and be reassessed with or without a viva voce as determined by the examiners;

(d) The candidate should be awarded an MPhil or other appropriate Master’s degree without further work/revisions;

(e) The candidate should be asked to revise his/her work and be re-examined again, with or without a viva voce examination for the award of an appropriate Master’s degree;

(f) The performance of the candidate is insufficient to merit the award of a Master’s degree but may be considered for an Advanced Postgraduate Diploma;

(g) No qualification is awarded of any type.

Following the submission of a thesis no candidate for a H13.11.4research/professional doctoral degree may be assessed on more than two occasions. The first formal assessment shall include the examination of the thesis and its defence by viva voce (if required).

H14 Aegrotat Awards and Posthumous Awards

H14.1 Consideration

Before an Aegrotat or Posthumous Award is granted, H14.1.1



H14.2 Aegrotat Awards

When an assessment Board decides that there is H14.2.1

insufficient evidence of a student’s performance to award a Master’s Degree with pass classification, but is satisfied that the student would have achieved the required standard but for certified illness/absence/valid reason then an Aegrotat Award may be awarded. The award will be dependent upon the student’s level, as follows:

(a) Postgraduate Certificate

(b) Postgraduate Diploma

(c) Master’s Degree

Aegrotat awards are unclassified. Should an Aegrotat H14.2.2award be awarded posthumously then the following condition will not apply.

Before such an award is made the student must indicate H14.2.3


H14.3 Posthumous Awards

Any award listed in Programme Handbooks may be H14.3.1

conferred posthumously by a Progression and Finalist Board and accepted on the student’s behalf by an appropriate individual. For classified awards, all conditions for the award must be satisfied. Where all conditions are not met to make a classified award, then the Progression and Finalist Board will decide whether to award an Aegrotat Award (as outlined above). The certificate will not refer to the award being conferred posthumously.


J Assessment Boards and External Examiners

J1 Assessment Board Requirements

J1.1 Appointment of Assessment Boards

Every programme of studies approved as leading to a J1.1.1

validated award of the University has a Subject Board, and a Progression and Finalist Board whose constitutions and terms of reference accord with the approved regulations for the programme and the terms of reference contained within Section K of this handbook. The constitution of the assessment boards may include provision for the appointment of subsidiary boards (see below) and the same board may be responsible for more than one programme of study.

The assessment boards are appointed by the SQAEC J1.1.2

and are accountable to that body for the fulfilment of its terms of reference.

J1.2 Chair of Assessment Board

The Chair for the assessment boards shall be appointed J1.2.1

in accordance with its constitution and terms of reference as set out in section K. The Chair must be independent and not involved in the assessment of students whose results are considered by the assessment board.

J1.3 Student membership of Assessment Boards

No student may be a member of an assessment board J1.3.1

or attend an examiners’ meeting.

A person who is otherwise qualified to be an examiner J1.3.2for a programme, for example as a member of academic staff or as an approved external examiner, and is coincidentally registered as a student on another programme either at the same institution or elsewhere, will not be disqualified from carrying out normal examining commitments.

Section J of the Handbook is informed by the following sections of the QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education: Chapter B7: External Examining


J1.4 Authority of Assessment Boards

The assessment boards are authorised to assess J1.4.1

students in accordance with the validated programme regulations and the terms of reference set out in Section K of this handbook, and to recommend to Senate the conferment of a validated award upon a student who in the judgement of the board has fulfilled the objectives of the approved programme of study and achieved the standard required for the award. The approved assessment board or its formally constituted subsidiary examination committees are responsible for all assessments that contribute to the recommendation of an award. No other body, except Senate, has authority to recommend conferment of an award, nor to amend the decision of an approved and properly constituted assessment board acting within its terms of reference and in accordance with the regulations for the programme of study. An assessment board may, however, be required to review a decision if instructed to do so by an appeal or review board in the case of an upheld appeal.

J1.5 Subsidiary assessment committees

A subsidiary assessment committee must include at J1.5.1

least one approved external examiner and all external examiners should be informed that they have the right to attend the meeting of the assessment board at which decisions on recommendations for awards are made. The rights and duties of external examiners are the same as those of external examiners on the main board except that the subsidiary assessment committee only makes recommendations to the main board. The approved assessment board retains responsibility for judging each student’s performance as a whole and deciding, in the light of the objectives of the programme and its academic regulations, whether any condonement may be allowed for failure in elements of the assessment.

J1.6 Delegation of responsibility for assessments

The approved assessment board is responsible for the J1.6.1

reassessment or deferred assessment of students. The board may, at the time when it first meets to decide its recommendations, agree arrangements for delegating that responsibility to a sub-group, which should include at least one external examiner. Such delegation will not be appropriate for all reassessments or deferred assessments; the board must be satisfied that it is


appropriate in the particular circumstances before agreeing to delegate responsibility.

J1.7 Secretary of Assessment Boards

The Student Registry shall ensure that arrangements are J1.7.1

made to appoint a secretary to each assessment board and shall require the secretary to maintain detailed and accurate records of the board’s proceedings.

J1.8 Validating Bodies attendance at Assessment Boards

Representatives from validating bodies may attend J1.8.1

relevant assessment boards in accordance with validation regulations.

J2 External examiners

J2.1 General Information

External examiners ensure that the University standards J2.1.1and quality processes are appropriate and are of a standard comparable to those of other higher education institutions in the UK.

External examiners help to ensure that: J2.1.2

(a) standards set for the awards are appropriate;

(b) standards of student performance are comparable with similar programmes or subjects in other HEIs;

(c) the processes for assessment, examination and the determination of awards are rigorous;

(d) equity of treatment for students and that the academic processes have been conducted fairly against the intended outcomes of the programme(s) and in line with Regent’s University London regulations and policies;

(e) distinctive features are acknowledged in the context of external knowledge and experience.

External examiners provide academic staff with the J2.1.3

opportunity to reflect with other academics in the field and fulfil the requirements of the QAA and validating bodies. They are critical for the validating bodies to retain confidence in the quality and standards of the validated programmes. These procedures are informed by Chapter B7 (external examining) of the QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education.


All academic staff at Regent’s University London are J2.1.4informed of the roles and responsibilities of the external examiners and the levels of their authority.

The University will include the name of the external J2.1.5

examiner, his/her position and institution in module or programme information provided to students.

J2.2 Progression and Finalist Board external examiners

Progression and Finalist Board external examiners are J2.2.1

subject to all the regulations related to external examiners contained within this handbook, with the following exceptions:

(a) Progression and Finalist Board external examiners are not appointed to a subject area and therefore will not be subject specialists.

(b) Progression and Finalist Board external examiners must have an excellent knowledge of quality assurance processes related to student assessment in higher education.

(c) Progression and Finalist Board external examiners must have extensive experience and knowledge of the administration of assessment boards, which has been gained through a senior quality role within a higher education institution e.g. Director of Quality, Academic Registrar, Associate Dean of Quality etc.

(d) Progression and Finalist Board external examiners will not be moderating student assessment but rather they will be observing and auditing the Progression and Finalist Board to ensure that the board is conducted according to regulations.

J2.3 Appointment Procedure for external examiners

Nominations are made according to Chapter B7 J2.3.1

(external examining) of the UK Quality Code. This covers the nominees’ seniority, credibility and relevant experience, knowledge and understanding of UK sector agreed reference points for the maintenance of academic standards and assurance and enhancement of quality.

Their academic qualifications/professional qualifications J2.3.2

must be appropriate and to at least the level of the qualification being externally examined, and/or have extensive practitioner experience where appropriate.

All external examiners are expected to have competence J2.3.3

and experience of designing and operating a variety of


assessment tasks appropriate to the subject and operating assessment procedures and examinations (either externally or internally).

All external examiners will have an awareness of current J2.3.4

developments in the design and delivery of relevant curricula.

External examiner nominations are drawn from a variety J2.3.5

of institutional and professional contexts and traditions ensuring the programmes benefit from wide-ranging external scrutiny. Where a programme leads to a professional award, at least one appropriately experienced practitioner should be included among the examiners.

All external examiners will meet the applicable criteria J2.3.6

set by professional statutory or regulatory bodies.

All external examiners will have a familiarity with the J2.3.7standard to be expected of students to achieve the award that is to be assessed.

All external examiners will have the necessary J2.3.8

experience to enhance the student learning experience.

All external examiners will be fluent in English, and J2.3.9where programmes are delivered and assessed in languages other than English, fluency in the relevant language(s) (unless other secure arrangements are in place to ensure that external examiners are provided with the information to make their judgements).

Additionally, external examiners will not: J2.3.10

(a) normally hold more than two external examiner appointments for taught programmes/modules at any point in time;

(b) have worked or studied at Regent’s University London in the last five years. Retirees may be considered provided they have sufficient evidence of continuing involvement in the academic area in question;

(c) be from the same institution as the previous external examiner;

(d) be an external examiner from an institution which has been the source of examiners to the faculties of the University for a programme covering the same or cognate subject areas in the recent past (normally five years);


(e) be a member of staff, a governor, a student, or a near relative of a member of staff or student on the programme, an examiner on a cognate course in the University or a member of a committee of the appointing institution or one of its collaborative partners;

(f) be in a close professional contractual or personal relationship with a member of staff or student involved with the programme of study;

(g) be involved as external examiner for the programme when it was approved by another validating body;

(h) be a recent or current close working colleague of a key member of staff now teaching on the programme to be examined;

(i) be personally associated with the sponsorship of students on the programme;

(j) be anyone closely associated with placements or training;

(k) be required to assess colleagues who are recruited as students to the programme;

(l) be in a position to influence significantly the future employment of students on the programme or likely to be involved with placements or training programmes in his/her organisation involving students on the programme;

(m) be anyone involved in collaborative research activities with a member of staff;

(n) be anyone who has been directly involved as an external member of the validation panel for the programme.

A reciprocal external examining arrangement between J2.3.11

the University and other Institutions is not allowed.

The replacement of an external examiner from an J2.3.12institution by a colleague from the same department in the same institution is not allowed.

No more than one external examiner should be J2.3.13

appointed to a programme from any one department.

The duration of an external examiner’s appointment will J2.3.14be four years, with a possible, exceptional extension of one year.

An external examiner may be reappointed in exceptional J2.3.15

circumstances but only after a period of five years has elapsed since their last appointment.


The appointment of an external examiner can be J2.3.16

terminated by the University, approved at a senior level, if they fail to fulfil their obligations at the end of any single year of appointment.

Colleagues who are new to external examining or have J2.3.17

professional experience relevant to a professional or vocational programme can be appointed provided they are part of a team and mentored by an external examiner that meets the criteria outlined above.

Where any potential conflict of interest cannot be J2.3.18

satisfactorily resolved appointments will not be approved.

J2.4 Nomination process

All nominations for external examiners must be J2.4.1

submitted using the University’s external examiner nomination form found on the Academic Registry Intranet pages.

All nominations for external examiners should be J2.4.2

checked using the ‘External Examiner Checklist’ form available on the Academic Registry Intranet pages.

Completed nomination forms should be signed by the J2.4.3

Head of School / Department or nominee (i.e. programme director) and then submitted to the Faculty / Institute Quality Officer and Associate Dean / Director for approval at Faculty / Institute-level.

Both, the Faculty / Institute Quality Officer and Associate J2.4.4Dean / Director will be required to approve and sign the paperwork. In the event of one member not being available to sign the paperwork, a suitable nominee should be appointed. It should be noted that in order for the paperwork to be accepted at University-level, at least one of the named members at Faculty / Institute-level must approve and sign the paperwork and the second signatory could be completed by the nominee.

Once approval has been given at Faculty / Institute-level J2.4.5the form should be passed to the Academic Registry for scrutiny and subsequent approval at University Level by the Senior Quality Officer or nominee from the Quality Office, on behalf of the SQAEC.

The Student Registry will ensure that all external J2.4.6examiners are appropriately inducted and a feedback form based on the induction should be completed by the


external examiner and provided to the Academic Registry.

The Quality Office will produce an updated report for J2.4.7each meeting of the SQAEC.

J2.5 Appointment Contract

Appointments for external examiners are usually for a J2.5.1

period of four years. However, the term of office may be extended for up to twelve months in extenuating circumstances where there is a clear rationale.

A new external examiner will start either just before the J2.5.2

previous one has completed their term or at the same time. A handover meeting is encouraged where possible.

The Programmes and/or Subject areas to be included in J2.5.3

the external examiner’s role will be clearly communicated in the appointment letter, and this information will also be recorded at the SQAEC.

An external examiner’s contract may be terminated J2.5.4

where reports are not produced in a timely manner or to an appropriate standard, or due to failure to attend the relevant assessment Board(s), or a new conflict of interest arises, or due to the discontinuation of the programme.

J2.6 Monitoring the external examiner appointments Procedure

The Academic Registry holds and maintains an external J2.6.1

examiner database which contains contact details, length of contract and payment details for all external examiners, which is accessible to the Student Registry. The Academic Registry monitors the appointments procedure and notifies the SQAEC of progress regarding all external examiner appointments.

J2.7 Induction of external examiners

Initial arrangements J2.7.1

The external examiner is supplied with:

(a) Regent’s University London Quality Handbook detailing all QA procedures such as moderation policy.

(b) Programme Handbooks (containing the Programme Specification) for the programme, including details of assessment.


(c) A briefing paper on University contacts and reporting lines.

(d) The previous external examiner’s report.

(e) Dates for meetings of the relevant examining boards.

(f) The content and format required for the written report.

Induction meeting J2.7.2

External examiners are invited to a meeting at which they are briefed on the institutional procedures and academic regulations as well as being given information to explain what their duties and obligations are, including those relating to attendance and feedback, and any legal obligations. Details may also be shared regarding the developments and opportunities for discussion at programme level. The external examiners will meet the relevant academic and registry staff.

J2.8 The external examiner’s role

The Programme Directors and/or Pathway Leaders J2.8.1

maintain contact with the external examiners. External examiners may be invited to observe the assessment of presentations or practical work and to discuss new ideas for the programme, assessment items or criteria and any other aspects of delivery.

External examiners review proposed examination J2.8.2

questions and any proposed changes in the programme.

They are also informed when they will be able to view J2.8.3work. All coursework and exam scripts can be made available to external examiners where possible, but they will normally be able to review a sample across the marking range. External examiners may not change individual marks within a sample.

External examiners also attend the examination boards J2.8.4of the programme, at which they are required to sign off the outcomes.

The external examiner will endorse the outcomes of the J2.8.5assessment processes they have been appointed to scrutinise.

On all UK validated programmes, no recommendation J2.8.6for the conferment of a validated award of the University may be made without the written consent of approved external examiners prior to the confirmation of mark lists.


On any matter which the external examiners have J2.8.7declared a matter of principle, the decision of the external examiners shall either be accepted as final by the assessment board or shall be referred to the SQAEC. Disagreements between external examiners shall be referred to the SQAEC.

J2.9 The Report

At the end of the assessment process, external J2.9.1

examiners are required to submit an annual report. The report is submitted no more than one month after the final meeting of the assessment board.

The report includes comments on the following: J2.9.2

(a) The overall performance of the students in relation to their peers on comparable programmes.

(b) The strengths and weaknesses of students in relation to previous years (where applicable).

(c) The quality of knowledge and skills, both general and subject specific and including any work-based or work-related aspects, demonstrated by the students and in the light of QAA subject benchmarks, and the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ).

(d) The quality of teaching as indicated by student performance.

(e) The structure, organisation, design, marking and fairness of all assessments and their compliance with Regent’s University London quality assurance procedures.

(f) The organisation and operation of assessment boards.

(g) Comments on their own involvement in the process and feedback on whether issues previously raised have been addressed.

(h) Other recommendations arising from the assessments.

(i) Developmental needs for the curriculum, syllabus, teaching methods and resources to support the programme arising from the whole learning and assessment process.

(j) Recommendations to enhance the quality of learning opportunities provided to students.

(k) Any areas of good practice and innovation relating to learning, teaching and assessment.


(l) The report is sent to the Academic Registrar of Regent’s University London. It is logged in the Academic Registry and a copy sent to the Programme Director for consideration by the Programme Committee and the Associate Dean/Associate Director.

The University will make external examiners’ annual J2.9.3

reports available in full to students, with the sole exception of any confidential report made directly, and separately to the Vice Chancellor.

External examiners have the right to raise any matter of J2.9.4

serious concern with the Vice Chancellor, if necessary by means of a separate confidential written report. The Vice Chancellor will provide a response within a timely manner. If this response is not satisfactory to the external examiner then he/she may invoke the QAA’s concerns scheme or inform the relevant professional statutory or regulatory body.

J2.10 Responses to the report

The report is designed to enable the Programme J2.10.1

Committee to ascertain whether the programme is meeting its stated objectives, and to make any necessary improvements. The Programme Director and/or Pathway Leader, in consultation with members of the teaching team, produce written feedback within one month in response to the issues raised in the report. The response which identifies measures that are to be put in place and discussions to be had where recommended, is sent to the external examiner and to the SQAEC.

The Academic Registry will produce a report on the J2.10.2

general issues and themes arising from all the reports. This summary report will then be presented to the SQAEC.

The University will ensure that student representatives J2.10.3

are given the opportunity to be fully involved in the process, enabling them to understand all the issues raised and the institution’s response.


K Terms of Reference: Senate, Senate Committees and Assessment Boards

K1 Academic Governance Structure

Board of

Trustees

Trustee Committees

Vice Chancellor as Chair

of Senate

Senate

Directorate

Sub-Directorate

Committees

Senate Research

Committee

Senate Portfolio

Development

Committee

Senate Learning

and Teaching

Committee

Senate Quality

Assurance &

Enhancement

Committee

Annual

Monitoring

Committee

Academic

Framework

and

Regulations

Committee

(Re)

Validation

Panels

Assessment

Boards

BaM

Faculty

Research

Committee

HASS

Faculty

Research

Committee

RILC

Learning

and

Teaching

Committee

HASS

Faculty

Learning

and

Teaching

Committee

BaM

Faculty

Learning

and

Teaching

Committee

Learning

Resources

Committee

BaM

Programme

Committees

HASS

Programme

Committees

Academic Committees

Sub-Directorate

Committees

RILC

Research

Committee

Collaborative

Provision

Committee

Research

Ethics

Committee

Research

Ethics

Appeals

Panel


K2 Membership and Terms of Reference of Senate

K2.1 Membership

23 members of staff and students Ex officio:

Vice-Chancellor (Chair) *

Deputy Vice-Chancellor *

PVC / Faculty Deans (all) (currently 2) *

Institute Directors (all) (currently 1) *

Head of Academic Practice *

Dean of Students **

Academic Registrar **

Chief Operating Officer **

PVC / Director of Human Resources **

Chief Finance Officer **

Chief Information Officer **

Director of External Relations **

President of Student Union ***

Vice President of the Student Union *** Elected:

5 members of academic staff: 2 from the faculty of BaM, 2 from the faculty of HASS and 1 from the Regent’s Institute of Languages and Culture, elected by academic staff from the same faculty / institute (5) *

2 members of Professional Services staff elected by Professional Services staff (2)**

Student Council President elected by the Student Council Presidents ***

* Academic (11) ** Professional Services (9) *** Students (3)

Total (23) In attendance:

Secretary

Accreditation Agency Partnership Managers / Academic Reviewers (Open University Centre for Inclusion and Collaborative Partnerships, University of Wales) (2) (observers)

Co-optees (as required by Senate) (Total attendance = 27 plus co-optees)


K2.2 Terms of Reference

Subject to the overall responsibility of the Board of Trustees (hereafter referred to as the Board), Senate has delegated responsibility to: 1. Propose to the Board the academic strategy of the University, with

particular reference to the requirements for the retention of Taught Degree Awarding Powers and Quality Assurance Agency standards and benchmarks in line with the overall strategic development of the University.

2. Approve the planning, coordination, development and oversight of the academic work of Regent's University London, its fit with the University mission and relevance to the needs of the local, national and international educational, professional and business communities that the University serves.

3. Establish and delegate Senate functions with authority to Senate Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee, Senate Learning and Teaching Committee, Senate Portfolio Development Committee and Senate Research Committee.

4. Receive the minutes and associated proposals / recommendations from the Senate committees.

5. Receive a quarterly report from the Faculty and Institute Executive Committees.

6. Set and maintain high ethical standards in all aspects of the University’s work.

7. Monitor, review and enhance the processes through which academic staff are appointed, complete probation, progress in their careers, are appraised, developed and promoted throughout Regent’s University London.

8. Consult with and report in timely fashion to the Board, through the Vice-Chancellor, on the activities of Senate and propose any changes required to the membership, terms of reference and standing orders of Senate and the Senate committees.

9. Confer Regent’s University London awards. Senate delegates authority to the Academic Registrar in this regard, who approves award lists recommended by the Progression and Finalist Boards after ensuring that due process has occurred.

K2.3 Standing Orders

1. The Vice-Chancellor, as chief academic officer of Regent’s

University London, shall be the ex officio Chair of Senate. Alternatively, the Vice-Chancellor may delegate the role of Chair to his / her academic nominee.


2. The normal period of appointment for elected staff members of

Senate shall be three years with a possibility of re-election for one further three year period.

3. The Academic Secretariat will monitor and run the staff election process for Senate, and appoint members to Senate in accordance with the outlined process. Members will therefore be able to take up their position at the next meeting of Senate.

4. Should an elected staff member leave Senate, a new member will be appointed by the Academic Secretariat following the election process and shall serve for three years from the date of appointment.

5. The student elected representative will be elected from the Student Council Presidents to serve on Senate for the remainder of their office as Student Council President. When the elected Student Council President’s office comes to an end, a new election will be held.

6. Where necessary, subject to challenge by the committee, members of Senate may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which they are unable to be present.

7. Co-opted members will participate in the deliberations of the committee as required by the committee.

8. Observers are only allowed at the permission of the Chair, and should not participate in Committee business unless authorised by the Chair.

9. Co-opted members and observers shall not be entitled to vote on motions proposed at Senate.

10. The Secretary of Senate shall be appointed from the Academic Registry by the Academic Registrar.

11. Senate shall not be considered quorate unless: a) at least half its members are present; b) at least one member of academic staff is present from each

faculty and institute.

12. If Senate becomes inquorate during the proceedings, it shall continue its business unless a voting member objects, such objection requiring no further binding decisions to be made at the meeting. If Senate is unable to meet through lack of a quorum, it may reconvene and carry out its normal business irrespective of being inquorate, provided that members receive at least 24 hours’ notice of the newly scheduled meeting.


13. Senate shall normally meet at least four times per academic year, at least once per term.

14. The Chair may from time to time declare extraordinary meetings of Senate provided that a minimum of 14 days’ notice is provided and that papers are circulated a minimum of 7 days before the meeting.

15. The Chair of Senate and the Secretary of Senate reserve the right to attend any committee within the academic governance structure.

16. Accreditation Agency Partnership Managers and Academic Reviewers have observer status only.

17. The structure and terms of reference of Senate shall be approved or varied only with the approval of the Board of Trustees.

18. Formal minutes, prepared in the prevailing and agreed University format are a requirement of the operation of Senate.

19. With the exception of materials deemed confidential due to data protection issues or matters of business sensitivity, minutes will be published on the University intranet.

20. It is recognised that there may be items of reserved business from which student representatives will be asked to withdraw.

21. Senate retains the right to veto any decisions made by any of the committees within the academic governance structure reporting into it.

22. Where an elected representative does not attend a sufficient number of meetings as determined by the Secretary of Senate, the Secretary of Senate will write to the elected representative and try to rectify the situation. Continued unsatisfactory attendance will be taken as a de facto resignation and the Secretary of Senate will write to the elected representative notifying them of this decision. The Secretary of Senate will then initiate a new election for a replacement.


K3 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Senate Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee (SQAEC)

K3.1 Membership

13 members of staff and students

Ex officio:

Academic Registrar (Chair) **

Dean of Students **

Faculty Associate Deans (all) (currently 2) *

Institute Associate Directors (all) (currently 1) *

Chair of the Academic Framework and Regulations Committee **

Chair of the Annual Monitoring Committee **

Head of Student Registry ** Appointed:

One member of academic staff appointed by each Faculty Associate Dean to represent their faculty (currently 2) *

One member of academic staff appointed by each Institute Associate Director to represent their institute (currently 1) *

Two student representatives appointed by the Student Union (one undergraduate, one postgraduate) (2) ***

* Academic (6) ** Professional services (5) *** Students (2)


Secretary

Co-optees (as required by the committee)

(Total attendance = 14 plus co-optees)


The Senate Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee (SQAEC) has delegated responsibility from Senate in the following areas to: 1. Apply and enhance the University academic framework, which

reflects the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) regulatory framework, to all academic programmes within Regent’s University London.

2. Disseminate QAA updates across all Schools through discussion at

Senate.


3. Oversee the mapping of institutional practice against the chapters of the QAA’s Quality Code and to receive and assess the resulting review documents.

4. Monitor and evaluate all accreditation and validation processes and issues, maintaining close control and scrutiny of the scheduling of accreditation and validation events across the University and ensuring that sufficient support is available to meet the demands of all approved and relevant external accreditation authorities.

5. Receive and ratify (Re)Validation Panel decisions.

6. Assess the robustness of annual monitoring reports.

7. Receive notice from the Programme Planning Panel (PPP) of all approved changes to programmes and modules.

8. Receive, consider and approve recommendations for programme

revalidations from the PPP.

9. Receive management reports on degree classifications on all programmes following the Finalist Assessment Board and monitor the compliance of Assessment Boards with regulations relating to student awards; and to analyse the spread of degree classifications to ensure that the level of the award is appropriate to the scope of the achievement in a University, regional, national or international context.

10. Receive a report at the end of each academic year from the Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) on the review of the overall arrangements for the quality assurance of taught collaborative provision.

11. Receive the minutes, Institutional Overview Reports and proposals for changes to the annual monitoring process, from the Annual Monitoring Committee (AMC).

12. Receive, consider and approve the minutes, reports and associated proposals / recommendations from the Academic Framework and Regulations Committee (AFRC).

13. Approve and enhance academic regulations.

14. Receive and review, through the annual monitoring reports, all the relevant external examiner reports and associated responses and action points.

15. Approve the appointment of external examiners subject to the requirement of validating bodies and receive an update report from the Quality Office on the current state of external examiner appointments. This report should clearly indicate any new appointments and progress reports on replacement nominations for


those examiners nearing the end of their tenure. Dates of appointment should be clearly indicated.

16. Identify and approve changes in external examiner processes or policies.


1. The Academic Registrar shall be the ex officio Chair of the Senate

Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee. Alternatively, the Academic Registrar may delegate the role of Chair to his / her nominee.

2. Where necessary, subject to challenge by the committee, members of the SQAEC may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which they are unable to be present.

3. Co-opted members will participate in the deliberations of the

committee as required by the committee. 4. Observers are only allowed at the permission of the Chair, and

should not participate in committee business unless authorised by the Chair.

5. Co-opted members and observers shall not be entitled to vote on

motions proposed at the SQAEC. 6. The Secretary of the SQAEC shall be appointed from the Academic

Registry by the Deputy Registrar. 7. The SQAEC shall not be considered quorate unless:

a) at least half its members are present; b) at least one member of academic staff is present from each

faculty and institute. 8. If the SQAEC becomes inquorate during the proceedings, it shall

continue its business unless a voting member objects, such objection requiring no further binding decisions to be made at the meeting. If the SQAEC is unable to meet through lack of a quorum, it may reconvene and carry out its normal business irrespective of being inquorate, provided that members receive at least 24 hours’ notice of the newly scheduled meeting.

9. The SQAEC shall normally meet at least four times per academic

year, at least once per term. 10. The Chair may from time to time declare extraordinary meetings

provided that a minimum of 14 days’ notice is provided and that papers are circulated a minimum of 7 days before the meeting.


11. The structure and terms of reference of the SQAEC shall be

approved or varied only with the approval of the Secretary of Senate prior to final approval at Senate.

12. Formal minutes, prepared in the prevailing and agreed University

format are a requirement of the operation of the SQAEC. 13. Formal minutes will be presented to Senate.

14. With the exception of materials deemed confidential due to data

protection issues or matters of business sensitivity, minutes will be published on the University intranet.

15. It is recognised that there may be items of reserved business from

which student representatives will be asked to withdraw.


K4 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee (SLTC)

K4.1 Membership


Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Chair) *


Head of Student Registry **

Dean of Students **



Head of Academic Practice *

Heads of School (all) (currently 4) *

Subject Group Leaders (RILC) (all) (currently 3) *

Heads of Department (BaM) (all) (currently 3) *

Disability Officer **

Head of Learning Resources **

Appointed:

Two student representatives appointed by the Student Union (one undergraduate, one postgraduate taught, one postgraduate research) (2) ***



Secretary (from the Academic Registry)

Co-optees (as required by the committee) (Total attendance = 23 plus co-optees)


The Senate Learning and Teaching Committee (SLTC) has delegated responsibility from Senate in the following areas to: 1. Monitor, review and support the development and enhancement

of learning, teaching and assessment within the University. 2. Identify, report, and make decisions on key issues relating to the

delivery of academic programmes through learning and teaching at the University.


3. Establish and delegate Senate Learning and Teaching Committee functions to the Faculty and Institute Learning and Teaching Committees and the Learning Resources Committee.

4. Provide a cross-University forum for the regular discussion of

issues for the delivery of academic services relating to learning and teaching.

5. Ensure that the students of Regent's University London receive

high quality services and high quality support to underpin and enhance their learning experience.

6. Receive, review and take appropriate action regarding reports on

student services related to learning and teaching, student success and progression trends and student feedback results provided from across the University, notably by the Dean of Students.

7. Monitor provision for students with disabilities and / or specific

learning difficulties (e.g. dyslexia) and make appropriate recommendations for action.

8. Monitor the application of the University’s equal opportunities

policy for students, so that no detriment is experienced by any student due to factors including but not limited to: gender, ethnic background, disability, age or sexual orientation.

9. Contribute to the development of the University strategic plan and

formulate policy in the areas of learning and teaching. 10. Act as a communications channel to all areas of the University on

proposed academic developments which may have an impact on staff in the areas of learning and teaching.

11. Co-ordinate the development and implementation of the

University Learning Teaching and Assessment (LTAS) strategy. 12. Receive and consider the minutes and associated proposals /

recommendations from the Learning Resources Committee and Faculty and Institute Learning and Teaching Committees.

13. Receive a quarterly report from the Student Affairs Committee on

matters relating to Learning and Teaching.


1. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor shall be the ex officio Chair of the

Senate Learning and Teaching Committee. Alternatively, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor may delegate the role of chair to his / her nominee.


2. Where necessary, subject to challenge by the committee, members of the SLTC may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which they are unable to be present.





motions proposed at the SLTC. 6. The Secretary of the SLTC shall be appointed from the Academic

Registry by the Deputy Registrar. 7. The SLTC shall not be considered quorate unless:

a) at least half its members are present; b) at least half of those present are academic representatives; c) at least two members of academic staff are present from each

faculty; d) at least one member of academic staff is present from each

institute.

8. If the SLTC becomes inquorate during the proceedings, it shall continue its business unless a voting member objects, such objection requiring no further binding decisions to be made at the meeting. If the committee is unable to meet through lack of a quorum, it may reconvene and carry out its normal business irrespective of being inquorate, provided that members receive at least 24 hours’ notice of the newly scheduled meeting.

9. The SLTC shall normally meet at least four times per academic

year, at least once per term.

10. The Chair may from time to time declare extraordinary meetings provided that a minimum of 14 days’ notice is provided and that papers are circulated a minimum of 7 days before the meeting.

11. The structure and terms of reference of the SLTC shall be



format are a requirement of the operation of the SLTC. 14. Formal minutes will be presented to Senate. 15. With the exception of materials deemed confidential due to data



K5 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Senate Portfolio Development Committee (SPDC)

K5.1 Membership


Chief Operating Officer (Chair) **

Deputy Vice-Chancellor *


Dean of Students **

Institute Directors (all) (currently 1) *



Heads of School (all) (currently 4) *

Heads of Department (all) (currently 3) *


Chief Finance Officer **

Director of External Relations **

Head of Learning Resources **

Head of Management Information Systems **

Head of International Partnerships **

Business Development Manager **

Head of Careers and Business Relations ** Appointed:

Two student representatives appointed by the Student Union (one undergraduate and one postgraduate (2) ***



Secretary



The Senate Portfolio Development Committee (SPDC) has delegated responsibility from Senate in the following areas to: 1. Approve the development of a portfolio of programmes which will

ensure the attainment of the University’s strategic objectives and vision and which will reflect the University’s mission and values.


2. Identify, report, and make recommendations on key issues relating to the overall development of academic programmes at the University which may have a cross-University impact.

3. Monitor and offer support and guidance for new academic

programme developments both within Schools and across / between Schools (joint programme initiatives), as well as offering final adjudication on all issues of internal academic competition at Regent's University London.

4. Offer advice and make decisions on all internal academic

programme competition issues at Regent’s University London. 5. Receive proposals and recommendations for new collaborative

arrangements from the Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) and approve or reject providing feedback.

6. Consider changes to the titles of programmes.

7. Monitor, review and develop through the CPC, information on and

developments with all local, national and international academic partnership arrangements with the University and maintain a clear University policy and strategy in this area.

8. Monitor and review study period abroad agreements and staff

teaching exchanges in international partnerships. 9. Monitor and review through the CPC, collaborative arrangements

(articulation, dual/double and joint arrangements). 10. Monitor and review the current portfolio of programmes to

determine continued relevance, performance and viability following the submission of a periodical report by the Business Development Manager. The timescale for the report will be based on the following criteria: newly validated programmes are to be reviewed every year for the first 3 years and all programmes are to be reviewed every 3 years thereafter, or as required and to make any resulting decisions on programme discontinuation.

11. Monitor all short course developments by Regent's University

London. 12. Receive programme proposals and a summary report of portfolio

development and other relevant updates from the Faculty and Institute Executive Committees.

13. Receive and consider the minutes and associated proposals /

recommendations from the CPC. 14. Receive an annual executive summary report from the CPC.


15. Receive notification from the PVC/Faculty Deans or Institute Director, as applicable, of suspension of recruitment to a programme.


1. The Chief Operating Officer shall be the ex officio Chair of the

Senate Portfolio Development Committee. Alternatively, the Chief Operating Officer may delegate the role of Chair to his / her nominee.

2. Where necessary, subject to challenge by the committee,

members of the SPDC may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which they are unable to be present.





motions proposed at the SPDC. 6. The Secretary of the SPDC shall be appointed from the Academic

Registry by the Deputy Registrar. 7. The SPDC shall not be considered quorate unless:

a) at least half its members are present; 8. If the SPDC becomes inquorate during the proceedings, it shall

continue its business unless a voting member objects, such objection requiring no further binding decisions to be made at the meeting. If the SPDC is unable to meet through lack of a quorum, it may reconvene and carry out its normal business irrespective of being inquorate, provided that members receive at least 24 hours’ notice of the newly scheduled meeting.

9. The SPDC shall normally meet at least four times per academic

year, at least once per term. 10. The Chair may from time to time declare extraordinary meetings

of the SPDC provided that a minimum of 14 days’ notice is provided and that papers are circulated a minimum of 7 days before the meeting.

11. The structure and terms of reference of the SPDC shall be



12. Formal minutes, prepared in the prevailing and agreed University format are a requirement of the operation of the SPDC.

13. Formal minutes will be presented to Senate. 14. With the exception of materials deemed confidential due to data





K6 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Senate Research Committee (SRC)

K6.1 Membership


Head of Academic Practice (Chair) *

Heads of University Research Centres (all) (currently 4) *


Institute Director (all) (currently 1) *

Faculty Research Leaders (all) (currently 2) *

Institute Research Leaders (all) (currently 1) *

Chair(s) of the Research Degrees Committee(s) (currently 1) *

Chair of Research Ethics Committee *

Head of Learning Resources ** Appointed:

One student representative appointed by the Student Union (postgraduate research) (1) ***

One member of academic staff appointed by each PVC / Faculty Dean to represent their faculty (currently 2) *

One member of academic staff appointed by each Institute Director to represent their institute (currently 1) *



Research Administrator

Secretary



The Senate Research Committee (SRC) has delegated responsibility from Senate in the following areas to: 1. Foster and promote a University wide research culture. 2. Maintain, further develop and monitor an operational and

consistent research strategy that is applied across the University and ensure it is in alignment with the requirements for Taught and Research Degree Awarding Powers.


3. Monitor, support, promote and publicise research outputs, e.g. research publications, books, edited books, journal articles, review articles, reviews, conference papers [notably keynote addresses], research grants, professional distinctions and other esteem factors.

4. Review and promote through the Research Degrees Committees

all postgraduate research including but not limited to: MPhil., taught doctorate and PhD work.

5. Promote best practice in any and all aspects of research to

enhance the personal and academic development of students and staff.

6. Monitor, review and support the development and enhancement

of research and consultancy within the University; specifically to ensure that all research and consulting projects are entirely consistent with the University’s mission, values and ethical policies.

7. Review all projects which have a specific research element, in

particular those that may have student involvement, to ensure consistency with the University’s vision, mission and values and provide ethical approval, prior to such proposals being scrutinised from a budgetary and financial perspective by the University’s Finance Department.

8. Set criteria for the establishment of research centres and approve

them. Monitor the performance of approved centres against agreed measurable objectives and ensure that their contribution is consistent with the University’s mission, vision and values and research objectives.

9. Promote and monitor the acquisition of external research funds. 10. Review the level of staff support for research across the campus

(e.g. sabbatical policy). 11. Review through the Research Ethics Committee (REC) all the

University’s research projects from an ethical perspective in order to ensure that the highest standards are maintained.

12. Define and monitor a research ethics policy and assist in the

development of, and monitor procedures to quality assure student postgraduate research paying particular attention to ethical issues.

13. Assist in promoting and strengthening the research culture in

faculties and institutes through research centres. 14. To receive the minutes and associated proposals /

recommendations from the Faculty and Institute Research


Committees and the minutes of the Research Degree Committees and Research Ethics Committee.

15. To receive an annual report from the Research Ethics Appeals

Panel.


1. The Head of Academic Practice shall be the ex officio chair of the

Senate Research Committee. Alternatively, the Head of Academic Practice may delegate the role of chair to his / her nominee.


members of the SRC may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which they are unable to be present.





motions proposed at SRC. 6. The Secretary of the committee shall be appointed from the

Academic Registry by the Deputy Registrar. 7. The SRC shall not be considered quorate unless:

a) at least half its members are present; b) at least half of those present are academic representatives.

8. If the SRC becomes inquorate during the proceedings, it shall

continue its business unless a voting member objects, such objection requiring no further binding decisions to be made at the meeting. If the SRC is unable to meet through lack of a quorum, it may reconvene and carry out its normal business irrespective of being inquorate, provided that members receive at least 24 hours’ notice of the newly scheduled meeting.

9. The SRC will normally meet at least four times per academic year,

at least once per term. 10. The Chair may from time to time declare extraordinary meetings

of the SRC provided that a minimum of 14 days’ notice is provided and that papers are circulated a minimum of 7 days before the meeting.

11. The structure and terms of reference of the SRC shall be




format are a requirement of the operation of the SRC. 13. Formal minutes will be presented to Senate. 14. With the exception of materials deemed confidential due to data





K7 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Learning Resources Committee (LRC)

K7.1 Membership


Head of Learning Resources (Chair) **

Faculty Associate Deans or nominee (all) (currently 2) *

Institute Associate Director or nominee (all) (currently1) *

Dean of Students **

Chief Information Officer **

Library Manager **

Head of Information Systems **

Media Services Manager **

Virtual Learning Environment Manager **


Learning, Development and HR Projects Manager **

Head of the Project Management Office **

Communications Officer ** Appointed:

Two student representatives, appointed by the Student Union (one undergraduate and one postgraduate) (2) ***

* Academic (3) ** Professional services (11)

*** Students (2) Total (16) In attendance:

Secretary




The Learning Resources Committee (LRC) has delegated responsibility from the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee (SLTC) in the following areas to: 1. Receive reports from the Head of Learning Resources.

2. Develop the strategy, to be approved by the Senate Learning and

Teaching Committee, for the acquisition and management of learning resources to meet the strategic needs of the University as


expressed in the strategic plan.

3. Specify the standard learning resources that should be present in all general purpose teaching rooms.

4. Monitor provision of learning resources to ensure that resources continue to meet requirements as courses develop, increase in recruitment, or are amended.

5. Consider all concerns put forward by faculties and institutes, collected from programme committees, and develop appropriate responses and action plans to manage these issues.

6. Develop an annual budget and priorities for expenditure with guidelines provided by the Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and Directorate, for recurrent and capital expenditure.

7. Ensure that the University receives value for money in the acquisition and implementation of all learning resources.

8. Maintain a clear collections policy for the acquisition of physical and electronic knowledge products.

9. Work with the Communications Officer to ensure effective communications are maintained with all key stakeholder groups.

10. Work with the Learning, Development and HR Projects Manager to set up all skills and knowledge programmes required to bring all staff to the requisite standards.

11. Provide regular reports via the Office of the CIO to Directorate and report to the Board of Trustees.

12. Provide an annual performance review of learning resources for submission to the Board of Trustees.


1. The Head of Learning Resources shall be the ex officio Chair of

the Learning Resources Committee. Alternatively the Head of Learning Resources may delegate the role of Chair to his / her nominee.


members of the LRC may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which they are unable to be present.


4. Observers are only allowed at the permission of the Chair, and

should not participate in committee business unless authorised by


the Chair.

5. Co-opted members and observers shall not be entitled to vote on motions proposed at the LRC.

6. The Secretary of the LRC shall be appointed from the Academic Registry by the Deputy Registrar.

7. The LRC shall not be considered quorate unless: a) at least half its members are present; b) at least one member of academic staff is present from each

faculty and institute. 8. If the LRC becomes inquorate during the proceedings, it shall

continue its business unless a voting member objects. If the LRC is unable to meet through lack of a quorum, it may reconvene and carry out its normal business irrespective of being inquorate, provided that members receive at least 24 hours’ notice of the newly scheduled meeting.

9. The LRC shall normally meet at least four times per academic

year and should schedule its meetings in line with the SLTC. 10. The Chair may from time to time declare extraordinary meetings

of the LRC provided that a minimum of 14 days’ notice is provided and that papers are circulated a minimum of 7 days before the meeting.

11. The structure and terms of reference of the LRC shall be

approved or varied only with the approval of the Secretary of Senate prior to final approval at the SLTC.


format are a requirement of the operation of the LRC. 13. Formal minutes will be presented to the SLTC. 14. With the exception of materials deemed confidential due to data





K8 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Annual Monitoring Committee (AMC)

K8.1 Membership

6 members of staff Ex officio:

Senior Quality Officer ** (Chair)


Senior Quality Officer ** (1) Appointed:

One member of academic staff appointed by each Faculty Associate Dean to represent their faculty (currently 2) *

One member of academic staff appointed by each Institute Associate Director to represent their institute (currently 1) *



Secretary



The Annual Monitoring Committee (AMC) has delegated responsibility from the Senate Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee (SQAEC) in the following areas to:

1. Receive and review all annual monitoring reports. 2. Receive and review Faculty Overview Reports from the Faculty

Associate Deans. 3. Receive and review the draft Pro-Forma response report from the

Senior Quality Officers. 4. Finalise the Pro-Forma response report for dissemination to the

faculties and institute(s); this will include actions required at programme and institutional level for faculties and institute(s) and / or the University to meet.

5. Prepare an Institutional Overview Report, which will provide a

summary of the year’s performance and highlight the areas where


attention will be focused to enhance the quality of provisions for the future, for approval by the SQAEC.

6. Monitor the responses to the Pro-Forma Response report from

the faculties, institute(s) and University. 7. Review and update the annual monitoring process as required,

under direction from the SQAEC; changes are to be approved by the SQAEC.


1. A Senior Quality Officer appointed by the Academic Registrar

shall be the ex officio Chair of the Annual Monitoring Committee. Alternatively the Chair may delegate the role of chair to his / her nominee, appointed from the Academic Registry by the Academic Registrar.


members of the AMC may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which they are unable to be present.




5. Student representatives may attend the meetings of the

committee as observers. 6. Co-opted members and observers shall not be entitled to vote on

motions proposed at the AMC. 7. The Secretary of the AMC shall be appointed from the Academic

Registry by the Deputy Registrar. 8. The AMC shall not be considered quorate unless:

a) at least half its members are present; b) at least one member of academic staff is present from each

faculty 9. If the AMC becomes inquorate during the proceedings, it shall

continue its business unless a voting member objects, such objection requiring no further binding decisions to be made at the meeting. If the AMC is unable to meet through lack of a quorum, it may reconvene and carry out its normal business irrespective of being inquorate, provided that members receive at least 24 hours’ notice of the newly scheduled meeting.

10. The AMC shall normally meet three times per academic year.


11. The Chair may from time to time declare extraordinary meetings

of the AMC provided that a minimum of 14 days’ notice is provided and that papers are circulated a minimum of 7 days before the meeting.

12. The structure and terms of reference of the AMC shall be

approved or varied only with the approval of the Secretary of Senate prior to final approval at the SQAEC.


format are a requirement of the operation of the AMC. 14. Formal minutes will be presented to the SQAEC. 15. With the exception of materials deemed confidential due to data



which student observers will be asked to withdraw.


K9 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC)

K9.1 Membership


Director of External Relations (Chair) **

Faculty Associate Deans or nominee from the Senior Management Team (all) (currently 2) *

Institute Associate Directors or nominee from the Senior Management Team (all) (currently 1) *

Deputy Registrar **

Business Development Manager **


Head of Marketing and Brand **

Head of International Partnerships Office **

Head of Recruitment ** Appointed:

One student representative, appointed by the Student Union (1). ***



Secretary



The Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) has delegated responsibility from the Senate Portfolio Development Committee (SPDC) in the following areas to:

1. Review the collaborative provision arrangements with reference to

national and University developments in this area, and to advise the SPDC accordingly.

2. Give detailed consideration to proposals for new collaborative

arrangements leading to academic awards of the University or its collaborative partners, including integrated awards, and to forward recommendations for such proposals to the SPDC for final approval.


3. Act in an advisory capacity, as required, on all collaborative provision arrangements.

4. Consult with relevant staff throughout the University on matters

relating to the legal, financial, and strategic standing of collaborative partners, as appropriate.

5. Consider the strategic case for entering into proposed

collaborative arrangements. 6. Take responsibility for producing a collaborative partnership policy

to be approved by the SPDC.

7. Oversee the University’s Register of Collaborative Provision, which should be informed by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) UK Quality Code for Higher Education Chapter B10: Managing higher education provision with others.

8. Draw up and maintain a schedule of review for collaborative

partnerships based on the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) UK Quality Code for Higher Education Chapter B10: Managing higher education provision with others.

9. Implement periodic review and follow-up of the University’s

collaborative arrangements and to appoint review teams to discharge these duties.

10. Consider all matters that may impact upon the University’s

collaborative partnerships. 11. Encourage and disseminate good practice and innovation in

learning, teaching and assessment and encourage appropriate academic developments within the University’s collaborative arrangements.


1. The Director of External Relations shall be the ex officio Chair of

the Collaborative Provision Committee. Alternatively, the Director of External Relations may delegate the role of Chair to his / her academic nominee.


members of the CPC may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which they are unable to be present.






motions proposed at the CPC. 6. The Secretary of the CPC shall be appointed from the Academic

Registry by the Deputy Registrar. 7. The CPC shall not be considered quorate unless at least half its

members are present. 8. If the CPC becomes inquorate during the proceedings, it shall

continue its business unless a voting member objects, such objection requiring no further binding decisions to be made at the meeting. If the CPC is unable to meet through lack of a quorum, it may reconvene and carry out its normal business irrespective of being inquorate, provided that members receive at least 24 hours’ notice of the newly scheduled meeting.

9. The CPC shall normally meet four times per academic year, and

should schedule its meetings in line with the dates of the SPDC. 10. The Chair may from time to time declare extraordinary meetings

of the CPC provided that a minimum of 14 days’ notice is provided and that papers are circulated a minimum of 7 days before the meeting.

11. The structure and terms of reference of the CPC shall be

approved or varied only with the approval of the Secretary of Senate prior to final approval at the SPDC.


format are a requirement of the operation of the CPC. 13. Formal minutes and an annual executive summary report will be

submitted to the SPDC. 14. A report will be submitted at the end of each academic year to the

SQAEC on the review of the overall arrangements for the quality assurance of taught collaborative provision.




K10 Membership and Terms of the BaM Faculty Learning and Teaching Committees (FLTC)

K10.1 Membership


Faculty Associate Dean * (Chair)

Heads of Department (currently 4) *


Head of Learning and Teaching *

Faculty Quality and Programmes Officer ** Appointed:

Two Programme Directors appointed by the Faculty Associate Dean (one undergraduate and one postgraduate) (2) *

One Programme Director representing US programmes appointed by the Associate Dean of HASS (1) *

Two student representatives appointed by the Student Union (one undergraduate and one postgraduate) (2) ***

Elected:

One lecturer and one senior lecturer per department elected by BaM academic staff (currently 8)*


Total (21) Co-opted:

Student Statistical Records Officer ** In attendance:

Secretary



The Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee (FLTC) has delegated responsibility from the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee (SLTC) in the following areas to:

1. Action the University learning, teaching and assessment strategy

at faculty level.


2. Monitor and evaluate the quality of the teaching delivery in the faculty.

3. Monitor the implementation of the peer observation of teaching scheme and consider issues arising.

4. Promote excellence and innovation in learning, teaching and

assessment. 5. Review student feedback from all relevant channels, including

formal questionnaires. 6. Review learning resource provision and raise any issues at the

Learning Resources Committee. 7. Review issues arising from the minutes of Programme

Committees and learning and teaching issues identified by external examiners and report relevant issues to the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee as appropriate.


1. The Associate Dean of BaM shall be the ex officio Chair of the

BaM Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee. Alternatively, the Associate Dean may delegate the role of Chair to his / her nominee.

2. With the exception of ex officio members and students,

membership of the FLTC shall normally be for two years, renewable for one additional two year term.


members of the FLTC may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which they are unable to be present.

4. Should an elected or appointed member leave the FLTC, a new

member will be elected or appointed prior to the next meeting and shall serve for two years from the date of appointment.





motions proposed at the FLTC.

3. The Secretary of the FLTC shall be the PA to the Associate Dean of BaM.


4. The FLTC shall not be considered quorate unless: a) at least half its members are present; b) at least half of those present are academic representatives.

5. If the FLTC becomes inquorate during the proceedings, it shall

continue its business unless a voting member objects, such objection requiring no further binding decisions to be made at the meeting. If the FLTC is unable to meet through lack of a quorum, it may reconvene and carry out its normal business irrespective of being inquorate, provided that members receive at least 24 hours’ notice of the newly scheduled meeting.

6. The FLTC shall normally meet at least four times per academic

year, at least once per term, and should schedule its meetings in line with the dates of the SLTC.


of the FLTC provided that a minimum of 14 days’ notice is provided and that papers are circulated a minimum of 7 days before the meeting.

8. The structure and terms of reference of the FLTC shall be



format are a requirement of the operation of the FLTC. 10. Formal minutes will be presented to the SLTC.





K11 Membership and Terms of the HASS Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee (FLTC)

K11.1 Membership


Faculty Associate Dean (Chair) *

Director, Webster University Programmes *


Faculty Quality and Programmes Officer ** Elected:

Two academic staff members from each school within the faculty, elected by HASS academic staff within the School (currently 8) *

Appointed:


* Academic (10) ** Professional services (2) *** Students (2) Total (14) Co-opted:


Secretary

Co-optees (as required by the committee) (Total Attendance = 16 plus co-optees)


The Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee (FLTC) has delegated responsibility from the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee (SLTC) in the following areas to:

1. Action the University learning, teaching and assessment strategy

at faculty level.

2. Monitor and evaluate the quality of the teaching delivery in the faculty.

3. Monitor the implementation of the peer observation of teaching

scheme and consider issues arising.




formal questionnaires 6. Review learning resource provision and raise any issues at the




1. The Associate Dean of HASS shall be the ex officio Chair of the

HASS Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee. Alternatively, the Associate Dean may delegate the role of Chair to his / her nominee.

2. With the exception of ex officio members and students the

membership of the committee shall normally be for three years, renewable for one additional three year term.

3. Should an elected or appointed member leave the committee, a

new member will be elected or appointed prior to the next meeting of FLTC and shall serve for three years from the date of appointment.


members of the committee may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which they are unable to be present.


committee as required by the committee.

6. Observers are only allowed at the permission of the Chair, and should not participate in committee business unless authorised by the Chair.


motions proposed at committee. 8. The Secretary of the FLTC shall be the PA to the Associate Dean

of HASS. 9. The FLTC shall not be considered quorate unless:



10. If the FLTC becomes inquorate during the proceedings, it shall continue its business unless a voting member objects, such objection requiring no further binding decisions to be made at the meeting. If the FLTC is unable to meet through lack of a quorum, it may reconvene and carry out its normal business irrespective of being inquorate, provided that members receive at least 24 hours’ notice of the newly scheduled meeting.

11. The FLTC shall normally meet at least four times per academic

year, and should schedule its meetings in line with the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee dates.



13. The structure and terms of reference of the FLTC shall be



format are a requirement of the operation of the FLTC. 15. Formal minutes will be presented to the SLTC.






K12 Membership and Terms of Regent’s Institute of Languages and Culture Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC)

K12.1 Membership


Institute Associate Director (Chair) *

Subject Group Leaders (all) (currently 0) *

Faculty Quality and Programmes Officer ** (0) (when appointed)

Head of Student Registry ** Elected:

One member of academic staff representing English Language Teaching, elected by RILC academic staff (1) *

One member of academic staff representing Foreign Language Teaching, elected by RILC academic staff (1) *

Appointed:

Two Programme Directors appointed by the institute Associate Director (one undergraduate and one postgraduate) (currently 0) *



Total (6)

Co-opted:


Secretary



The RILC Learning and Teaching Committee (RILC LTC) has delegated responsibility from the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee (SLTC) in the following areas to: 1. Action the University learning, teaching and assessment strategy

at institute level.


2. Monitor and evaluate the quality of the teaching delivery in the institute.

3. Monitor the implementation of the peer observation of teaching scheme and consider issues arising.



formal questionnaires 6. Review learning resource provision and raise any issues at the




1. The Associate Director of the Regent’s Institute of Languages and

Culture shall be the ex officio Chair of the RILC Learning and Teaching Committee. Alternatively, the Associate Director may delegate the role of Chair to his / her nominee.

2. With the exception of ex officio members and students the

membership of the committee shall normally be for three years, renewable for one additional three year term.


members of the RILC LTC may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which they are unable to be present.

4. Should an elected or appointed member leave the committee, a

new member will be elected or appointed prior to the next meeting of FLTC and shall serve for three years from the date of appointment.





motions proposed at the RILC LTC. 8. The Secretary of the RILC LTC shall be an administrator from the

RILC.


9. The RILC LTC shall not be considered quorate unless


10. If the RILC LTC becomes inquorate during the proceedings, it shall continue its business unless a voting member objects, such objection requiring no further binding decisions to be made at the meeting. If the RILC LTC is unable to meet through lack of a quorum, it may reconvene and carry out its normal business irrespective of being inquorate, provided that members receive at least 24 hours’ notice of the newly scheduled meeting.

11. The RILC LTC shall normally meet at least four times per

academic year and should schedule its meetings in line with the dates of the SLTC.

12. The Chair may from time to time declare extraordinary meetings of

the RILC LTC provided that a minimum of 14 days’ notice is provided and that papers are circulated a minimum of 7 days before the meeting.

13. The structure and terms of reference of the RILC LTC shall be



format are a requirement of the operation of the RILC LTC.

15. The RILC LTC minutes will be submitted to the SLTC. 16. With the exception of materials deemed confidential due to data


17. It is recognised that there may be reserved items of business from which student representatives will be asked to withdraw.


K13 Membership and Terms of Reference of the BaM Faculty Research Committee (FRC)

K15.1 Membership


Faculty Research Leader (Chair) *

PVC / Faculty Dean *

Faculty Professoriate (currently 4)*

Heads of Departments (4) *

Research Centre Heads aligned to the faculty (1) * Appointed:




Secretary




The Faculty Research Committee (FRC) has delegated responsibility from the Senate Research Committee (SRC) in the following areas to:

1. Determine the faculty’s research strategy to promote and support

research engagement in conjunction with the University’s research strategy.

2. Implement at faculty level the University’s research strategy. 3. Make a formal report annually to the Senate Research Committee

(SRC). 4. Propose the resourcing required to achieve the faculty strategy to

the Faculty Executive Committee (FEC). 5. Manage and monitor the allocation of support for research in line

with the agreed faculty strategy. 6. Determine criteria against which support will be provided to

individuals monitored.


7. Oversee and monitor the progress of staff undertaking Higher

Research Degrees. 8. Oversee the development of knowledge and skills among faculty

staff supervising student research at all levels (undergraduate through to doctorate level).


enhance the personal and academic development of staff and, where appropriate, students.

10. Promote research-informed teaching and curriculum development. 11. Manage the communications of faculty research achievements

within the faculty, University and externally. 12. Manage ethical issues arising from the research plans and

activities of faculty staff and students. 13. Oversee and, where appropriate, direct the activities of Research

Centres and Research Groups in line with the University and faculty Research Strategies.

14. Use its delegated powers to manage the process of allocation of

faculty research funds to individual projects by reference to a set of common criteria that apply across the faculty and evaluate outcomes to inform future allocations.


1. The Faculty Research Leader shall be the ex officio Chair of the

Faculty Research Committee. Alternatively, the Faculty Research Leader may delegate the role of Chair to his / her nominee.


members of the FRC may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which they are unable to be present.





motions proposed at the FRC. 6. The Secretary of the FRC shall normally be the Research

Administrator.


7. The FRC shall not be considered quorate unless: a) at least half its members are present; b) at least half of those present are academic representatives.

8. If the FRC becomes inquorate during the proceedings, it shall

continue its business unless a voting member objects, such objection requiring no further binding decisions to be made at the meeting. If the FRC is unable to meet through lack of a quorum, it may reconvene and carry out its normal business irrespective of being inquorate, provided that members receive at least 24 hours’ notice of the newly scheduled meeting.

9. The FRC shall normally meet at least four times per academic

year and should schedule its meetings in line with the dates of the SRC.


the FRC provided that a minimum of 14 days’ notice is given and that papers are circulated a minimum of 7 days in advance of the meeting.

11. The structure and terms of reference of the BaM FRC shall be

approved or varied only with the approval of the Secretary of Senate prior to final approval at the SRC.

12. Formal minutes prepared in the prevailing and agreed University

format are a requirement of the operation of the FRC. 13. Formal minutes will be presented to the SRC. 14. With the exception of materials deemed confidential due to data



K14 Membership and Terms of Reference of the HASS Faculty Research Committee (FRC)

K14.1 Membership


Faculty Research Leader (Chair) *

PVC / Faculty Dean *

Chair of the Faculty Ethics Committee *

Heads of School (currently 4) *

Research Centre Heads aligned to the faculty *

Appointed:

Three members of academic staff appointed by the PVC / Faculty Dean in consultation with the Chair, to represent the faculty (3) *

One academic representative appointed by the Faculty Research Leader (1) *




Secretary




The Faculty Research Committee (FRC) has delegated responsibility from the Senate Research Committee (SRC) in the following areas to:

1. Determine the faculty’s research strategy to promote and support


2. Implement at faculty level the University’s research strategy. 3. Make a formal report annually to the Senate Research Committee

(SRC). 4. Propose the resourcing required to achieve the faculty strategy to

the Faculty Executive Committee (FEC).


5. Manage and monitor the allocation of support for research in line with the agreed faculty strategy.

6. Determine criteria against which support will be provided to

individuals monitored. 7. Oversee and monitor the progress of staff undertaking Higher

Research Degrees. 8. Oversee the development of knowledge and skills among faculty




10. Promote research-informed teaching and curriculum development. 11. Manage the communications of faculty research achievements

within the faculty, University and externally. 12. Manage ethical issues arising from the research plans and

activities of faculty staff and students. 13. Oversee and, where appropriate, direct the activities of Research

Centres and Research Groups in line with the University and faculty research strategies.




1. The Faculty Research Leader shall be the ex officio Chair of the

Faculty Research Committee. Alternatively, the Faculty Research Leader may delegate the role of Chair to his / her nominee.


members of the FRC may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which they are unable to be present.

3. Co-optees will participate in the deliberations of the committee as

required by the committee.



5. Co-opted members and observers shall not be entitled to vote on motions proposed at the FRC.

6. The Secretary for the FRC will normally be the Research

Administrator.

7. The FRC shall not be considered quorate unless: a) at least half its members are present; b) at least half of those present are academic representatives.

8. If the FRC becomes inquorate during the proceedings, it shall continue its business unless a voting member objects, such objection requiring no further binding decisions to be made at the meeting. If the FRC is unable to meet through lack of a quorum, it may reconvene and carry out its normal business irrespective of being inquorate, provided that members receive at least 24 hours’ notice of the newly scheduled meeting.

9. The FRC shall normally meet at least four times per academic

year, and should schedule its meetings in line with the dates of the SRC.


of the FRC provided that a minimum of fourteen days’ notice is given and that papers are circulated a minimum of 7 days in advance of the meeting.

11. The structure and terms of reference of the HASS FRC shall be


12. Formal minutes prepared in the prevailing and agreed University format are a requirement of the operation of the FRC.

13. Formal minutes will be presented to the SRC.




K15 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Regent’s Institute of Languages and Culture Research Committee (RC)

K15.1 Membership

10+ members of staff and students Ex officio:

Institute Research Leader (Chair) *

Director of Regent’s Institute of Languages and Culture *

Associate Director of Regent’s Institute of Languages and Culture *

Pathway Leaders (all) (currently 4) *

Heads of Research Centres linked to the institute (currently 1) * Appointed:

Two academic representatives appointed by the institute Research Leader) (2) *

Three members of the Institute Professoriate appointed by the Institute Associate Director to represent the institute (currently 0) *

One student representative appointed by the Student Union (postgraduate research) (currently 0) ***

* Academic (10+) ** Professional services (0) *** Students (0)

Total (10+) In attendance:

Secretary

Co-optees (as required by the committee) (Total attendance: 11+ plus co-optees)


The Regent’s Institute of Languages and Culture Research Committee (RILC RC) has delegated responsibility from the Senate Research Committee (SRC) in the following areas to:

1. Determine the institute’s research strategy to promote and support


2. Implement at institute level the University’s research strategy. 3. Represent the institute’s interest at the Senate Research

Committee (SRC).


4. Make a formal report annually to the Senate Research Committee (SRC).

5. Propose the resourcing required to achieve the institutional

strategy to the Institute Executive Committee (EC). 6. Manage and monitor the allocation of support for research in line

with the agreed institutional strategy. 7. Determine criteria against which support will be provided to

individuals monitored. 8. Oversee and monitor the progress of staff undertaking Higher

Research Degrees. 9. Oversee the development of knowledge and skills among institute




11. Promote research-informed teaching and curriculum development. 12. Manage the communications of institutional research

achievements within the institute, University and externally. 13. Manage ethical issues arising from the research plans and

activities of institute staff and students. 14. Oversee and, where appropriate, direct the activities of Research

Centres and Research Groups in line with the University and institute research strategies.




1. The Institute Research Leader shall be the ex officio Chair of the

RILC Research Committee, when appointed. Alternatively, the Institute Research Leader may delegate the role of Chair to his / her nominee.


members of the RILC RC may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which they are unable to be present.





motions proposed at the RILC RC. 6. The RILC RC shall not be considered quorate unless:

a) at least half its members are present; b) at least half of those present are academic representatives; c) at least one student is present (when in place).

7. If the RILC RC becomes inquorate during the proceedings, it shall

continue its business unless a voting member objects, such objection requiring no further binding decisions to be made at the meeting. If the RILC RC is unable to meet through lack of a quorum, it may reconvene and carry out its normal business irrespective of being inquorate, provided that members receive at least 24 hours’ notice of the newly scheduled meeting.

8. The Secretary for the RILC RC will be appointed by the RILC. 9. The RILC RC shall normally meet at least four times per academic



the RILC RC provided that a minimum of fourteen days’ notice is given and that papers are circulated a minimum of 7 days in advance of the meeting.

11. The structure and terms of reference of the RILC RC shall be



format are a requirement of the operation of the RILC RC. 13. Formal minutes will be presented to the SRC. 14. With the exception of materials deemed confidential due to data



K16 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Research Ethics Committee (REC)

K16.1 Membership

8 members of staff and students

Nominated by the Senate Research Committee:

Chair * Appointed:

Two members of academic staff appointed by each PVC / Faculty Dean in consultation with the Chair, to represent their faculty (currently 4) *

One member of academic staff appointed by each Institute Director in consultation with the Chair, to represent their institute (currently 1) *




One external representative to be appointed by the Chair of the REC (co-opted)

Secretary



The Research Ethics Committee (REC) has delegated responsibility from the Senate Research Committee (SRC) in the following areas to: 1. Receive notice of all submitted applications for ethical approval for

all research conducted within and outside the University by staff or students at Regents University London. This will include, but is not limited to, all teaching assignments involving human or other living participants, and covers all experiments, investigations and procedures involving human or other living participants, or data relating to such living entities.

2. Receive a random sample of approved applications, the number of which to be reviewed annually by the committee.

3. Where requested by the approving academic, assess the ethical issues raised by proposals for research submitted for


consideration and to grant, refer back or withhold approval from such projects; specifying, where necessary, any conditions subject to which proposals may be allowed. The committee may:

a) Scrutinise in detail, any proposal submitted to it.

b) Seek further clarification or modification of parts of a proposal.

c) Approve a proposal.

d) Defer a proposal for further consideration where additional information is required.

e) Reject a proposal in whole or in part, if not satisfied that it complies with the required standard of ethical practice set out in the Code of Practice and Ethical Guidelines.

f) Require that any changes in personnel or procedure prior to or following the commencement of the research be notified to the committee immediately, by the original approver or researcher.

g) Call for a report on any research project, on its completion, that has been approved by it, in order to receive feedback on researcher(s) coping with any ethical issues that may have arisen, and to be assured that projects conform to the ethical standards prescribed.

4. The REC reserves the right to revoke, reject, or defer approval

that has previously been granted if not satisfied that the conduct of the research is consistent with good ethical practice as set out in the Code of Practice and Ethical Guidelines. Under such circumstances, the committee must provide its reasons for deferment, rejection or revocation, and applicants may appeal the decision of the REC to the Research Ethics Appeals Panel.

5. Keep a full detailed record of all applications for approval made.

6. Provide advice, guidance and support to staff on policies and procedures related to research, and on sound ethical practice to ensure that all research conducted under the aegis of the University complies with recognised ethical standards to ensure that all staff, students, participants and the public are protected from harm.

7. Recommend any changes to the University Code of Practice, Ethical Guidelines, or procedures in place for research applications for ethical approval.

8. Establish and conduct periodic reviews of the ethical approval processes and procedures in place at the University, and as


operated in practice, and recommend any changes deemed necessary to the Senate Research Committee.

9. Receive and advise on proposals from individual members of academic staff, or other sources, to collaborate with agencies outside the University to use or associate the name of the University in research outside its direct control.

10. Authorise the commencement of approved research, subject to the project being as stated in the application for approval, as recommended by the approvers.

11. Seek and take account of all necessary advice from sources within and outside the University.


1. The Chair of the REC shall be nominated by the SRC. 2. Where necessary, subject to challenge by the committee,

members of the REC may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which they are unable to be present.


committee as required by the committee.



motions proposed at the REC.

6. The REC shall not be considered quorate unless at least half its members are present.

7. If the REC becomes inquorate during the proceedings, it shall

continue its business unless a voting member objects, such objection requiring no further binding decisions to be made at the meeting. If the REC is unable to meet through lack of a quorum, it may reconvene and carry out its normal business irrespective of being inquorate, provided that members receive at least 24 hours’ notice of the newly scheduled meeting.

8. The Secretary of the REC shall be appointed from the Academic Registry by the Deputy Registrar.

9. The REC shall normally meet at least four times per academic



10. The Chair may from time to time declare extraordinary meetings of the REC provided that a minimum of 14 days’ notice is given and that papers are circulated a minimum of 7 days in advance of the meeting.

11. The structure and terms of reference of the REC shall be approved or varied only with the approval of the Secretary of Senate prior to final approval at the SRC.


format are a requirement of the operation of the REC.

13. Formal minutes will be presented to the SRC. 14. With the exception of materials deemed confidential due to data



K17 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Programme Committees (PCs)

K17.1 Membership

Ex officio:

Neutral senior lecturer appointed by the Faculty Associate Dean / Institute Associate Director (Chair)

Programme Director *

Pathway Leaders *

All appropriate members of academic staff teaching within the programme *

Visiting Lecturers (invited to attend but not required for quoracy) *

Student representatives *** * Academic (3+) ** Professional services (0) *** Students (1+)


Secretary

Co-optees (as required by the committee) (Total attendance = will vary from programme to programme) K19.2 Terms of Reference

The Programme Committee ensures that all aspects of the student experience, both academic and social, are regularly reviewed. Specifically, the Committee will: 1. Monitor the academic standards of the appropriate programme(s). 2. Review and support academic enhancement measures. 3. Promote the enhancement of student learning in the appropriate

programme(s). 4. Share best practice among staff and students in the appropriate

programme(s). 5. Consider proposals for course and module enhancements. 6. Consider programme specific student learning resources and

student support. 7. Be accountable to the Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee

(FLTC).



1. A neutral senior lecturer appointed by the Faculty Associate Dean

/ Institute Associate Director shall be the Chair of the Programme Committee.


committee as required by the committee. 3. Observers are only allowed at the permission of the Chair and



motions proposed at the Programme Committee. 5. The Secretary of the Programme Committee shall be appointed

from the Student Registry by the Assessment and Awards Manager.

6. The Programme Committee shall normally meet at least once per

term. 7. The Chair may from time to time declare extraordinary meetings


8. The Programme Committee will report twice per year to FLTC. 9. The Programme Committee shall not be considered quorate

unless the following members are present: a) the Programme Director (or nominee); b) one appointed student; c) Secretary.

10. The structure and terms of reference of the Programme

Committees shall be approved or varied only with the approval of the Secretary of Senate prior to approval at the FLTC and final approval the SLTC.

11. Formal minutes, prepared in the prevailing University format are a

requirement of the operation of the Programme Committee. 12. With the exception of materials deemed confidential due to data



which student representatives will be asked to withdraw


K18 Membership and Terms of Reference of the (Re) Validation Panels

K18.1 Membership

7 members of staff and students. Ex officio:

Independent PVC / Faculty Dean / Faculty Associate Dean / Head of School / Department / Programme Director (1) (Chair) *

A minimum of two external panel members (2) *

Two internal academic panel members (not subject specialist) (2) *

Senior Quality Officer or nominated Academic Registry staff **

A student representative not associated with the programme *** * Academic (5) ** Professional Services (1) *** Students (1)


Secretary

Observer



The (Re)Validation Panel shall exercise the following powers and functions to:

1. Receive and adjudicate on the rigour of the programme proposal

and the ability of the institution to support it and deliver a good experience to students. The Panel’s focus is on the programme under development and not the regulations of Regent’s University London.

2. Enter into meaningful academic dialogue with the Programme Team

on critical aspects of the course proposal such as but not limited to teaching and learning; the achievement of learning outcomes; and curriculum content.

3. Make one of the following recommendations at the end of the

Preliminary (Re)Validation Event:


a) Approval for the programme to proceed to the Final (Re)Validation Event

b) Deferral of the programme for re-presentation at a further Preliminary (Re)Validation Event.

4. Make one of the following recommendations at the end of the Final (Re)Validation Event: a) Full Term Approval - A programme may be recommended for

approval for a maximum of five years.

b) Approval for a shorter period - Approval may be recommended for a shorter period. This may arise because, for example:

the programme is a new field of study;

the field of study is new to the University;

major changes to a programme are in prospect, possibly as a consequence of demands of a statutory or professional body.

c) Non-approval - The panel may decide to recommend to the

SQAEC that the programme should not be approved if it has major reservations about the proposals. In this case it will offer advice about the aspects of the proposals which require further consideration and, if appropriate, give guidance about the timing of a resubmission.

5. Set conditions of approval where there are requirements which must

be fulfilled in order to ensure the programme meets the University’s regulations and the standard required for a Regent’s University London validated award. These conditions should be expressed precisely and have a specific and realistic date set for their achievement. Programme teams must be able to understand what is required from them.

6. Set recommendations, where there are changes which are desirable

in order to enhance the quality of the programme of study, but which do not affect the threshold standard. The panel may make recommendations for the faculty / institute to follow up, and a response will be required through the Annual Monitoring Report for the programme.


1. The members of the panel are approved and confirmed by the

Academic Registry. (The faculty / institute must send external panel member nominations and a CV to the Academic Registry at least two months before the preliminary (Re)Validation event).

2. The Panel may change the agenda on the day, where further

information is being sought in agreement with the Senior Quality Officer or representative from the Academic Registry.


3. The external panel members will collectively have:

a) experience covering the subject area(s) of the programme being validated;

b) experience of being a member of a programme and/or review panel.

4. Co-opted members will participate in the deliberations of the panel

as required by the panel.

5. Co-opted members and observers shall not be entitled to vote on motions proposed by the panel.

6. The student representative must attend a training session, facilitated by the Student Engagement Manager in liaison with the Academic Registry, before participating on a (Re)Validation panel.

7. The student representative must be independent of the programme being (Re)Validated, and must be studying on a programme which is at least of the same level that is being validated i.e. a postgraduate programme validation can only have a postgraduate student on the panel and undergraduate programme validations students must be at or above level 5 (FHEQ).

8. The Secretary of the panel will normally be from the Student Registry.

9. The (Re)Validation Panel shall not be considered quorate unless all ex officio members are present. The student representative will not be taken into account when determining quorum.

10. If the (Re)Validation Panel becomes inquorate during the proceedings, it shall continue its business unless a voting member objects, such objection requiring no further binding decisions to be made at the meeting. If the (Re)Validation Panel is unable to meet through lack of a quorum, it may reconvene and carry out its normal business irrespective of being inquorate, provided that members receive at least 24 hours’ notice of the newly scheduled meeting.

11. The (Re)Validation Panel shall meet as and when required.

12. The structure and terms of reference of the (Re)Validation Panel shall be approved or varied only with the approval of the Secretary of Senate prior to final approval by the SQAEC.

13. Formal minutes, prepared in the prevailing and agreed University format are a requirement of the operation of the panel.


K19 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Programme Planning Panel (PPP)

K19.1 Membership

8 members of staff and students Ex officio

Senior Quality Officer (Chair) **


Appointed

One academic representative from HASS appointed by the Associate Dean (1) *

One academic representative from BaM appointed by the Associate Dean (1) *

One academic representative from RILC appointed by the Associate Director (1) *

One Student Registry representative appointed by the Head of Student Registry **

One External Relations representative appointed by the Director of External Relations **

One student representative appointed by the Student Union ***

* Academic (3) ** Professional Services (4) *** Students (1) Total (8) In attendance

Secretary

Co-optees (as required by the Panel)


K19.2 Terms of reference

The Programme Planning Panel (PPP) has delegated responsibility from the Senate Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee (SQAEC) to:

1. Consider all programme and module change proposals submitted to the panel and arrive and one of the following possible decisions: a. Approve the proposal b. Approve the proposal subject to conditions which will need to

be met within a set timeframe c. Reject the proposal d. Request further clarification or amendment of the proposal

within a set timeframe.


2. Make recommendations to the SQAEC on the revalidation of programmes in cases where: a. It is deemed that 40% of a programme’s content has changed

since its last (re)validation b. The changes requested for the programme are significant.

3. Submit notice of all approved programme and module changes to

the SQAEC.

4. Propose enhancements to the programme and module change process for approval by the SQAEC.

K19.3 Standing orders

1. A Senior Quality Officer from the Academic Registry appointed by

the Academic Registrar shall be the ex officio Chair of the PPP. Alternatively, the Chair may delegate the role of chair to his / her nominee, appointed from the Academic Registry by the Academic Registrar.

2. Where necessary, subject to challenge by the panel, members of the PPP may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which they are unable to be present.

3. Co-opted members will participate in the deliberations of the panel as required by the panel.

4. Observers are only allowed at the permission of the Chair, and should not participate in panel business unless authorised by the Chair.

5. Co-opted members and observers shall not be entitled to vote on motions proposed at the PPP.

6. The Secretary of the PPP shall be a Faculty Quality Officer, appointed by the Chair of the PPP.

7. Where possible, the appointed academic representatives should be Programme Directors or Course Leaders who are independent from the changes being considered.

8. The PPP shall not be considered quorate unless at least four members are present, including the Chair.

9. If the PPP becomes inquorate during the proceedings, it shall continue its business unless a voting member objects, such objection requiring no further binding decisions to be made at the meeting. If the PPP is unable to meet through lack of a quorum, it may reconvene and carry out its normal business irrespective of being inquorate, provided that members receive at least 24 hours’ notice of the newly scheduled meeting.


10. The PPP shall normally meet at twice per academic year; once in

January and once in March.

11. The Chair may from time to time declare extraordinary meetings of the PPP provided that a minimum of 14 days’ notice is provided and that papers are circulated a minimum of 7 days before the meeting.

12. The structure and terms of reference of the PPP shall be approved or varied only with the approval of the SQAEC and the Secretary of Senate.

13. Formal minutes, prepared in the prevailing and agreed University format are a requirement of the operation of the PPP.

14. With the exception of materials deemed confidential due to data protection issues or matters of business sensitivity, minutes will be published on the University intranet.



K20 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Research Ethics Appeals Panel (REAP)

K20.1 Membership

5 members of staff Ex officio

Chair of the SRC (Chair) * Appointed

Four members of academic staff appointed from the SRC by the Chair (4) *


Total (5) In attendance

Secretary




The Research Ethics Appeals Panel (REAP) shall exercise the following powers and functions:

1. To receive and adjudicate on written appeals from staff and

students, with supporting documentary evidence, relating to decisions made by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) to revoke, reject or defer ethical approval;

2. To refer, where appropriate, cases back to the REC.


1. The ex officio Chair of the REAP shall be the Chair of the SRC.

2. Appointed academic staff members must be independent of the

REC and must not be involved with the specific appeal being reviewed;

3. Co-opted members will participate in the deliberations of the panel as required by the panel.


4. Observers are only allowed at the permission of the Chair, and should not participate in panel business unless authorised by the Chair.


motions proposed at REAP meetings.

6. The Secretary of the REAP will be the Secretary of the REC; 7. The REAP will be considered quorate provided that at least half its

members are present;

8. If the REAP becomes inquorate during the proceedings, it shall continue its business unless a voting member objects, such objection requiring no further binding decisions to be made at the meeting. If the REAP is unable to meet through lack of a quorum, it may reconvene and carry out its normal business irrespective of being inquorate, provided that members receive at least 24 hours’ notice of the newly scheduled meeting.

9. The REAP will meet as and when required and will report annually

to the SRC.


K21 Membership, Terms of Reference and Standing Orders of the University of Wales Collaborative Centre Research Degrees Committee

K21.1 Membership

Head of School (RSPP) (Chair)

University of Wales Deputy Vice-Chancellor or nominee from DAAB (ex officio)

University of Wales Moderator

University of Wales Head of Research, Enterprise and Innovation

Programme Director (DCounsPsy)

Course Leader (MPhil/PhD)

Reader and Senior Research Fellow

Student Representative registered for a UW award

Other members of the Centre involved in research degree programmes, as deemed appropriate to the Centre, e.g., Research Degrees Officer, Senior Quality Officer, Student Records Manager.


Under the University of Wales’ (UW) Common Academic Framework for Research Degrees, the Research Degrees Committee of a Collaborative Centre (RDC) is responsible to the University for providing oversight for the management and delivery of all aspects of the research provision within a Collaborative Centre that leads to a research degree award of the University. Specifically, the RDC provides oversight of applications, research degree proposals, annual monitoring reports, transfer arrangements, supervisory arrangements and examining arrangements. The RDC has a critical role to play during the Exit Phase in ensuring that academic standards are maintained and that all candidates enrolled for a University of Wales’ research degree award continue to enjoy a high quality research experience at the Collaborative Centre. The RDC reports to the UW Degrees and Academic Awards Board (DAAB), and it is responsible for: 1. Monitoring and, where necessary, taking action to:

Implement the common academic framework as it applies to research degrees within the Centre;

Ensure compliance with the University’s quality assurance systems for research degrees;


Maintain a complete and up-to-date Register of Supervisors and Directors of Studies;

Progress initiatives relating to research degrees that emanate from the University.

2. Examining recommendations of supervisory teams (or academic

staff responsible for admissions) in respect of applications and research degree proposals, and making recommendations to DAAB.

3. Receiving and considering annual monitoring reports from

supervisory teams and candidates on the progress made by registered candidates during the previous year, and making recommendations to DAAB on progression.

4. Overseeing the arrangements for the transfer process for

candidates, and scrutinising transfer reports and recommendations; making recommendations to DAAB.

5. Examining recommendations of supervisory teams in respect of

arrangements for the final examination of research degrees, and making recommendations to DAAB for approval.

6. Scrutinising examining board recommendations and reports to

ensure that they are complete, coherent and comprehensive, and making recommendations to DAAB.

7. Scrutinising requests from registered candidates for extensions

and suspensions to their period of study, to ensure that the requests are complete, coherent and contain appropriate supporting evidence, and making recommendations to the University’s Special Cases Committee.

8. Encouraging research degree activity within the Centre,

(including the registration of staff, for part-time research degrees).

9. Encouraging and assisting staff and candidates/potential

candidates to take advantage of any opportunities for funding for research degree study, and acting as a quality check stage in respect of such applications prior to submission.

10. Ensuring that reports to external research degree sponsoring

establishments, particularly Professional Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs) are both accurate, timely and in full accordance with the reporting requirements of those bodies (where appropriate).

11. Having oversight and responsibility for ensuring the

development, implementation and operation of:

a) research methodology training programmes;


b) transferable skills development programmes and processes;

c) training for new research degree supervisors. 12. Ensuring that all relevant external regulations and codes of

practice (in particular the QAA Quality Code, Chapter B11 Research Degrees) are fully considered and embedded in research degree programmes, and ensuring and promoting within the Centre an awareness of best practice within the sector.

13. Monitoring the overall performance of the Collaborative Centre in

terms of the enrolment, progression, withdrawal and completion of candidates.

14. Reporting annually to DAAB via the Annual College and Course

Review on:

a) any substantive changes to the provision for research degree candidates;

b) a summary of the performance of candidates through the year in terms of enrolment, progression, withdrawal and completions;

c) a synopsis of Examining Board reports for examinations held through the year, and any consideration of the reports by the Institutional RDC

In fulfilling these functions Collaborative Centres must follow the University’s template and guidelines for their annual report (ACCR) to DAAB. All ACCRs must be considered and approved by the RDC before submission to the University.


1. The quorum for the meetings of the Committee shall be one-third

(or the nearest higher whole number) of the total number of members at that time and must include at least one representative from the University detailed in the constitution above. In the absence of a quorum, no business shall be transacted other than the adjournment of the meeting.

2. RDCs are required to confirm their membership at the start of

each academic year with the University via the Assistant Registrar (Quality).


K22 Membership, Terms of Reference and Standing Orders of the Open University Centre for Inclusion and Collaborative Partnerships Research Degrees Committee

K22.1 Membership

9 members of University staff Ex-officio:

Head of School (Chair)

Senior Research Fellow

Heads and Deputies for all doctoral level programmes (up to 5)

HASS Research Leader Programme External Examiner* * Appointed by the Open University Approved by the Senate Research Committee

Director of Studies (1)

Student representative In attendance:

Co-optees (as required by the Committee)

Academic Registrar (or representative) Secretary:

Research Degrees Officer (Student Registry)


The Research Degrees Committee has delegated responsibility from the Senate Research Committee in the following areas for:

1. Ensuring compliance with the University’s Quality Assurance

processes for doctoral degrees. 2. Implementing all relevant sections of the University’s version of the

Quality Assurance Agency’s UK Quality Code for Higher Education, Chapter B11: Research Degrees.

3. Encouraging research degree activity within the University. 4. Monitoring enrolment, progression, withdrawal, and completion of

students. 5. Reviewing and confirming procedures for applications for

admission to the doctoral degree.


6. Reviewing and confirming the appointment of the supervisory teams, ensuring that they have the appropriate expertise and experience.

7. Reviewing and confirming proposals for theses for the doctoral

degree. 8. Reviewing and approving annual monitoring reports on individual

student’s progress. 9. Reviewing and deciding applications for suspension of status,

extension requests, and requests for withdrawal. 10. Reviewing and approving the appointment of the Examination

Panel. 11. Reviewing and approving the recommendations and report of the

examination panel, i.e. Internal and external examiners responsible for viva voce of the candidate and review of portfolio before being sent to the Programme External Examiner for approval.

12. Verifying the results for each student presented to the Board. 13. Confirming the students who have obtained the necessary credits

and necessary placement experience for the awarding of the degree.

14. Approving and confirming the progression of individual students on

the doctoral programme. 15. Ensuring that the assessment regulations of Regent’s University

London are adhered to and that the Board is carried out to the validating body standards.

16. Reconsidering earlier decisions made after referral from the

Appeals Board. 17. The Research Degrees Committee will report to the Senate

Research Committee.


1. With the exception of ex-officio members and students,

membership for appointed members of the Committee shall normally be for three years, renewable for one additional three year term.

2. Members of the Committee are approved by the Senate Research

Committee.

3. The Chair may delegate the role of Chair to his/her nominee.


4. Should a member leave the Committee, a new member will be appointed prior to the next meeting of the Committee and shall serve for three years from the date of appointment.

5. Where necessary, subject to challenge by the Committee,

members of the Committee may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which they are unable to be present.

6. The Programme External Examiner is only required to attend the

Committee when it is acting in the capacity of a Board of Examiners, however all paperwork for each meeting will be sent to the Programme External Examiner in advance of each meeting.

7. Co-optees will participate in the deliberations of the Committee as

required by the Committee. 8. Co-opted members and observers shall not be entitled to vote on

motions proposed at the Committee. 9. The Secretary of the Committee is the Research Degrees Officer

from the Student Registry. 10. The Committee will meet a minimum of four times a year. 11. The Committee shall not be considered quorate if fewer than half

its members are present. The Student Representative will not be taken into account when determining the quorum.


which the Student Representative will be asked to withdraw.


K23 Assessment Boards: Structure

K23.1 Context

Assessment Boards include:

Subject Board

Progression and Finalist Board

Reconvened Boards

Academic Misconduct Board

Extenuating Circumstances Board

Appeals Board

Review Board

Each validated programme of study at Regent’s University London is considered by a Subject Board and a Progression and Finalist Board, both of which report directly to the Senate Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee and ultimately Senate, which is invested with the authority to officially confirm degree awards. Senate delegates the authority to confer awards to the Academic Registrar who ensures that due process has occurred. Authority of the Boards is thus determined by the regulations of Senate and where relevant the validating body. Where required, all conferment lists are submitted to the validation body.


K23.2 Structure Diagram of Assessment Boards

Subject Board

Receives: Reports by module including statistical data Remit: Confirm module marks and recommendations and review of module statistical data

Progression and Finalist Board Receives: Student profiles for student at progression points and for all students eligible for an award. Remit: Confirm progression decisions, and refer non-progressing students to the Student Support Office. Recommend the classification/conferment of awards.

Appeals Board

Receives: Student appeals from students Remit: Uphold/reject appeal cases

Review Board

Receives: Student request for review of an appeals decision Remit: Uphold/reject review cases

Academic Misconduct Board

Receives: Potential academic misconduct cases Remit: Confirm misconduct, and where appropriate agree on penalty and refer the case to the Subject Board

Academic Registrar

Receives: Report on awards Remit: Recording of awards

Extenuation Circumstances Board

Receives: Extenuating Circumstances applications from students Remit: Approve/reject extenuating circumstances claims


K24 Membership and Terms of Reference of the Assessment Boards

K24.1 Membership of the Subject Board

Ex officio

Independent Head of Department/Head of School/Programme Director (Chair) *

Relevant subject area Head of Department/Head of School

Relevant Module Leaders or Programme Director(s) or nominees*

Relevant external examiner(s) * * Academic (4+) ** Professional services (0) *** Students (0)

Total (4+) Co-optees

Representative of the Careers and Business Relations**

Representative of International Partnerships Office (IPO) **

Representative(s) of Academic Staff (PLP tutor or SPA/language Co-ordinator)*

Clinical Placement Co-ordinator** In attendance:

Secretary (from the Student Registry)

Co-optees (as required by the board)

(Total attendance = will vary dependent on the number of subject area Heads of Department / Heads of School *, Module Leaders * and external examiner(s) * required).

K24.2 Terms of Reference for the Subject Board

The Subject Board shall exercise the following powers and functions within the context of the University’s regulations:

1. to verify the results for each subject.

2. to confirm passes and failures in modules.

3. to confirm the penalty in relation to any cases of academic

misconduct recommended by the Academic Misconduct Board.

4. to confirm the deferral of assessment(s) which has had an extenuating circumstances claim accepted by the Extenuating Circumstances Board.

5. to confirm the hours for any work/clinical placement.


6. to confirm students’ credits from the Study Period(s) Abroad/and

or Placement Learning Projects.

7. to reconsider an earlier decision made after referral from the Appeals Board or the Review Board.

8. to discuss any amendments made to marks for a cohort of

students recommended by external examiners.

9. to make recommendations to the Programme Committee and/or Programme Director on any matters concerned with the teaching and assessment methods of any modules or SPA/PLP, based on matters arising from the results and external examiner(s) comments.

10. to review module statistical data.

11. to ensure that the academic regulations of Regent’s University

London are adhered to and that the Board is carried out to University standards.

K24.3 Standing Orders for the Subject Board

1. An Independent Head of Department / Head of School /

Programme Director shall be the ex officio Chair of the Subject Board. Alternatively, the Independent Head of Department / Head of School / Programme Director may delegate the role of Chair to his / her nominee.


Board as required by the Board.

3. Observers are only allowed at the permission of the Chair, and should not participate in business unless authorised by the Chair.

4. Co-opted members and observers shall not be entitled to vote on motions proposed at the Board.

5. The Secretary of the Board will normally be from the Student Registry.

6. Where necessary, the relevant Faculty Dean / Institute Director may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which members are unable to be present; however alternates to external examiners may not be appointed. Absences may only be accepted and alternates may only be appointed in exceptional circumstances and prior written agreement for this must be received from the relevant Faculty Dean / Institute Director as applicable.

7. The Board shall not be considered quorate unless: a) at least half of the members are present;


b) at least one external examiner is present.

8. The Secretary from the Student Registry will be required to be present throughout for the Board to convene.

9. In exceptional circumstances where an external examiner cannot

be present they must submit a report prior to the Board meeting.

10. The Board will meet as often as required.

11. The structure and terms of reference of the Board shall be approved or varied only with the approval of the Secretary of Senate prior to final approval at the SQAEC.

12. Formal minutes, prepared in the prevailing and agreed University format are a requirement of the operation of the Board.


K24.4 Membership of the Progression and Finalist Board

Ex officio:

Dean of Students or nominee (Chair) **

Relevant Heads of Department / Heads of School *

Relevant Programme Directors *

Progression and Finalist Board external examiner * * Academic (3+) ** Professional services (1) *** Students (0)


Head of Student Services **

Student Support Officer **

Disability Officer **

Representative from the International Partnerships Office (IPO) – Outbound Unit **

Senior Quality Officer **

Secretary (Total attendance = will vary dependent on the number of subject area Heads of Department / Heads of School *, Module Leaders * and external examiner * required).

K24.5 Terms of Reference for the Progression and Finalist Board

The Progression and Finalist Board shall exercise the following powers and functions within the context of the University’s regulations: 1. To confirm the progression of each student. 2. To refer non-progressing students to the Student Support Office. 3. To award condoned passes.

4. Verify and recommend the classification/conferment of award for

each student presented to the Board.

5. Recommend the conferment of an exit award available to excluded/withdrawn students.

6. To reconsider an earlier decision made after referral from the

Appeals Board or the Review Board. 7. To make recommendations to the Programme Committee and / or

Programme Director on any matters concerned with the teaching


and assessment methods of any modules or procedures required at programme level, based on matters arising from the results.

8. To ensure that the academic regulations of Regent’s University

London are adhered to and that the Board is carried out to University standards.

K24.6 Standing Orders for the Progression and Finalist Board

1. The Dean of Students shall be the ex officio Chair of the

Progression and Finalist Board. Alternatively, the Dean of Students may delegate the role of Chair to his / her nominee.

2. Observers are only allowed at the permission of the Chair, and should not participate in business unless authorised by the Chair.

3. Observers shall not be entitled to vote on motions proposed at the Board.

4. The Secretary of the Board will normally be from the Student Registry.

5. Where necessary, the relevant Faculty Dean / Institute Director

may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which members are unable to be present; however alternates to external examiners may not be appointed. Absences may only be accepted and alternates may only be appointed in exceptional circumstances and prior written agreement for this must be received from the relevant Faculty Dean / Institute Director as applicable.

6. The Board shall not be considered quorate unless the following members are present*: a) Dean of Students (Chair) b) Relevant Head of Department / Head of School c) Relevant Programme Director d) Progression and Finalist Board external examiner

e) Secretary

* The Board is divided into sections dealing with one programme at a time and will be considered to be quorate and therefore allowed to confirm progression and verify awards for students for each section as long as the following members are present for the applicable section of the Board:

a) there is both a relevant Head of Department/ School and Programme Director; or their approved alternates present for the programme being considered;

b) the Chair and external examiner must be present for the full duration of the Board.

7. The Secretary from the Student Registry and a Quality Officer will be required to be present throughout for the Board to convene.


8. The Board will meet as often as required.

9. The structure and terms of reference of the Board shall be




K24.7 Membership of the Reconvened Board

Ex officio

Deputy Vice Chancellor or Dean of Students or Independent Head of Department / Head of School / Programme Director (Chair) *

Relevant subject area Head of Department / Head of School *

Relevant Programme Directors *

External examiner ᶲ * Academic (4+) ** Professional services (0) *** Students (0)


Relevant Quality Officer (from the Academic Registry) **

Secretary

Co-optees (as required by the Board) ᶲ The external examiner should be selected from the list of appointees for the Progression and Finalist Board. If all are unavailable, the most relevant external examiner should be invited. (Total attendance: numbers will vary dependent on the number of subject area Heads School *, Module Leaders * and external examiner * required).

K24.8 Terms of Reference for the Reconvened Board

The Reconvened Board shall exercise the following powers and functions within the context of the University’s regulations:

1. To verify the results for each subject.

2. To confirm passes and failures in modules.

3. To confirm the penalty in relation to any cases of academic

misconduct recommended by the Academic Misconduct Board.

4. To confirm the deferral of assessment(s) which has had an extenuating circumstances claim accepted by the Extenuating Circumstances Board.

5. To confirm the hours for any work/clinical placement.


6. To confirm students’ credits from the Study Period(s) Abroad and/or Placement Learning Projects.

7. To discuss any amendments made to marks for a cohort of students recommended by external examiners.

8. To review module statistical data.

9. To confirm the progression of each student.

10. To refer non-progressing students to the Student Support Office.

11. To award condoned passes and subsequently the awarding of the degree.

12. To make recommendations to the Programme Committee and/or Programme Director on any matters concerned with the teaching and assessment methods of any modules or procedures required at programme level, based on matters arising from the results and external examiner(s) comments.

13. To verify the classification/conferment of award for each student presented to the Reconvened Board.

14. To recommend the classification/conferment of award for students who have been granted a condoned pass at a previous Progression and Finalist Board.

15. To recommend the classification/conferment of award for students on a borderline between classifications.

16. To recommend the conferment of an exit award available to excluded/withdrawn students.

17. To reconsider an earlier decision made after referral from the Appeals Board or the Review Board.

18. To verify the results of re-sits.

19. To ensure that the academic regulations of Regent’s University London are adhered to and that the Board is carried out to University standards.

K24.9 Standing Orders for the Reconvened Board

1. The Chair will either be an Independent Head of Department, Head

of School, Programme Director or Dean of Students or Deputy Vice Chancellor. The Chair will be determined based on the nature of discussions to be held at the board. For example, if progression is to be considered along with other subject board matters, the Progression and Finalist Board Chair should be invited. This example is applicable to all scenarios.



Board, as required by the Board.

3. Observers are only allowed at the permission of the Chair, and should not participate in Board business unless authorised by the Chair.

4. Co-opted members and observers shall not be entitled to vote on motions proposed at the Board.

5. Where necessary, the relevant Faculty Dean / Institute Director

may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which members are unable to be present; however alternates to external examiners may not be appointed. Absences may only be accepted and alternates may only be appointed in exceptional circumstances and prior written agreement for this must be received from the relevant Faculty Dean / Institute Director as applicable. The Faculty Dean / Institute Director must inform the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the absence.

6. The Board will be not considered quorate for decision making purposes unless the following members are present*:

a) Chair b) Relevant Head of Department / Head of School or Programme

Director or their approved alternate. * The Board is divided into sections dealing with one programme at a time and will be considered to be quorate and therefore allowed to carry out its functions as outlined in the terms of reference for each section as long as the following members are present for the applicable section of the Board: a) there is both a relevant Head of Department/ School or

Programme Director; or their approved alternates present for the programme being considered;

b) the Chair.

7. The Secretary from the Student Registry and a Quality Officer will be required to be present for the board to convene.

8. The Secretary of the Board will be from the Student Registry.

9. Reconvened Boards will meet as and when required.

10. Where an external examiner cannot be present they should either submit a report prior to the meeting or be virtually present (e.g. via Skype).



K24.10 Membership of the Academic Misconduct Board

Ex officio

3 independent academic staff, one of whom shall act as Chair

Assessments and Awards Manager (non-voting member) In attendance


Staff related to the academic misconduct in question

Student related to the academic misconduct in question

K24.11 Terms of Reference for the Academic Misconduct Board

1. The Academic Misconduct Board shall receive and adjudicate on

cases of academic misconduct received from academic staff, with supporting documentary evidence, in line with University Regulations.

2. The Academic Misconduct Board will recommend penalties to the Subject Board in cases where academic misconduct has been proven.

K24.12 Standing Orders for the Academic Misconduct Board

1. Academic staff are appointed by the Assessment and Awards

Manager and shall serve the Board for one academic year. 2. The Board will be considered quorate only if all members are

present.

3. Staff must be independent and not involved with the specific academic misconduct case being reviewed.

4. Where necessary, subject to challenge by the Board, members of the Board may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which they are unable to be present.

5. Staff and students related to the academic misconduct case will be given the opportunity to represent themselves as required but are not entitled to vote.


7. The Board will meet twice each term. 8. The structure and terms of reference of the Board shall be



K24.13 Membership of the Extenuating Circumstances Board

Ex officio

Dean of Students or nominee (Chair)

4 members of academic staff from each Faculty/Institute nominated by the Associate Deans/Director.

Co-optees

Head of Student Services

Student Support Officer

Disability Officer In attendance


K24.14 Terms of Reference for the Extenuating Circumstances Board

The Extenuating Circumstances Board shall receive and adjudicate on written extenuating circumstances submissions from students, with supporting documentary evidence, in line with University Regulations.

K24.15 Standing Orders for the Extenuating Circumstances Board

1. Academic staff nominated and appointed by the Associate

Deans/Director shall serve the Board for one academic year. 2. The Board will be considered quorate if more than 50% of

members are present, including at least 1 academic member of staff from each Faculty/Institute.

3. Staff must be independent and not involved with the specific extenuating circumstances claim being reviewed.

4. Where necessary, subject to challenge by the Board, members of the Board may appoint alternates to attend meetings at which they are unable to be present.

5. Co-optees will participate in the deliberations as required but are not entitled to vote.


7. The Board will meet three times a year. 8. The structure and terms of reference of the Board shall be




format are a requirement of the operation of the Board.


K24.16 Membership of the Appeals Board

Ex Officio

PVC Dean (Chair)

Head of Student Registry

Three Members of academic or academic-related University Staff (of whom two must be academic University staff)

Co-optees

Chair of the Extenuating Circumstances Board

Invited parties (e.g. staff or students) In attendance


K24.17 Terms of Reference for the Appeals Board

The Appeals Board shall exercise the following powers and functions within the context of the University’s regulations:

1. to receive and adjudicate on written appeals from students, with

supporting documentary evidence, relating to decisions made by the relevant assessment board;

2. to refer, where appropriate, the case back to the relevant

assessment board.

K24.18 Standing Orders for the Appeals Board

1. The Board will be considered quorate if more than 50% of

members are present;

2. Staff must be independent and not involved with the specific appeal being reviewed;

3. Co-optees will participate in the deliberations as required but are

not entitled to vote;

4. The Secretary of the Board will be from the Student Registry;

5. The Board will meet at least three times a year, unless no appeals are submitted following publication of results.

6. The structure and terms of reference of the Board shall be




K24.19 Membership of the Review Board

Ex Officio

Academic Registrar or nominee (Chair)

Two members from the Senate Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee

In attendance

Secretary from the Academic Registry

Invited parties (e.g. staff or students)

K24.20 Terms of Reference for the Review Board

The Review Board shall exercise the following powers and functions within the context of the programme academic regulations:

1. To receive and adjudicate on written appeals from the students,

with supporting documentary evidence, relating to decisions made by the Appeals Board;

2. To refer, where appropriate, the case back to the relevant assessment board.

K24.21 Standing Orders for the Review Board

1. The Academic Registrar shall be the ex officio chair of the Board.

Alternatively, the Academic Registrar may delegate the role of chair to his/her nominee.

2. Members must be independent from the programme and student.

3. Members must not have been involved with the appeal at Stages one or two.

4. The Secretary of the Board shall be appointed from the Academic

Registry by the Academic Registrar.




Glossary

Academic Integrity – The practice of approaching academic and scholarly work honestly, by completing one’s own work, by attributing and acknowledging sources when necessary, and by not relying on dishonest means to gain advantage.

Academic Judgement – A method of assigning marks in order to

represent an examiner’s judgement on the level of a student’s achievement.

Academic Misconduct – The act whereby a person may obtain an

unpermitted advantage for themselves or for another. Academic Quality - A comprehensive term referring to how, and how

well, institutions manage teaching and learning opportunities to help students progress and succeed.

Academic Standards - The standards set and maintained by institutions

for their courses (programmes and modules) and expected for their awards.

Accreditation – Where a Higher Education Institution or professional /

regulatory body approves either itself or another Institution to offer its programme of study.

Admissions - The process of applying for, and gaining entry to, a course

or programme of study. Aegrotat Award – An award conferred upon a student for which the

Examining Board does not have enough evidence of a student’s achievements to recommend the award for which they were registered. It is used when a student is unable to complete their degree course in the foreseeable future due to medical or equivalent reasons.

AMC – See Annual Monitoring Committee AMR – See Annual Monitoring Report Annual Monitoring - Checking a process or activity every year to see if it

meets expectations for standards and quality. Annual Monitoring Committee (AMC) – A Regent’s University London

Committee that receives and reviews all annual monitoring and Faculty overview reports. The Committee produces an Institutional Overview Report which provides a summary of the University’s performance for the year and highlights areas where attention will be focussed, for approval by the Senate Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee.


Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) – A document produced annually

explaining how an institution has met specific targets during the previous year. They may be monitored by awarding bodies and internal quality committees to ensure that continuing development and attainment of standards at an institution.

Appeal – A petition to review a decision that has been decided by an

examination board. Articulation arrangement - A process whereby all students who satisfy

academic criteria on one programme are automatically entitled (on academic grounds) to be admitted with advanced standing to a subsequent stage of a programme of a degree-awarding body. These arrangements, which are subject to formal agreements between the parties, normally involve credit accumulation and transfer, so that credit achieved for the approved study at the first provider is transferred to contribute to the programme and award completed at the second (the degree-awarding body). The two separate components are the responsibility of the respective organisations delivering them but, together, contribute to a single award (of the degree-awarding body). Students normally have a contractual relationship with the organisation which delivers the first component and subsequently with the degree-awarding body.

Assessment Board – A board is convened when there are a large

number of individual modules that may contribute to more than one programme in order to consider students module results.

Assessment Criteria – Clear statements relating to how the achievement

of the learning outcomes will be measured, that markers expect a student to display in an assessment task, and which are taken into account in marking the work. These criteria are based on the intended learning outcomes.

Assessment Regulations - The rules governing assessment of a

programme of study including the marking scheme, the pass mark, the requirements for progression to subsequent levels or stages of a programme and the award and classification requirements (for instance credits to be achieved and specific marks to be attained).

Award - A qualification, or the allocation of credit to a student. Awarding Body - An organisation with the authority to award academic

qualifications, such as diplomas or degrees. Awarding Institution - A higher education institution (often a university)

with the power to award degrees, typically conferred by Royal Charter, or under Section 76 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, or under Section 48 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992, or by Papal Bull, or, since 1999, granted by the Privy Council on advice from the QAA (in response to applications for taught degree


awarding powers, research degree awarding powers or university title).

Bachelor’s Degree - A higher education qualification - which may be

either an 'ordinary' or an 'honours' degree - at level 6 in The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Examples include the Bachelor of Arts (BA) and Bachelor of Science (BSc) degrees. If a bachelor's degree is awarded 'with honours' this normally denotes more extensive study and achievement.

CATS - See Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme. Cheating - The means by which a candidate gains an unfair advantage in

examination and tests. Code of Practice - The Code of practice for the assurance of academic

quality and standards in higher education published by the QAA: a set of interrelated documents giving guidance for higher education institutions.

Cohort - A group (of students) who share the same learning experience,

for example because they entered the same programme of study at the same university in the same year.

Collaborative Provision – Educational provision leading to an award, or

to specific credit toward an award, of an awarding institution delivered and/or supported and/or assessed through an arrangement with a partner organisation.

Collusion – Work that has been undertaken by or with others, or in the

name of another candidate, which is submitted and passed off as solely the work of one person.

Condoned Pass – The awarding of a pass where certain conditions have

been met. Core Module – A module that all students are required to pass as part of

a particular programme. Co-requisite – A module which students take in conjunction with other

specific modules. Course – A programme or module of study. Credit - A means of quantifying and recognising learning, used by most

institutions that provide higher education programmes of study, expressed as 'numbers of credits' at a specific level.

Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme (CATS) – An arrangement

which enables students to move credits they accumulate from one


institution to another. The Scheme equates one credit (or credit point) with 10 hours of notional learning time (the time, on average, a learner takes to achieve the specified learning outcomes).

Credit Framework - A published formal structure that states the credit

value typically associated with programmes and qualifications, and that generally includes credit level descriptors.

Credit Level - An indicator of the relative complexity, depth, and

autonomy of learning associated with a particular module, used in credit frameworks.

Credit Level Descriptor - A statement of the generic characteristics of

learning at a specific credit level, used as a reference point for those designing programmes of study.

Credit Rating - The process of assigning a number of credits at a specific

level to a module within a particular programme of study. Curriculum - A set of courses and their content. Dean - A leader within a higher education institution who has

responsibility, both managerial and administrative, over a particular Faculty or the institution’s students.

Defer - Where an examination or submission of coursework is postponed,

or a previous attempt or submission is deemed null and void. Degree - A higher education qualification at one of several levels. Degree Awarding Powers - The right to confer degrees, which is granted

by statute, by Royal Charter or by the Privy Council following a recommendation from the QAA.

Dissertation - An Academically supervised individual research activity. Doctoral Degree - A higher education qualification at level 8 in The

framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, at level 8 in the Credit and qualifications framework for Wales. Examples include the PhD and DPsych.

Double Marking - Assessment of students' work by two or more

independent markers as a means of safeguarding or assuring academic standards by controlling for individual bias.

Dual/double awards - Arrangements where two or more awarding bodies

together provide a single jointly delivered programme (or programmes) leading to separate awards (and separate certification) being granted by both, or all, of them.

EBSL - See European Business School London


ECTS - See European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System Elective Module – One of a set of modules from which a choice can be

made within a particular programme. Enhancement - Taking deliberate steps at institutional level to improve

the quality of learning opportunities. It is used as a technical term in the QAA's audit and review processes.

Enrolment - The formal procedures that a student must complete or pass

through during the admissions stage, after being accepted onto a course and before starting it.

European Business School London (EBSL) - A Regent’s University

London School offering programmes including International Business, International Events, Luxury Brand Management, Global Business and Finance at undergraduate and postgraduate level.

European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) - An

arrangement developed by the Commission of the European Communities, which guarantees the academic recognition of studies taken abroad. It allows accumulated credit to be transferred from one institution to another, providing a comparative scale on which to measure academic achievement.

Expectation - An expression of what higher education providers are

expected to do, relating to a key matter identified as important for setting and maintaining threshold academic standards and enhancing academic quality.

External examiner - An independent expert appointed by an institution to

comment on student achievement in relation to established academic standards and to look at approaches to assessment.

External examining - The process by which one or more independent

experts (external examiners) comment(s) on student achievement in relation to established academic standards and on the institution's approach to assessment, thus helping to ensure consistent standards and fair assessment procedures across the UK.

External Review - A review conducted at an institution by a suitably

qualified team of people not normally employed there. Fabrication of Data - Making false claims to have carried out

experiments, observations, interviews or other forms of data collection and analysis, or acting dishonestly in any other way.

Faculty Executive Committee (FEC) - Committees at Faculty level

charged with monitoring operational activities relating to the delivery of the Faculty’s strategy within the overarching context of the Regent’s University mission and strategy.


Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee (FLTC) - Committees at Faculty level charged with encouraging the development of teaching and learning.

Falsification of Evidence - Presentation of evidence of special

circumstances which is false or falsified or which in any way misleads or could mislead Boards of Examiners.

FEC - See Faculty Executive Committee FHEQ - See Framework for Higher Education Qualifications FLTC - See Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee Force Majeure - any circumstances beyond the reasonable control of a

Party including, without limitation, Act of God, fire, explosion, flood, malicious damage, lockouts or other industrial action, civil commotion, hostilities, war, or political interference with the operations of a Party.

Formative Assessment - Feedback on students' performance, designed

to help them learn more effectively and find ways to maintain and improve their progress. It does not contribute to the final mark, grade or class of degree awarded to the student.

Foundation Course - A higher education programme of study designed to

prepare students for a further course for which they do not have the usual entry qualifications. Foundation courses sometimes constitute a preparatory 'Year 0' of a degree course. They are not the same as Foundation Degrees.

Foundation Degree - A higher education qualification at level 5 in the

framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Framework - A published formal structure. Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) - A published

formal structure that identifies a hierarchy of national qualification levels and describes the general achievement expected of holders of the main qualification types at each level, thus assisting higher education providers in maintaining academic standards. The QAA publishes the following frameworks: The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Good Practice - A process or way of working that makes a positive

contribution to an institution's management of academic standards and the quality of its educational provision.

Grade Descriptors - Statements that define a level of achievement within

a certain band of marks. Graduate - A person who has attained a bachelor's or higher degree.


Graduate Certificate - A higher education qualification at level 6 in the


Graduate Diploma - A higher education qualification at level 6 in the


Graduation - The process of formally receiving a degree at a ceremony,

not necessarily in person. Head of Department (HoD) - Responsible to the PVC and Faculty Dean

for the effective operation and development of their department, for the management of its staff and resources, for the provision of high quality services to its students for ensuring that the department complies with the legal and other obligations placed on the school.

Head of School (HoS) - Responsible to the PVC and Faculty Dean for the

effective operation and development of their School, for the management of its staff and resources, for the provision of high quality services to its students for ensuring that the department complies with the legal and other obligations placed on the Faculty.

Higher Education - Education that comes after secondary and further

education and is characterised by a large element of independent learning. Typically it involves working towards a degree but in some cases it leads to a diploma, certificate or other equivalent qualification.

Highly Trusted Sponsor Status - (HTSS) The status of institutions that

the UK government trusts to admit migrant students from overseas, according to Tier 4 of the UK Borders Agency's points-based immigration system. Institutions wishing to obtain this status must undergo a successful Review for Educational Oversight by the QAA and become listed bodies.

HoD - See Head of Department HoS - See Head of School Internal Programme Review (IPR) - An evaluation of a school or subject

area programme in-depth. A review panel will consider if the school/subject area’s quality procedures are working efficiently and effectively together with those of Regent’s University London quality framework in order to assure and enhance the quality of teaching and learning, to safeguard academic standards and to enhance the student learning experience. An internal review will normally take place over one day, with a panel that will include external reviewers who are normally senior academics who are not members of Regent’s University London staff and have expertise in the discipline/subject area under review.


Institutional Audit - A process used by the QAA to report on how, and how well, higher education institutions in England and Northern Ireland safeguard the quality and standards of their programmes.

Institutional Review - A method of review used by the QAA to assure the

standards and quality of higher education. Internal Verification - The processes used by an institution to confirm the

accuracy of its marking. IPR - See Internal Programme Review Joint award - An arrangement under which two or more awarding bodies

together provide a programme leading to a single award made jointly by both, or all, participants. A single certificate or document (signed by the competent authorities) attests to the successful completion of this jointly delivered programme, replacing the separate institutional or national qualifications.

Learning Opportunities - The provision made for students' learning,

including planned programmes of study, teaching, assessment, academic and personal support, resources (such as libraries and information systems, laboratories or studios) and staff development.

Learning Outcome - Precise learning statements regarding what the

successful student will be able to know, understand and/or be able to demonstrate after completing a process of learning.

Level - Relates to the complexity, depth of study and learner autonomy by

which a student is challenged. A level is one of a series of defined points on a qualification framework that are numbered in ascending order. Qualifications within the same level share characteristics and require similar achievement. Qualification levels in different frameworks can be compared. Qualification levels are distinct from credit levels.

Listed Bodies - Institutions that are recognised by the UK government as

being providers of higher education on behalf of recognised bodies and are entitled to recruit both UK nationals and overseas students.

Marking Scheme - A detailed framework for assigning marks, where a

specific number of marks is given to individual components of the answer.

Master’s Degree - A higher education qualification at level 7 in the

framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Examples include the Master of Arts (MA), Master of Science (MSc) and Master of Philosophy (MPhil) degrees.

Mitigating Circumstances - Unforeseen, unpreventable circumstances

that significantly disrupt a student’s performance in assessment.


Moderation - A process intended to assure that an assessment outcome

is fair and reliable and that assessment criteria have been applied consistently.

Module - A self-contained, formally structured unit of study, with a

coherent and explicit set of learning outcomes and assessment criteria.

Notional Learning Time - The amount of estimated time that a typical

student will spend on acquiring specific learning outcomes. Observer - An individual who may monitor, record and report actions

arising from a meeting, without any input into the proceedings.

Option - A module undertaken as a free choice that may be outside the primary area of study.

Partner Organisation - An institution or other body with which an

awarding institution enters into an agreement to collaborate, or which it commissions to deliver aspects of a programme or to provide support.

PD - See Programme Director Peer Observation - A collegiate teaching and reflective process that

allows a third-party observer to provide feedback on teaching and learning support.

Periodic Review - A review of one or more programmes of study,

undertaken periodically (typically once every five years); using nationally agreed reference points, to confirm that the programmes are of an appropriate academic standard and quality. The process typically involves experts from other institutions.

Placement - A period of time in an approved setting in paid or unpaid

employment within the duration of an academic programme. Plagiarism - Submission for Assessment of material (written, visual or

oral) originally produced by another person, without acknowledgement, in such a way that the work could be assumed to be the student’s own.

Postgraduate Certificate - A higher education qualification at level 7 in

“The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland”.

Postgraduate Diploma - A higher education qualification at level 7 in “The

framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland”.


Posthumous Award - An award conferred posthumously by the Finalist Board and accepted on the student’s behalf by an appropriate individual.

Pre-requisite - A module that has been designated as a module that

students must take and pass before, or be credited with, proceeding to a specific module.

Private Provider - An independent college that offers UK higher

education but is not in receipt of public funding from the higher education funding councils and may be operating for profit or have charitable status.

Privy Council - The government body that makes formal decisions about

which institutions shall be awarded the title and status of university, and/or be allowed to award degrees.

Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies - Organisations that set

the benchmark standards for, and regulate the standards of entry into, particular profession(s) and are authorised to accredit, approve or recognise specific programmes leading to the relevant professional qualification(s) - for which they may have a statutory or regulatory responsibility.

Programme - A specified programme of study, with its own aims and

learning outcomes made up from a specified set of modules, which leads to a specifically names academic award, an example of which may be a Foundation, BA, MBA, MA and MSc.

Programme Development Leader - A position that a guides a

programme of study from its initial development, through to Preliminary Review and Final Validation Event. They construct and lead a programme team based on the intended content and delivery of a proposed programme.

Programme Director (PD) - An individual charged with establishing a new

programme of study through its development to Preliminary Review and Final Validation Event, in consultation with the Associate Dean and the Dean. Afterwards, they are responsible for maintaining standards within a course.

Programme of Study - An approved course of study which provides a

coherent learning experience and normally leads to a qualification. Programme Specifications - Published statements about the intended

learning outcomes of programmes of study, containing information about teaching and learning methods, support and assessment methods, and how individual units relate to levels of achievement.


Progression - Formal progress through an academic programme, meeting key academic requirements.

Progression arrangements - Arrangements whereby students who have

completed a programme at one organisation successfully may be considered for entry (on an individual basis) either to the beginning, or to a more advanced stage, of a programme of the degree-awarding body. See also articulation arrangement.

Project - Individual or group-based activity or work experience which is

academically supervised. Provision - In the context of higher education, making courses available

to students and supplying them with learning opportunities accordingly.

PSRB - See Professional, Statutory, Regulatory Body QA - See Quality Assurance QAA - See Quality Assurance Agency QE - See Quality Enhancement Qualification - A formally recognised academic award, such as a degree,

diploma or certificate, granted on successful completion of a programme of study.

Qualification Descriptors - Generic statements about the main

qualifications at each level (for example, bachelor's degree with honours, master’s degree), specifying what students should know, understand and/or be able to demonstrate on being awarded that qualification, and exemplifying its nature and characteristics.

Qualifications Framework - formal structure identifying qualification

levels in ascending order and stating the requirements for qualifications to be awarded at each one.

Quality Assurance (QA) - The systematic monitoring and evaluation of

learning and teaching, and the processes that support them, to make sure that the standards of academic awards meet UK expectations, and that the quality of the student learning experience is being safeguarded and improved.

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) - An independent body funded by

subscriptions from universities and colleges of higher education, which safeguards the public interest in sound standards of higher education qualifications and encourages continuous improvement in the management of the quality of higher education.


Quality Code - A short term for the UK Quality Code for Higher Education, which from 2011 was developed to replace the Academic Infrastructure and incorporates all its key elements along with additional topics and overarching themes.

Quality Enhancement (QE) - The process of taking deliberate steps to

improve the quality of learning opportunities. RACL - See Regent’s American College London RBSL - See Regent’s Business School London RILC – See Regent’s Institute of Languages & Culture RSDFM – See Regent’s School of Drama, Film & Media RSFD – See Regent’s School of Fashion & Design RSPP – See Regent’s School of Psychotherapy and Psychology Recognised Bodies - Institutions that are recognised by the UK

government as being entitled to award degrees and other higher education qualifications.

Recognition of Prior Learning - Taking account of previous learning that

has occurred in any of a range of contexts including school, college and university, and/or through life and work experiences. Once recognised through this process, prior learning can be used to gain credit or exemption for qualifications and/or personal and career development.

Recognition of Prior Experiential Learning (RPEL) - The identification,

assessment, and formal acknowledgement of learning and achievement that occurred at some time in the past prior to entry to a course of study, but not in the context of formal education or training.

Reference Points - Statements and other publications that establish

criteria against which performance can be measured. Regent’s American College London (RACL)- A Regent’s University

London School offering programmes in the Liberal Arts curriculum of American Higher Education.

Regents Business School London (RBSL) - A Regent’s University

London School offering programmes in Business at Foundation, Undergraduate and Postgraduate level.

Regent’s Institute of Languages & Culture (RILC) - A Regent’s

University London School offering courses and programmes in the areas of English language, foreign languages (Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish),


Cross-Cultural Management, Intercultural Communication and Cultural Studies.

Regent’s School of Drama, Film & Media (RSDFM) - A Regent’s

University London School offering programmes in screenwriting, theatre writing, film and television production, acting, and producing at undergraduate and postgraduate level.

Regent’s School of Fashion & Design (RSFD) - A Regent’s University

London School offering programmes in fashion and design at undergraduate level.

Regent’s School of Psychotherapy and Psychology (RSPP) - A

Regent’s University London School that offers courses in psychotherapy, counselling and counselling psychology at foundation, undergraduate and postgraduate level.

Regulatory Body- An organisation recognised by government as being

responsible for the regulation or approval of a particular range of issues.

RPEL – See Recognition of Prior Experiential Learning RPL – See Recognition of Prior Learning Rescind - To revoke (cancel) credit/an award. Research Degree - A higher education qualification at level 7 or 8 in “The

framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland”.

Resit - A process where students are not required to attend lectures or

classes except to the extent that attendance is required in order to complete a necessary assignment.

Retake - A process where students are required to attend classes and to

complete all assignments and assessments associated with the module. In cases where students have performed very well in the majority of elements, work but have failed an element, work assessed at a high standard may be carried over.

Revalidation - Where a Higher Education Institution or external

accreditation authority deems a programme of study already validated to continue to be offered at an external institution as an academically viable and appropriate standard to be offered in the public domain.

Review - A thorough evaluation by suitably qualified experts. Review for Educational Oversight - A review conducted by the QAA for

purposes of educational oversight as required by the UK government, which is concerned with taught higher education programmes of study at levels 4-7 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.


Review Report - A document reporting in detail on an evaluation by

suitably qualified experts. Reviewer - An individual employed by the QAA to be part of the team that

reviews an institution; he/she may be a current employee in the higher education sector, a recently retired higher education professional or a current or recent student (having completed a course within the last two years).

RILC - See Regent’s Institute of Languages & Culture RSDFM - See Regent’s School of Drama, Film & Media RSPP - See Regent’s School of Psychotherapy and Psychology SLTC - See Senate Learning and Teaching Committee Second Marking - As the name implies, a second stage of marking, which

may be for checking, sampling or moderation purposes. Semester - One half of a nine month academic programme, usually

consisting of 14-15 weeks of teaching and assessment during which attendance at the University (or specified alternate) is required.

Senate Learning and Teaching Committee (SLTC) - A committee that

reviews all aspects of academic issues which relate to the development and delivery of all programmes offered by the University. It supports the pursuit of excellence in learning and teaching in all Regent’s University London programmes.

Senate Portfolio Development Committee (SPDC) - A committee that proposes the development of portfolios of programmes which will ensure the attainment of the University’s strategic objectives and vision and which will reflect the University’s mission and values. It monitors and offers support and guidance for new academic programme developments and reviews collaborative arrangements linked to study period abroad agreements, staff teaching exchanges in international collaborative partnerships and in the longer term dual degree possibilities and overseas delivery of Regent’s University London validated programmes.

Senate Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee (SQAEC) - A

committee that defines academic standards, and assures and supports enhancement of the quality of academic provision throughout the University. It develops academic regulations for approval by Senate.

Senate Research Committee (SRC) - A committee that promotes a

research culture on the Regent’s University London campus to provide a robust underpinning to teaching programmes particularly at postgraduate level, and engendering a spirit of global perspective,


professionalism and entrepreneurship consistent with the values and mission of the University. It reviews the level of staff support for research and consultancy across the campus.

Senate Learning and Teaching Committee (SLTC) - A committee that

ensures that the students of Regent’s University London receive high quality services and high quality support to underpin and enhance their learning experience. The committee reports to Senate any proposals which it may determine will aid the personal and academic development of students in the area of learning and teaching.

SITS - See Student Administration Record System SPA - See Study Period Abroad SPDC - See Senate Portfolio Development Committee SQAEC - See Senate Quality Assurance and Enhancement

Committee SRC - See Senate Research Committee Statutory Body - An organisation set up through Act of Parliament that

has a legal requirement to oversee a particular profession (for example, the General Medical Council).

Student Administration Record System (SITS) - A higher education

industry standard student and course management software programme.

Study Period Abroad (SPA) - A period of time that may extend up to two

terms, during which a student studies at an international partner university or college and successful completion of which contributes specific credit towards the completion of the overall programme.

Subject Benchmark Statements - published statement that sets out what

knowledge, understanding, abilities and skills are expected of those graduating in each of the main subject areas (mostly applying to bachelor’s degrees), and explains what gives that particular discipline its coherence and identity. The statements are consistent with the relevant generic qualification descriptors.

Summative Assessment - Formal assessment of students' work,

contributing to the final result. Synoptic Assessment - Assessment through a task that requires

students to draw on different elements of their learning and show their accumulated knowledge and breadth and depth of understanding, as well as the ability to integrate and apply their learning.

Term - A period of compulsory attendance between specified dates, of

around 10 weeks, during which teaching assessment occur.


Threshold Academic Standard - The minimum standard that a student

should reach in order to gain a particular qualification or award, as set out in the subject benchmarking statements and national qualification frameworks. Threshold standards are distinct from the standards of performance that students need to achieve in order to gain any particular class of award, for example a first-class bachelor's degree.

Tier 4 - The part of the UK Borders Agency's points-based immigration

system that is concerned with individuals who want to come to the UK to undertake a course of study at an educational establishment. Higher education institutions intending to recruit such migrants must achieve highly trusted sponsor status through a QAA Review for educational oversight.

Transcript - A document, but not a formal certificate, that certifies the

results achieved (usually broken down at least to module/unit level). Undergraduate - A student who has not yet gained a first degree. Undergraduate Certificate - higher education qualification at level 4 in

The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, at level 4 in the Credit and qualifications framework for Wales, and at level 7 in the Scottish credit and qualifications framework.

Undergraduate Diploma - A higher education qualification at level 5 in

“The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland”.

University - Independent, self-governing institutions that undertake

research and teaching and are diverse in size, mission, history, and the range of subjects on offer. The first universities arose from colleges or institutions founded by groups of scholars, often with monastic connections and/or noble or royal patrons. Subsequently, universities have been established by a Royal Charter, Act of Parliament, Papal Bull or by Order of the Privy Council enabling them to develop their own programme of study and award their own degrees.

Validation - A formal process through which an awarding institution

initially approves a programme of study (in terms of its content, teaching/learning and assessment) for the purpose of leading to one of its qualifications. This applies both to programmes delivered at the institution itself and to programmes delivered at partner institutions.

Viva Voce - An oral examination which assesses skills and knowledge.