²ÝÝ®ÉçÇø

10.1 Â Â Â  Distance learning is defined as a method of providing Higher Education that involves the transmission to the student’s location of the materials that form the main basis of study, rather than the student moving to the location of the resources or provider.

10.2     Queen Margaret University is responsible for managing the delivery of each distance learning programme in a manner that safeguards the academic standards of the award.

10.3     The University is responsible for ensuring that the distance learning award is consistent with other relevant University awards and any relevant benchmark information within the UK.

10.4     The University shall ensure that each distance learning programme is delivered in a manner that provides, in practice, a learning opportunity that gives students a fair and reasonable chance of achieving the academic standards required for successful completion.

10.5     This means that all distance learning programmes must be validated and reviewed according to University procedures. If a distance learning programme is evolving from an existing programme, a validation event will be required for the distance learning element. However, this may be conducted as a major change, as explained in paragraphs 5.2 to 5.10 above.

10.6     The development, validation and review of a distance learning programme follows the procedures detailed earlier in this Section.

10.7     Those distance learning programmes involving the appointment of a Local Support Centre or a partner institution will be subject to the provisions of the University’s regulations and procedures for Partnership Development.

10.8     Where distance learning is to be made available to students in other countries, the University, through the Programme Leader, must ensure that all legal requirements concerning approval for programmes in that country are met, including any requirements under local law which might affect the programme such as consumer protection, copyright, employment, packaging and postal dispatch.

10.9     When providing distance learning programmes to students whose first language is not English, the Programme Team must ensure that the academic terminology used to describe the programme is readily accessible.

10.10   All students on distance learning programmes must be provided with clear information about the expectations of them in their programme of study. They must also be clear on the relationship between achievement and assessment, and between academic progress and accumulation of credit. The students should also be aware of the system of learning and how they can interact with it as well as the means of student representation at the University.

10.11    The University will, through its validation and review processes, monitor the effectiveness of the information provided to students.

11.1     A Graduate Certificate is defined as a programme incorporating a minimum of 60 credits at SCQF Level 9 or above.

 11.2     The validation process for a new Graduate Certificate broadly follows the process outlined above in paragraph 3. However, given the small scale of provision, events may be conducted by correspondence instead of face-to-face.

11.3     Criteria to be applied in determining the conduct of the event are as set out below: 

A face-to-face validation event will be held where one or more of the following criteria apply:

• The proposed award is delivered by a new collaborative partner of the University.
• The proposed award is not aligned with an existing suite of awards (such as a Graduate Certificate Framework).
• The proposed award is aligned with an existing suite of related awards but has a very specialist curriculum not currently delivered within that suite. Under these circumstances, a face-to-face event will allow for appropriate scrutiny with specialist external input.
• The proposed award is aligned with an existing suite of related awards, but key staff members (e.g. Programme Leader and module co-ordinators) do not have previous experience of delivery within that suite.
• The proposed award is aligned with an existing suite of related awards, but would deliver a markedly different student experience, because of major changes to common approaches across that suite. Such changes might be in respect of the overall programme structure; placement learning; delivery mode; learning, teaching and assessment strategy; or programme management.
• There is a PSRB requirement for a face-to-face event.

A validation by correspondence will be held where all of the following criteria apply:

• The proposed award is aligned with an existing suite of related awards and has a curriculum which is broadly aligned with that suite. Typically, some of the modules will be shared with existing validated awards.
• Key staff members (e.g. Programme Leader and module co-ordinators) have previous experience of delivery within that suite.
• The proposed award is aligned with an existing suite of related awards, and would deliver an equivalent student experience, because of an approach consistent with that suite. This would be in respect of aspects such as the overall programme structure; placement learning; delivery mode; learning, teaching and assessment strategy; and programme management.

11.4     The Panel for the validation of a Graduate Certificate will be determined on a case-by-case basis. As a minimum, it will include a Convener (not recruited from the host School), one internal and one external Panel member.

12.1     The validation process for a new pathway within an existing Framework is determined on an individual basis, taking account of a number of factors. The Assistant Secretary, Governance and Quality Enhancement will provide advice to Heads of Division.

12.2     In most cases, a modified validation process will be implemented. Changes from the standard process will include the following:

• Panels will receive detailed information on those elements of the Framework, which are common to all pathways, as well as information on those elements which are unique to the new pathway. Panels will be expected to have an understanding of the common elements, and to focus their discussion on those elements which are specific to the pathway under consideration.
• There will be a shorter agenda, in recognition that the wider Framework has been validated separately and the Panel has a particular remit to focus on the new elements presented for validation, in particular any new modules.
• A smaller Panel will be appointed than for a full validation. As a minimum, there will be two internal academic staff panellists, one external panellist and one student reviewer.

12.3     In exceptional cases, it can be appropriate to manage the addition a new pathway under the minor change process and through the School Academic Board. This applies only where the following criteria are met:           

• No significant changes are required to the overall aims, objectives and management of the Framework;
• The new pathway involves no more than one additional module (equivalent to 20 credits);
• The pathway will be taught entirely (or mostly) by the same staff Team;
• The pathway does not lead to PSRB approval/recognition.

12.4     The aggregation of pathways within a Framework for review will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Key considerations include:

• The approach needs to be resource-efficient to avoid duplication of effort;
• Panels should not be overburdened with excessive documentation;
• The review process needs to be structured in such a way that it is possible to come to an informed decision on each of the pathways, and to meet with all key stakeholders, within the agreed agenda format and time available;
• Pathways which share modules can be more readily aggregated for review;
• Pathways delivered by the same core staff team can be more readily aggregated for review;
• Pathways requiring PSRB input to the review process are more likely to require a separate event.

13.1    The following guidance on Short Programmes (micro-credentials) should be read in conjunction with the micro-credentials approval process. Advice and guidance on all aspects of Short Programme (micro-credential) approval and review (including costing where required) is available from the Division of Governance and Quality Enhancement. 

13.2    A Short Programme (or micro-credential) is defined as a module that may be taken separately without leading towards an award of the University. Short Programmes may also comprise more than one module, usually up to a maximum of 60-credits. In some cases credit from Short Programmes (micro-credentials) may be used towards another ²ÝÝ®ÉçÇø award. However, these Programmes and modules normally stand outside validated awards and are taken by students as a self-contained package of learning for their own personal or professional development.

13.3     Short Programmes (micro-credentials) are validated for a maximum period of five years, whereupon they are subject to review. Short Programmes (micro-credentials) are approved by the School Academic Board, or a sub-group thereof. Exceptionally, where a number of Short Programmes (micro-credentials) are presented together, for example, a number of modules offered by a collaborative partner, a separate event may be arranged. 

13.4     The documentation required for the approval of a single ²ÝÝ®ÉçÇø on campus or online micro-credential is a completed micro-credential approval form and the module descriptor. For a Short Programme comprising a group of modules, advice should be sought from the Division of Governance and Quality Enhancement. 

13.5    Proposals for Short Programmes (micro-credentials) to be delivered by a new collaborative partner must be considered by the Academic Planning Board before coming to the School Academic Board. The Academic Planning Board is responsible for approving the partner organisation, assessing institutional risk and receiving a site visit report, if appropriate.

13.6    The documentation required for the approval of a single collaborative micro-credential includes the completed micro-credential approval form and the module descriptor. The Division of Governance and Quality Enhancement will provide advice on other necessary documents, which may include a completed risk assessment, information on arrangements for managing the collaboration, and copies of CVs for teaching staff. The documentation required for the approval of a new collaborative Short Programme (group of modules) will be similar. The Division of Governance and Quality Enhancement will provide advice and guidance according to the scale and type of provision.

13.6    In all cases, the School Academic Board may request additional supporting materials as appropriate to the type of provision.

13.7  For Short Programmes (micro-credentials) that require PSRB approval, it may be necessary to hold an approval event. Where a joint approval event is to be conducted, at least two ²ÝÝ®ÉçÇø panel members will participate in any such event to undertake the approval process on behalf of the University. In such cases, no further scrutiny  will be necessary by the School Academic Board.

13.8     Staff of the Division of Governance and Quality Enhancement are responsible for maintaining a record of Short Programmes (micro-credentials) and review dates. Details of Short Programmes (micro-credentials) due for review will be communicated to academic staff and the Secretaries to the School Academic Boards.

Review process

13.9     Short Programmes (micro-credentials) are typically reviewed by the School Academic Board, or a sub-group thereof, no later than four months prior to the end of the approved validation period, allowing time for the review process and for the Programme Team to meet conditions if necessary. 

13.10    The documentation required and process for reviewing a single micro-credential is set out in full in the micro-credential approval process. For a Short Programme comprising a group of modules, advice should be sought from the Division of Governance and Quality Enhancement. Typically, this will include a short and evidence-based reflective review document that considers the extent to which the Short Programme has met its aims and makes recommendations for future development. 

13.11   The School Academic Board will make comments and recommendations to the Programme Team and, if necessary, conditions may be set before continued approval can be granted. The School Academic Board will normally recommend the continuation of approval, unless there are good grounds to recommend that the student intake be modified, or that the Short Programme (micro-credential) should no longer be offered. The School Academic Board shall additionally specify the date of the next Short Programme (micro-credential) review and may identify particular issues to be addressed by that review.

13.12   The outcome of the review will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting at which the review documentation was considered. The minutes will detail any conditions, recommendations and commendations, and the date by which conditions are to be met.

13.3   Whilst these requirements are similar to those for a full programme review, the level of detail required will typically be far less (proportionate to the scale of provision). For example, it is expected that there will be some consultation with stakeholders, but the full extent of this will be determined individually, depending on the type of Short Programme (micro-credential) and volume of credit.