1. Good Practice in Validation
Processes: Is going online the way
forward
Matthew Watson Cathy Shaw
Quality Officer (Validation & Review) Assistant Registrar (Quality Management)
Quality and Academic Partnerships Academic Standards & Quality Unit
University of Northampton University of Wolverhampton

2. Background to idea for this session
 National conference on ‘Good Practice in
Validations’ held at the University of Northampton
in May 2011
 The introduction of QAA Institutional Review and
the QAA UK Quality Code
 The funding regime – a much less benign
environment!

3. Outline of session
Definition of validation for the purposes of the session
(QAA definition & requirements of the UK Quality Code)
1. Validation processes at UoN
2. Validation processes at UoW
3. Debate: Pros & Cons of each methodology against 6
key principles
4. Conclusions – Is going on-line the way forward?

4. Validation Processes at the
University of Northampton
The more traditional style validation

5. Key Elements to validation process (UoN)
 All validations, changes of approval and Periodic Subject Reviews are managed
centrally by Quality & Academic Partnerships (QAP).
 Validations are based on the element of risk – the higher the perceived risk the
more ‘complete’ the validation: i.e. a new programme with more than 50% new
modules is considered ‘high risk’ so there is a full validation with externals in
attendance.
 All Programme Specifications, Module Specifications and Award Maps are
produced, maintained and provided by a central ‘Curriculum Team’ which is part
of QAP.
 Prior to the ‘real’ validation event, documentation is signed-off by the proposing
School at an ‘Internal School Meeting’.
 The process is based on the end point meeting giving approval (or not)
 Validation reports are audited by central committees.

6. Flowchart!

7. Documentation
All validation Panels are provided with:
 Curriculum documents: Programme Specifications, Module
Specifications and Award Maps
 Rationale document from the Programme Team outlining the
‘whys, whens and hows’ of the programme
 Draft Student Handbook
 The CVs of the Programme Team
 Memorandum of Co-operation (if collaborative)
 Supporting Statement from Library & Learning Services
 Indicative reading lists
 Panel Briefing Note from the Officer (usually from QAP)

8. Roles within Curriculum Design
Programme Teams normally work with the following during the curriculum
design process:
 Academic Advisor (one in each School): an academic with expertise
in the University Modular Framework
 Curriculum Team representative: will produce, process and provide
the Programme Specifications, Module Specifications and Award
Maps from the Academic Database System (ADS)
 Deputy Dean in the School (normally has the remit for Quality
Assurance)
 Officer from QAP: will provide procedural advice
 External examiners (in some cases)

9. Timelines (a typical example)
For a normal high risk validation event (involving a full Panel):
 September: Development Approval Form approved by University Executive
Team and goes onto validation schedule
 October: QAP organises an initial information meeting with the Programme
Team
 October to December: Programme Team working on validation
documentation
 January: Internal School Meeting – documentation signed-off
 Early February: Final documentation sent out to validation Panel
 Early March: Validation event held
 Late April: Response to conditions submitted
 May: Panel signs off response to conditions
But it can be done a lot quicker (or slower) than this! The School decides…

10. Validation Processes at the
University of Wolverhampton
The Virtual Validation

11. Key Elements to validation process (UoW)
 Validation embedded within curriculum development
 No end point validation meeting and introduce a process for validation through
development stages
 External Advisers to work with Teams in development
 Involvement of other University Departments at the earliest stages in curriculum
development
 Only key documents required – Module and Course Specifications – available
only on-line / electronically
 All documents presented to be written for students not for validation so
information can be reused
 Validation / approval granted when all members of the validation panel are clear
that all requirements / actions have been fulfilled
 Validation reports are audited by central committees

12. Flowchart!

13. Roles within Curriculum Design
External Adviser
Central Registry ASQ Officer
Services
School Proposing Institute for
Management Team Curriculum Team Learning
(Associate Dean of
Enhancement (ILE)
School)
Learning
Validation Chair &
Information
Panel members
Services (LIS)

14. Documentation
 Tools used for viewing on-line documents and discussion
 Submission of drafts on e:Vision and WOLF
 Modules on e:Vision, other documents on WOLF
 All documentation is written for a student audience, not
for validation.
 CVs required if new area for the University
 If collaborative provision include CVs of staff based with
collaborative partner plus MoC and Operations Manual
 Academic Planning documentation can be made
available for reference, this includes market demand
data, provision of resources etc.

15. Timelines (a typical example)
 University level academic planning approval
 On approval: ASQ Officer set up IPM with Chair and
Developmental Lead
 Deadlines set for:
 Receipt of nomination for External Adviser
 Date for visit from External Adviser (recommend 1st draft received)
 Process points for receipt of draft documents
 Process points for feedback from Validation Panel
 Discuss a possible completion date for full approval
But it can be done quickly (or slowly) - the School decides…

16. Debate Six key themes
1. Accountability
2. Peer Review, Externality &
Constructive Exchange
3. Timeliness, Efficiency and
Economies
4. Documentation
5. Curriculum Design, Approval &
Sustainability
6. Quality of Product & Academic
Standards

17. Accountability
 Who has overall accountability for a validation process: the Panel Chair, the
QA Officer, external or internal Panel members, the Programme/Course
Team?
 In an online validation approach will the roles, responsibilities and levels of
accountability change?
 How are issues resolved (does it differ between online and ‘traditional’
approaches?)
 Is the Programme/Curriculum Team more or less accountable in an online
approach?
 What is the output from the validation - a detailed report or a confirmation
that the process is complete? Does it matter?
“The administrative tail is wagging
the academic dog!”

18. Peer Review, Externality & Constructive Exchange
 To what extent is the input adding to the process and to the end
product?
 Which approach (online or ‘traditional’) offers the better opportunity for
constructive exchanges?
 To what extent do the two approaches involve student input?
 How do the approaches facilitate a truly two-way conversation?
 How do the approaches impact on the nature and clarity of language
used?
 In an online validation approach do the externals have a formative
rather than a summative role (or both)?
““Validations are always so
confrontational!”

19. Timeliness, Efficiency and Economies
 Robustness versus responsiveness: in the two validation approaches is it
possible to have both or is one at the expense of the other?
 So is online really quicker, more efficient and cheaper?
 How does the role of the QA administrator/officer change in an online
approach (more tasks or less or just different)?
 Does an online approach to validations increase capacity – even more
validations possible! Is this a good thing?
 Which process allows Programme/Course Teams to explore new ideas and to
make changes to their product?
 Does an online approach enable greater input from students and other
stakeholders or is this unnecessarily slowing things down?
“Validation slows everything up!”

20. Documentation
 What is the purpose of the validation documentation (is it just for the
validation itself or beyond)?
 Does one approach generate more paperwork than the other?
 Should validation documentation be just for approval purposes? Or does
it need to be student friendly?
 What do validation Panels really need to see?
 Which validation approach creates a more appropriate QAA audit trail?
Is this what we should be aiming for?
 Is the ‘richness’ of detail and contextual information lost in the online
validation approach?
“I had to produce so much documentation
and it is only a minor change!”

21. Curriculum Design, Approval and Sustainability
 Who should be involved in the curriculum design process?
 Consultation with external Panel members in an online validation
process – is it at an appropriate level?
 How can the QA administrator/officer most effectively manage all the
contributions to curriculum design in an online validation process?
 How do the two validation approaches ensure both the fitness for
purpose of the new programme as well as its long term sustainability?
 At what point in the validation process should the Programme/Course
Leader have the final say?
“We have 50 students all waiting to take
this new programme – honestly!”

22. Quality of Product & Academic Standards
 Does the validation process add to the quality of the final product in terms of
Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategies? Or is the validation process
principally one of ‘signing off’ paperwork?
 To what extent do the two validation approaches emphasise that validation is
simply a ‘first stage’ of the Quality Assurance process?
 How does the validation process ensure the production of high quality public
information?
 To what extent do the two validation approaches help to ensure the reputation
of the University?
 Does either approach better highlight the role of the QA administrator/officer
as a facilitator in the validation process (i.e. more than just a minute taker!)
“Have you got everything minuted? Is there tea
and coffee booked & are we having lunch?”

23. Debate Six key themes
1. Accountability
2. Peer Review, Externality &
Constructive Exchange
3. Timeliness, Efficiency and
Economies
4. Documentation
5. Curriculum Design, Approval &
Sustainability
6. Quality of Product & Academic
Standards

24. Accountability
Regardless of type of process
accountability lies with the Panel
Chair supported by the Quality
Officer/Administrator. In return the
Panel Chair and Quality
Colleagues, it is 4.45 and Officer/Administrator must have a
a decision needs to be process that supports them.
made…

25. Peer Review, Externality & Constructive
Exchange
Constructive but critical peer review
(both external and internal) has to be
at the core of any process and be
received at a point in that process
where it can have an impact and best
I don’t like blogging because
I don’t want to appear
ensure the highest quality product for
negative. students.

26. Timeliness, Efficiency and Economies
In a perfect world we could define a
standard timeframe for validation.
However, curriculum design requires
thought, research, consultation and
evaluation. Institutions do not
It took six weeks just to
get an assessment
employ staff as just curriculum
changed. designers.

27. Documentation
Documentation should be
appropriate for both student and
validation processes so as to avoid
unnecessary duplication.
Documentation should not be
We will validate what you wasted on validation.
are going to deliver now
you deliver what we have
validated.

28. Curriculum Design, Approval and
Sustainability
Curriculum design and approval are
more effective as an integrated
process, allowing wider stakeholder
Everyone we spoke to
before the validation
involvement with no ‘nasty surprises’
said it was fine, yet why at the end.
have we been set
conditions?

29. Quality of Product & Academic
Standards
Our validation processes must be
answerable to external quality
agencies and this is unavoidable.
Should this stop us from doing things
Will this stand up to differently?
muster when the QAA
audits us?

30. Conclusions?