Quality Assurance Handbook

2015-16
CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3

Staff responsibility for quality assurance ........................................................................... 4

The role of College committees in quality assurance................................................... 6

Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 8

Programmes of study at GSM London .............................................................................. 9

The QAA Framework ........................................................................................................... 11

Approval of new curriculum developments .................................................................. 14

Programme monitoring and review ................................................................................ 16

Student engagement ........................................................................................................ 22

Engagement with professional bodies .......................................................................... 23

Academic partnerships ..................................................................................................... 27

QA Forums ........................................................................................................................... 29

2
INTRODUCTION

1. GSM London (‘the College’) considers that the purpose of quality assurance and
enhancement (QAE) is to:

(a) enable the College to ensure that standards are appropriate and are
being maintained;

(b) facilitate continuous quality enhancement where possible;

(c) ensure that teaching and learning are supported so as to enhance the
quality of student learning opportunities at GSM London.

(d) This Handbook sets out how the College approaches the above, in
reference to the Quality Assurance Agency’s (QAA) UK Quality Code,
which can be accessed at:
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code

2. The Handbook should be considered as the tool which, drawing on the QAA Quality
Code, enables the user to ensure that academic standards of awards, and the
quality of student learning opportunities, are maintained and where possible
enhanced. These aims also flow from the College’s Mission and Ethos. The reader is
urged to consider all guidance in this document in this light, and that its aim is to
support academic programmes in providing the best possible quality of student
learning experience.

3. GSM London’s taught provision is validated by Plymouth University (PU), who are
now also overseeing postgraduate research programmes. The latter are currently in
teach-out of validation by the University of Wales (UoW). All processes described
within this handbook therefore operate according to the PU or UoW regulatory
framework as appropriate.

4. The handbook should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Academic

Policies and Regulations, which are available on the staff portal.

3
STAFF RESPONSIBILITY FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE

Executive and Senior Management

5. Overall institutional responsibility for quality assurance lies with the Provost, who is the
College’s academic lead and the Chair of Academic Board. Strategic responsibility
for QA rests with the Pro-Provost (Education and Quality), who is also Chair of the
Education Committee, and is supported by the staff of the Quality Office, led by the
Head of Quality.

Quality Office

6. The Head of Quality also contributes to development of the College’s strategy and
policy in QA. Reporting to the Head of Quality are two Quality Officers who oversee
operational QA procedures including the external examiner system and annual
programme review reporting, and the Governance Officer and Assistant
Governance Officer who have operational and some strategic oversight of the
College’s committee system.

The role of College academic staff in QA

7. The Dean is responsible for the quality and standards of programmes within their
Faculty and for ensuring that there are appropriate structures to consider quality
issues within them. They are also responsible for ensuring that resources, including
staff and staff development, are effectively deployed to maintain and enhance
standards and quality.

8. The Head of Department (HoD) has responsibility for the management of a

subdivision of the Faculty area within which there are grouped a number of
programmes; this role has a remit to oversee quality assurance and enhancement
processes in relation to the relevant academic areas. The HoD receives and
scrutinises annual programme reports prior to their submission to GSM and PU
committees.

9. Programme Leaders are responsible for the administration of the relevant academic
programme and for monitoring and evaluating them, and work directly with the
Quality Office to ensure the necessary procedures are followed at programme
level. These responsibilities relate to the procedures which are outlined in more
detail in the various sections below.

10. Module Leaders are responsible for the administration of their particular modules
and for ensuring that QA procedures are followed at module level.

The role of all College staff in QA

11. While the above roles have certain responsibilities as summarised, every member of
staff has a part to play in the assurance of the quality of students’ learning
experience. All staff are expected to maintain appropriate practices in their work in
order to ensure that the College’s standards and those of its validating authorities
are safeguarded. All staff should also ensure that opportunities for enhancing the
College’s provision should be pursued where possible, so that good practice in our
provision occurs in the context of continuous improvement. To achieve this,
colleagues must engage fully with the QA procedures described in this handbook.
As well as operating within regulations, following prescribed processes and
obtaining approvals where these are required, colleagues who are committee

4
 members must maintain good attendance at the relevant committees, read the
agenda papers, and contribute to the committees’ discussions.

12. All academic staff are responsible for contributing to academic quality and
standards by ensuring that they are up-to-date with their subject and with current
teaching and learning methods, and with the requirements of any relevant
professional statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs) that relate to their subject
discipline.

5
THE ROLE OF COLLEGE COMMITTEES IN QUALITY ASSURANCE

13. The College is currently implementing a new governance structure, which operates
along two strands reporting into the Board of Directors. One strand oversees
resources, continuous improvement activities and project work. The other strand
concerns the academic and educational nature of the College. The governance
framework of the College is considered as a QA function in that all committees and
deliberative forums of the institution have a potential role to play in the
maintenance of standards and assurance of quality and enhancement of the
College’s provision. As a whole, the governance framework provides a vehicle for
implementation of strategy and a means of supporting the College’s development
as a provider of higher education. In alignment with the principles of QA,
committees are tasked with periodic self-evaluation. As the governance framework
is a recent development for the College, its operation is considered to still be under
development and subject to ongoing review.

14. The following is a summary of the responsibilities of the principal committees.

Academic Board

15. Academic Board is ultimately responsible for academic programmes including their
development, approval and the oversight of their quality and standards. To aid the
Board in this responsibility, there are three standing committees which deal with
academic programmes and related issues, as listed below.

Education Committee

16. The Education Committee is responsible to the Academic Board for the
implementation of QA policies and procedures, and to advise the Board on action
which should be taken in response to issues raised. It also considers and evaluates all
proposals for validation and review, once approved by the Programme
Development Committee and external assessors; approves the nomination of
external examiners; and other documentation relating to QA.

Research Committee

17. The Research Committee oversees, reviews and develops the College’s research
strategy, policies and infrastructure, in conjunction with the validating authorities,
and support the development of the College’s research culture. In conjunction with
the Research Degrees Committee, which monitors individual research programmes
and includes membership from the validating authority, the Research Committee
ensures that College practices operate according to the provision of Chapter B11 of
the UK Quality Code.

Faculty Board

18. The Faculty Boards oversees the Faculty’s operation, resource allocation and overall
strategy, and considers issues relating to the Faculty and the student experience,
including QA matters at Faculty level. Programme monitoring is considered at
Faculty Board prior to the Plymouth University Joint Board of Studies.

19. These standing committees of the Academic Board are themselves informed by the
deliberations of other committees, as set out in the College governance structure,
available on the staff portal.

6
College Executive Group

20. The College Executive Group is appointed to undertake the executive authority of
the Chief Executive Officer on the strategic direction, performance and
management of the College. It is the senior executive decision-making body of the
College and deals with all matters of policy delegated to the Chief Executive
Officer.

21. All principal and feeder committees include student representation.

7
DEFINITIONS

22. Understanding the definitions and terms adopted in the quality assurance of
programmes and modules provided by the College is crucial. The most common of
these are:

23. Module – a separately assessed unit of learning that represents a structured set of
related topics within the overall curriculum of the programme. Each module will
have a designated module number in the validating university catalogue and for
which students may gain credits. A single credit is presumed to be worth 10 hours of
contact study, therefore a 15-credit module equates to some 150 hours of class
time, study time, and assessment preparation time. Individual modules created
separately from the validation of a programme must themselves be approved by
the validating university, as must amendments to existing modules.

24. Programme – a structured collection of modules which, as a whole, represents a

cohesive learning experience that leads to a recognised qualification of the
validating university, which acts as the approving authority for a new programme,
and also undertakes periodic review of existing programmes.

25. Subject Assessment Panel/Module Board – the Board of Examiners meeting at which
marks for a group of modules are agreed and fixed.

26. Award Board/Programme Board - the Board of Examiners meeting at which

decisions on progression and the award of qualifications for students on a
programme of study are taken.

27. Plymouth University Joint Board of Studies – the Board that comprises membership
from the university and representatives from GSM London who are responsible for
the academic management of the relevant programmes of study at the College.

28. Programme Leader – the person responsible for the academic management of a
Programme of Study.

29. Module Leader – the person responsible for the academic management of a
module.

30. Personal Tutor – the person responsible for the pastoral and academic welfare of a
student.

8
PROGRAMMES OF STUDY AT GSM LONDON

Accelerated two year bachelors programmes

31. GSM London has been offering a wide range of accelerated management and
business related programmes at the undergraduate level for over 20 years. The
College offers this option for those students who wish to complete their degree
earlier than those students who are following more traditional three year
programmes. Depending on their needs, students can complete their academic
programme of study and enter the workforce within two calendar years of
commencing their studies. All the Bachelor degree programmes delivered over two
calendar years cover three academic years of study. The College is able to
accommodate this by delivering the programme without a long summer break. The
structure of delivery necessitates shorter breaks between semesters. The learning
and teaching strategy builds on the premise that reflection can be accommodated
through the review of the subject areas during the shorter breaks. This provides
distinct advantages to students within a working environment.

Three calendar year programmes

32. From October 2011, the College commenced offering programmes of three
calendar years’ duration to meet the needs of the growing proportion of
candidates interested in this mode of study. The reason for the introduction of the
three calendar year programmes stems from the large interest from candidates in
the College leavers age group, changes in the external environment, as well as
changes in the College’s strategy to address a broader segment of the market.

33. This three year option is now available on all undergraduate programmes offered by
the College, with the exception of any programmes where professional body
requirements exclude this, e.g. LLB (Hons) Bachelor of Laws which is now available
as a three calendar year programme from February 2016.

Year Zero (Foundation Year)

34. In line with the College’s widening participation strategy, the undergraduate
programmes can be studied in extended form to include a foundation year at HE
Level 3. Students, who are not qualified to enter directly onto their chosen
undergraduate programme of study, can commence with the foundation year.
Since October 2011, this foundation year (year zero) now forms an integral part of
the undergraduate degree programmes. Students successfully completing year
zero of the programme would be expected to progress onto one of the available
degree programmes. The start dates for year zero are the same as for those
students commencing year one.

Postgraduate curriculum

35. The College operates a number of Level 7 (Masters) programmes which aim to
provide progression for graduates within the College’s areas of specialisation.

Curriculum restructure

36. In 2014-15 the College proposed a new undergraduate strengths-based curriculum

structured from modules of 15 and 30 credits, which was approved by Plymouth
University to commence from October 2015 with intake at Level 3. The existing
curriculum (based on 20 and 40 credit modules) will continue to be taught to those
students already undertaking them. Each programme of the existing curriculum will

9
 then be withdrawn when all students on them have reached the conclusion of their
studies. It is imperative that all students on both curricula receive an equal level of
quality of provision according to the processes and policies of the College and its
validating university.

Programme information

37. The basic definitive source of information on each academic programme is the
programme specification. This is formatted according to the requirements of the
validating university and sets out the programme’s aims and outcomes, distinctive
features, entry criteria, structure, credit requirements and assessment scheme.
Individual modules are described by definitive module records (DMRs), again
according to a required format. These set out the module’s aims, outcomes,
content, assessment scheme, and indicative reading lists.

38. Once programme and module records have been defined by the validation
process, they are stored within the Quality Office, and henceforth can only be
accessed via that office which must also be contacted in regard to any proposed
modifications at either programme or module level. It is imperative that changes to
programmes and modules are not made without the knowledge of the Quality
Office, and ultimately without the approval of the validating university.
Modifications of any kind must be communicated to the Quality Office via the
relevant modification paperwork (available on the staff portal), having been
previously discussed within the programme team and approved to proceed at the
Programme Committee. They can also be discussed with the Quality Office if
necessary. The paperwork will then be forwarded to the validating university for
approval. Modifications must not be implemented until this process has been
completed.

39. Publication of any information about programmes provided by the College must be
approved by the Head of Quality in order to ensure that accurate and current
information is being provided, following consideration by the Marketing and
Recruitment team. There is a set protocol for this process which can be found on the
staff portal. It applies to any information that may be published in e.g. prospectuses,
the external website, and any other promotional materials. Public Information is
covered by an overarching College policy, available on the staff portal as part of
the Consolidated Policies and Regulations.

10
THE QAA QUALITY FRAMEWORK

40. Quality and standards in HE are governed by the Quality Assurance Agency’s
(QAA) UK Quality Code. This aims to ensure a common framework for qualifications
and student learning opportunities offered by UK higher education institutions (HEIs).
The framework is designed to provide public confidence in academic standards
which requires public understanding of the achievements represented by higher
education qualifications. This framework covers the following:

UK Quality Code

41. The Code identifies a comprehensive series of system-wide expectations covering

matters relating to the management of academic quality and standards in higher
education. Part A sets out the high-level expectations of the Code, Part B provides
more detail and has a number of specific areas (Indicators) which provide
guidance on meeting the overall expectations of each area, and Part C focuses on
information provision. Each section of the code is listed below. Please note that
where shown, relevant aspects of the Code must be explicitly referred to in
validation documents.

Part A: Setting and Maintaining Academic Standards

42. Part A comprises:

 Qualifications frameworks
 Degree characteristics statements
 Credit frameworks
 Subject benchmark statements

43. Together, these sections set out the expected nature of degree programmes taught
by HE providers, and can be accessed here:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/quality-
code-part-a

44. The qualifications framework is designed to ensure a consistent use of qualification

titles and credit value of awards. It sets out the requirement for different levels of
study with qualification descriptors. The purpose of the framework is to ensure a
common understanding of qualifications across HE. Programmes are required to
meet the qualifications descriptors and must therefore be aware of them. The
College meets the expectations of the framework by having placed its
qualifications mapped to it, and also by requiring external validators and the
validating university to ensure that the qualification descriptors are met.

45. Subject benchmarking is a subject community making explicit the nature and
standards of awards which carry the subject in their title. The QAA issues Subject
Benchmark statements which are written by a panel of academics and practitioners
in the relevant subject discipline. Each Benchmark may apply to a number of
programmes of the College. The Subject Benchmark statement forms part of the
basis for the nature and content of the programme, and should be consulted and
referenced when preparing a validation document. How the programme relates to
the subject benchmark must be made explicit in the validation documentation.

46. All undergraduate programmes map to a subject benchmark, though there are
currently very limited postgraduate benchmarks.

11
 Part B: Assuring and Enhancing Academic Quality

47. Chapters:

B1: Programme design, development and approval

B2: Recruitment, Selection and Admission
B3: Learning and teaching
B4: Enabling student development and achievement
B5: Student engagement
B6: Assessment of students and recognition of prior learning
B7: External examining
B8: Programme monitoring and review
B9: Academic appeals and student complaints
B10: Managing higher education provision with others
B11: Research degrees

48. Part B sets out expectations of how providers assure the quality of the student
learning experience throughout the learner’s life cycle, from design and approval of
academic programmes through to postgraduate research. The expectations are
aligned to each of the above chapters which also further subdivide into indicators
of good practice. Further information on the above can be accessed at:
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/quality-
code-part-b

Part C: Information About Higher Education Provision

49. Part C sets out the expectations and indicators relating to how providers publicly
convey information about their HE provision and ensure that it is reliable and
accurate

Further information on the can be accessed at:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/quality-
code-part-c

Mapping to the UK Quality Code

50. The College has mapped its practices against the chapters of the Quality Code
using the indicators as guidance points, in order to gain an overview of where
practices are appropriately aligned and where further development is necessary.
This mapping process is a continuous exercise and henceforth will be reviewed
each year by Academic Board in the form of a mapping grid. This is partly to
account for ongoing amendments to the Code and ensure practices remain
aligned, and also to ensure the College is maintaining a culture of review and
evaluation of its provision.

51. The mapping process was commenced in 2015 via groups of staff discussing current
practice and it is intended that a similar process will be used for continuation of
mapping on an annual basis. However, all staff, not just those involved in mapping
groups and regardless of their role within the College, are expected to carry out
their duties in accordance with the ethos of the Quality Code and the overarching
aim of providing the best possible learning experience for students.

For more information, please contact the Head of Quality.

12
QAA Review

52. The QAA undertakes periodic institutional reviews of higher education providers
according to the process of Higher Education Review (HER, as at 2016). This is a
peer-review process in which academics and students of other HEIs visit the
institution under review and, through discussions with staff and students and review
of relevant documentation, arrive at a judgement of whether the institution is setting
and maintaining appropriate standards, providing appropriate learning
opportunities for students, providing accurate public information about its activities,
and is enhancing its provision. The review teams use the Quality Code as their basis
for this process, and will wish to see evidence that the College’s policies and
regulations are carried out as stated.

53. Any member of staff may be required to attend a discussion with QAA reviewers as
part of the HER visit. In these sessions, the reviewers are seeking confirmation of how
policies and procedures work in practice, and that they are effective, and will wish
to hear how the experiences of staff inform this.

54. Colleagues are urged to view this process in the same light as the overall QA
framework, as outlined in the introduction to this handbook. The QA framework aims
to support the assurance of good academic standards of awards, and the quality
of student learning opportunities, via the teaching and learning activities of the
College, and the outcomes of the HER should reflect the effectiveness of this.

55. As a private provider, the College is also subject to annual QAA review through the
Educational Oversight process. This also involves a visit to the College, and is of
shorter duration and a less broad remit than the HER process, focusing on activity in
the year since the previous visit and the institution’s progress since then.

Further information on QAA reviews can be accessed at:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews-and-reports/how-we-review-higher-education

56. As of 2016 the College is entering into a period of external review that may continue
for over a year. This includes making a submission for taught degree awarding
powers (TDAP) and preparation for a HER visit in March 2017. If the TDAP application
is successful, an extended external scrutiny process will possibly commence during
2016. In parallel, the College’s self-evaluation document (SED) for the HER process
will be being developed for submission in December 2016. Colleagues are asked to
engage as fully as possible with the preparations for these processes in order to
ensure the College can provide a full and accurate account of good practices,
enhancements, and strategies for development.

For more information, please contact the Head of Quality.

13
APPROVAL OF NEW CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENTS

57. The College has in place a procedure for progressing and approving curriculum
development which is conducted in collaboration with the validating university.
Any individual member of staff may present initial ideas, however if approval to
proceed is granted, developments must be progressed via the Programme
Development Committee and Education Committee.

58. Once granted, an outline proposal must be developed. The proposal will be
presented to the Programme Development Committee, for approval on financial
grounds taking into account any implications on and for learning resources, and
then to the Validating University. When both bodies have determined the proposal
can progress, it is deemed to have the College then the validating university
approval.

59. All new curriculum development must be undertaken in accordance with Chapter
B1 of the UK Quality Code, and must take into account:
 Aims
 Learning outcomes
 Content
 Teaching and learning
 Assessment
 Input from internal and external stakeholders
 Timeline for development

60. Regarding assessment, colleagues must consult the Assessment and Feedback
Policy which is available on the staff portal.

61. Once approval to proceed has been granted, a full set of documents must be
developed according to the validating university’s requirements. The documents
will be presented for consideration by the Programme Development Committee
and Education Committee before proceeding to the validating university’s full
approval procedure.

Academic Approval of Curriculum Amendments:

62. Amendments to existing programmes and modules must be progressed via the GSM
London Programme Committee in the first instance.

63. The Quality Office will co-ordinate the process and will progress proposals and
documentation accordingly. It will direct advice and any necessary
correspondence to the appropriate staff member(s) responsible for the
development and act as the interface between GSM London and the validating
university to ensure that the Universities’ Code of Practice and the procedures are
adhered to and that a comprehensive audit trail is maintained.

64. Development of existing curriculum must take into account Chapter B1 of the UK
Quality Code and also consider:
 Enhancements to an existing curriculum
 Key points learned from prior operation of the programme;
 Feedback from students and other stakeholders;
 Internal developments including staff changes, internal review, annual
monitoring;

14
 External input including recommendations from external examiners and
revalidation panels;
 External developments including PSRB requirements, changes in the subject
area or discipline, developments in the sector, government requirements, and
legislation.

15
PROGRAMME MONITORING AND REVIEW

Annual programme review

65. The annual programme review process enables programmes to constructively self-
reflect on the previous year in terms of assuring and enhancing quality of the
students’ learning experience, in order to self-evaluate and make an action plan for
the coming year based on the outcomes of this reflection. It is intended as a positive
process that, while addressing issues or problems, also builds on good practice and
overall contributes to ongoing review and enhancement at College-wide level.

66. The process of constructive reflection and self-evaluation is intended to lead to

meaningful actions, enhancement where possible, or positive consolidation. The
report is not the process, it is an important outcome and provides an auditable
representation of that process, but the value in terms of the student experience is in
the process of the programme’s reflection, self-evaluation and actions taken. The
process helps the College to identify and document issues, good practice and
relevant actions at Programme, Faculty and College level. All matters, issues,
developments etc mentioned should be considered in light of the quality of the
students’ learning experience.

67. The current process is that operated by the validating university and maps to
Chapter B8 of the QAA Quality Code, but satisfying the Code is not the end in itself;
the process has value as mentioned above. The enhancement plan that forms part
of the review outcome should be considered as something that the programme
would be maintaining even if the report was not required; in other words, the
meetings and responses to feedback, review of previous year’s actions and
planned enhancement activity for the following year, would all be taking place
regardless.

68. The College is intending to propose to the validating university a new format for the
annual programme review to be applied from the 2015-16 cycle.

Annual programme review process

69. The reports are submitted to the Head of Department for approval and considered
at the Faculty Board, which reports in summary to the Education Committee, with
feedback as necessary directly from the Committee to the Programmes and also
highlighting to the Education Committee any College-level issues or themes for note
and/or follow-up.

General notes on content of the review reports

70. Anyone reading the review should be able to gain an informative picture of the
current state of the Programme and, from this, deduce how good a quality of
learning experience students are receiving. Most sections prompt entries for actions
or other kinds of outcomes, and are used as the basis for entries in the forward plan
for the following academic year.

71. Individual statements taken together through Department-level and College-level

consideration should give an institution-wide picture of the quality of the student
learning experience.

16
Module and Programme Evaluation

72. Student views on modules, stages of programmes of study and overall programmes
of study are collected using Module Evaluation Questionnaires. The College has a
Module Evaluation Questionnaire that should be adopted by all teaching areas to
allow for ease of comparison and analysis.

73. Module Evaluation Questionnaires are distributed to students half way through the
teaching period and students are encouraged to complete them there and then.
They are completed anonymously and collected in one of two ways – by a
designated student who shall deliver them to the appropriate Programme
Administrator, or by a member of the Programme Team. The replies are
aggregated and summarised and an analysis undertaken by the Office of Quality
and Governance.

Student Perception Questionnaires

74. In order to record students’ perceptions of the quality of education in the classroom,
they are given the opportunity to complete anonymous appraisal forms, giving their
views on their learning experience. Students’ perceptions are recorded by means
of a questionnaire, the replies to which are aggregated and summarised. Students’
replies are considered by the programme leaders and members of academic staff
and where necessary, adjustments made to the delivery of the programme, as
appropriate. Student responses will be analysed and summarised and will form part
of the Annual Monitoring process.

75. Please also see further sections below on student engagement.

Periodic Review

76. The validating university undertakes periodic programme review, normally on a

quinquennial revalidation basis; the process and the preparation for it are similar to
those for initial new programme approval and also involve external input.

77. The revalidation process is informed by data on student progression and

achievement, external examiners reports, programme annual monitoring reports
and the input of current (and, where possible, recent) students. The revalidation
process will also take into account changes to the programme since the last
validation.

78. In rare cases, a revalidation may be deemed necessary due to accumulation of

programme modifications. This may occur when, between validations, a
programme is judged to have made serial modifications that amount to a
significant change to the content and structure approved at the most recent
validation. There is no set formula for what constitutes a significant change; each
case will be considered individually by the relevant College committee ahead of
consultation with the validating university.

79. Revalidation must be undertaken in context of constructive self-evaluation and

reflection by the programme itself, and give an explicit view of where the
programme has been, and where it is going; the process should be a means by
which a programme can productively develop according to internal and external
drivers.

17
Thematic Review

80. The College’s Thematic Review is an internal process which examines a particular
area of the College’s provision as part of our continuous improvement activities. The
area in question may be a subdivision of the College’s organisational structure such
as a department or a specific operational function, or an established aspect of our
activities and practices that is supported by more than one team, such as e.g.
assessment, student engagement, international development, etc. The review is
conducted by a panel, the composition of which is discussed below. Each Panel is
considered as part of the College’s governance structure and reports to the
Continuous Improvement Group (CIG).

81. The aim of Thematic Review is to constructively evaluate performance and strategic
direction of the theme area by auditing arrangements and operations in that area,
informed by a written self-evaluation provided by a strategic lead person within that
area, and supported by pre-existing documentation. The self-evaluation and
supporting documents are considered by a review panel, and a report issued which
summarises the outcomes of the process including recommendations for actions
and commendations of good practice. The report is considered by the Continuous
Improvement Group (CIG) and, where relevant, the Academic Board. The CIG
monitors progress against any recommended actions and reports accordingly to
the College Executive Group (CEG).

82. Thematic Review also aims to feed into the College’s ongoing process for UK Quality
Code mapping and the College Enhancement Plan.

83. It is vital that the Thematic Review is not seen as simply a panel aiming questions at
a group of colleagues. It is a collaborative, evaluative process in which all
participants constructively discuss the area under consideration, and reach
conclusions that generate actions which feed into the College’s strategy and
ongoing development.

84. The College will normally undertake one Thematic Review in any given academic
year, and each review will not normally extend beyond the academic year in
question. As well as forming part of the College’s continuous improvement activities,
Thematic Review is considered as a quality assurance and enhancement process.
The Head of Quality and members of the Quality Office, while not necessarily
directly participating in a Thematic Review or acting as panel members, will act as
operational liaison and provide guidance and advice on the process.

More detail of the process is available on the staff portal.

External examiners

85. Each programme must have at least one external examiner. External examiners of
the College are nominated by the Programme and appointed by the Validating
University following consideration by the Education Committee.. External examining
at the College is maintained in accordance with the QAA Quality Code Chapter
B7.

86. It is the responsibility of the relevant programme to nominate candidates for

external examining. In considering who to nominate, the programme must be
assured the candidate has the appropriate experience. This does not only refer to
the subject / discipline knowledge but also the nature of the programme in
question. For instance, nominees for postgraduate programmes should have the

18
 relevant background enabling them to moderate and comment on programmes
incorporating the greater critical and analytical content expected in postgraduate
study. Any other distinctive aspects of the programme should be taken into account
when choosing a nominee.

87. When a new external examiner is required, or an existing one is coming to the end
of his/her appointment, programmes should secure a suitable nomination as early
as possible in the academic year. Candidates may initially be approached
informally to ensure that they are willing to serve but all appointments are subject to
approval by the. Validating University.

88. All nominations for initial appointment must be made on the required forms and
submitted to the Quality Office, who forward the nominations to Education
Committee, which will then recommend progression to the Validating University for
approval. Timing of this process is crucial and the Quality Office will alert
programmes to the necessity of providing nominations as early as possible. If a
programme is having difficulty sourcing nominees they must inform the Quality
Office as soon as possible. Consideration should be given to all possible means of
securing nominations, whether through existing contacts, recommendations,
professional registers, and so on. The Quality Office will do all it can to support
programmes in the process of obtaining nominations but it must be borne in mind
that ultimately it is the responsibility of programmes to secure suitable nominees,
using their subject area knowledge.

89. Programme leaders should ensure that prior to attendance at an Examination

Board, the external examiner is invited to the College to meet the programme
team. External examiners should be sent all relevant programme documentation,
including:
 A letter of introduction and welcome to the College
 Validating University Guidelines for External Examiners of Taught Programmes
and Modules at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Level
 External Examiner’s Report Form
 Validating University Code of Practice for the Conduct of Boards of Examiners
 Expense claim forms
 Validating University Staff Handbook
 Validating University Quality Assurance Handbook
 Schedule of Subject Assessment Panel and Award Board/Module and
Programme Board meetings for the year
 Validating University Procedures for Considering External Examiner Reports
 Appropriate Programme Handbook/s or equivalent material
 Programme specification

90. New externals are invited to attend a formal induction event run by the validating
university, but all efforts should be made for them to have the opportunity to initially
visit the College and meet the programme team.

19
Role of the external examiner

91. External examiners play a key role in maintaining the standards of programmes
within the College. The role of the external examiner is to:

 ensure the comparability of the College’s standards with those in peer

institutions and as set out by national benchmarks
 provide assurance for the University that its assessments and marking practices
are fair and operated equitably and consistently
 provide assurance that the assessment process appropriately measures
student achievement against the intended learning outcomes for the
programme/module;
 provide advice on the content, balance and structure of programmes and
modules of study and on assessment processes, including the conduct of
examination boards (which they attend) at Programme and institutional level.

92. External examiners may also attend other assessment-related activities such as
practical assessments and workplace practice where relevant. Note: external
examiners are not intended to act as additional markers.

93. External examiners are required to submit an annual report. The template for this is
currently issued by the validating university; the College is in discussion with them
regarding a modified version to be used starting from the 2015-16 reporting cycle.

94. External examiner reports are scrutinised within the College by the Quality Office
and the relevant programme, and considered by the Programme Committee, and
reported to the Faculty Board. Each programme must make a formal response to
any issues raised by the external examiner. The report must be made available in full
to all students (not just Programme Reps) by appropriate means such as GSM Learn.
This can be done with redactions if necessary.

95. The comments of the external examiners and the School responses are monitored
by Faculty Board, Education Committee and the Joint Board of Study via the
Programme Annual Monitoring process. Any points for action at College level are
also noted and acted on as necessary.

96. Where an external examiner raises a serious concern requiring urgent attention, an
immediate response will be made by the Provost who will normally inform the
external examiner of any action or resolution of the issue.

Length of appointment

97. External examiners are appointed for a period of four years unless the Quality Office
is informed otherwise by the programme, or the examiner, in the case of shorter
periods. Extension beyond four years will not be approved except in the most
exceptional of circumstances, for which a clear rationale must be provided to the
validating university.

Early termination of appointments

98. Programmes must submit a rationale to the Quality Office for intention to terminate
an external examiner’s appointment early. Other than mutually agreed cases, e.g. if
the external is unable to continue his/her appointment and wishes to withdraw,
reasons for programmes seeking to terminate early include non-attendance, non-
submission of annual report, unprofessional/inappropriate conduct, or false

20
 declaration in their application form/CV or on their eligibility form. Programmes are
urged to discuss possible early terminations with the Quality Office.
Interaction with students

99. While there is no specific requirement for face-to-face interactions between

external examiners and students, a programme may wish to consider any possible
benefits of such contact in the context of the programme’s activities. However, this
should not be carried out without first consulting with the Quality Office.

100. As mentioned above, the external examiner’s full report must be made available to
all students. Also note that the external examiner’s identity and home
institution/organisation must be made known to all students of the programme in
question via e.g. programme documentation and / or GSM Learn.

21
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

101. It is absolutely vital to ensure that students are as fully engaged as possible with the
College’s QA processes by ensuring these processes provide a mechanism for the
student voice to be heard and responded to. As learners, students are the reason
the College provides HE teaching. Therefore, the College will not be able to
appropriately maintain, quality-assure, develop and enhance its provision without
regular input from its students.

Guidance on student engagement is provided by Chapter B5 of the QAA Quality

Code.

102. Currently the College includes student members on most of its committees, and
appoints programme student representatives through a process described on the
staff portal. Students are also able to feedback via module evaluation
questionnaires and the external processes of the student perception questionnaires
and the National Student Survey. The outputs from these are considered via the
College committee structure and actions taken to address issues, and build on
good practice, as necessary.

103. However, the College will continue to work to develop any other means of
constructive student engagement possible. Meanwhile colleagues are urged to
bear in mind the importance of student engagement and to capture it formally
wherever possible.

104. It is also reiterated that students must have access to the annual reports of external
examiners.

22
ENGAGEMENT WITH PROFESSIONAL BODIES

105. The College has a number of professional and vocationally oriented programmes
and therefore, in relation to these, engages with a number of professional, statutory
and regulatory bodies (PSRBs) which act as industry and discipline regulators, and
providers of professional accreditation. Each programme with
professional/vocational aspects may therefore be regulated or accredited by a
specific PSRB.

106. The guidance below sets out how the College engages with PSRBs and maintains an
overview of PSRB activity across the institution. It also details the mechanisms and
practices in place to ensure that reviews and reports from PSRBs provide a
constructive external perspective to support the College’s quality assurance
processes.

(Note: the general term ‘accreditation’ is used to represent all forms of recognition
by PSRBs).

The role and benefits of PSRBs

107. The role of PSRBs varies and can range from, for example, determining a licence to
practise in a particular profession, to professional accreditation or registration which
may exempt graduates of the programme from further examination or assessment
for membership of a professional association. The manner in which PSRBs undertake
accreditation activities varies between subject disciplines; it could comprise a
formal institutional visit, a desk-based paper exercise, or other processes as specified
by the PSRB, in each case usually following submission of specified documentation
by the institution.

108. Links with external bodies such as PSRBs help to develop the College’s curriculum
and contribute to maintaining the professional currency of its provision, as the
programmes concerned will need to ensure they remain mapped to the standards
and requirements of the relevant PSRB. In turn these links are therefore of benefit to
students, and to graduates who may be able to gain some form of professional
status or practitioner registration as a result of successfully completing an accredited
programme.

Oversight of PSRB engagement and contact with PSRBs

109. The Quality Office oversees the processes governing the College’s engagement
with PSRBs, while general day-to-day contact and liaison with the PSRBs should be
directly via the relevant programmes unless the PSRB deems otherwise. However,
correspondence relating to monitoring or modifying the status of accreditation, or
any activity which may require modifications to the programme of GSM’s processes
or regulation, must be copied to the Quality Office.

Programme Development

110. Programme development is guided partly by use of appropriate internal and

external reference points. The latter, where relevant, will include the requirements of
PSRBs. These requirements may take the form of, for example, prescribed features
such as curriculum content, learning outcomes, assessment practices (such as a
required number of unseen examinations), attendance levels, and defined
standards to which the programme must map. The programme development and
approval process (including review of existing programmes) can be enhanced by
programmes working closely with PSRBs and therefore this is strongly encouraged.

23
 Programmes should seek opportunities for involving external contributors such as
PSRB representatives in, for example, validation and periodic review (see below). If
there are opportunities for individual members of staff to gain relevant accreditation
or professional membership/registrations, these should also be taken. Programme
annual reports and programme committees should formally note where such
individual engagement has informed programme development.

111. Programme development and approval (validation) processes should take

appropriate account of PSRB requirements. This can be enhanced by any or all of
the following:
 including representatives from PSRBs as external advisors on the development
team
 seeking feedback from PSRB representatives
 having PSRB representatives participate as part of the validation panel
 as mentioned above, staff members’ individual accreditation/memberships

112. The nature of PSRB involvement should be determined early in the programme
development process. This should be explicitly shown in the validation document or
programme specification, and student-facing documentation such as programme
handbooks. These should make clear the nature and status of the relationship with
the PSRB, the length of accreditation, and what is expected of students in relation to
engagement with the PSRB.

PSRB Inspection and Review

113. PSRB accreditation will normally involve an inspection of provision, which may take
the form of a scrutiny visit involving relevant programme and Faculty staff, and/or
scrutiny of programme and Faculty documentation. The accreditation is usually
granted for a finite time period, after which further inspection is required in order to
retain the accreditation.

114. Since accreditation often requires Faculties to submit programme documentation

for scrutiny, Faculties may consider it appropriate to align the accreditation process
with the programme validation, or revalidation of an existing programme (see
below), thereby preventing unnecessary duplication of effort. It should be borne in
mind that the PSRB may agree tom this on the basis that modifications are made to
the validation/revalidation process; such modifications must be formally noted by
the Education Committee. Responsibility for the preparation of documentation
required for programme accreditation by PSRBs and for making arrangements for
visits rests with the relevant programme team within Faculties. The Quality Office can
contribute to this process where necessary and provide documentation that does
not fall strictly within the programme’s remit. A member of the Quality Office can be
available to participate in PSRB visits if needed.

Periodic Review

115. In conjunction with Plymouth University the College undertakes periodic review
processes, primarily through programme revalidation. Note that professionally
accredited programmes may need to undergo reviews as directed by the PSRB.
Where possible, these may be co-ordinated to align with revalidation, but
programmes must be prepared for PSRB reviews to take place outside the College’s
revalidation cycle. Note: PSRB reviews will not normally be undertaken in place of
revalidation, or vice versa.

24
116. Revalidation of professionally accredited programmes should follow the normal
Plymouth University/GSM London processes, and consider all the relevant factors as
directed in these processes. In addition, they should also consider factors related to
the PSRB’s requirements, which may have changed since the last revalidation.

117. As mentioned above, as far as possible PSRB representatives should be invited to

participate in revalidations, for example by acting as a panel member. This should
be in addition to any other panel members with relevant professional knowledge
and experience and/or academic subject expertise.

118. The most recent PSRB report(s), clearly showing the programme’s formal response
and actions taken as a result of recommendations, should be included in the review
documentation to help provide as full a picture as possible of how the programme
has developed since the previous revalidation.

Follow-Up Activity

119. All outcomes of PSRB inspections and reviews must be communicated to the Quality
Office and the Head of Department, as must the formal responses to any
recommendations made by the PSRB. Reports and responses must be reported to
the Education Committee for approval.

Annual Monitoring

120. Engagement with PSRBs is monitored annually via programmes completing a report
form that is submitted to the Quality Office by 31 July and considered by the
Education Committee at its first meeting of the academic year (normally October).
The report comprises a summary of the current status of the link, PSRB activity
undertaken during the academic year, and activities planned for the forthcoming
year. Any reviews that have been undertaken are reported, including outcomes
and any actions arising from these. PSRB review reports should be appended.

121. Both the Education Committee and the Quality Office will feed back and advise as
necessary should any institution-wide issues arise or actions be identified.

Deviation from Regulations and Procedures

122. While the College’s Regulations operate for all taught programmes, it must be borne
in mind that there may be additional regulations or some variation from College/PU
regulations where programmes must map to the requirements of a PSRB. This may
take the form of, for example, admissions restrictions, a prescribed number of certain
types of assessments such as unseen exams or presentations, or modifications to the
validation/revalidation process. Where a PSRB requirement demands an exception
or variation from processes or regulations, this must be notified to the Quality Office
and the Education Committee, which will need to formally note the variation. The
variation must also be noted in the PSRB annual monitoring form.

Workplace learning

123. Workplace learning may form part of a PSRB’s requirements and would therefore
need to be structured into the curriculum. The College’s guidance on workplace
learning must be followed in these cases.

25
Provision of Information Regarding PSRB Links

Key Information Set (KIS)

124. Accreditation by PSRBs is reflected in programme Key Information Sets published on

Unistats. As such, the relevant PSRB must be formally recognised and listed in the
Accreditation Table on the HESA website, which sets out details of the accreditation
and links to other relevant information on the PSRB’s own website. The HESA
guidance on the process for this can be found at
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/C14061/accreditation_guidance.html

Providing information on PSRB recognition and accreditation

125. NB: In all information provision, it must be borne in mind that some PSRBs will have
restrictions on when a programme may be accredited, e.g. only after at least one
cohort has completed the programme. Particular care should therefore be taken in
the wording of information provided in such cases.

126. Full details of any PSRB requirements, particularly regarding what students are
required to undertake, must be explicit in the programme specification. In turn it
must also be clearly set out how the programme maps to these requirements. This
should include details about assessment outcomes or criteria that must be met to
fulfil PSRB requirements.

127. While it will not normally be the case with the current College provision, be aware
that some PSRBs may require an alternative document to act as the primary record
(instead of a validation document or programme specification), in which case
reference to the document and how to access it should be included in the
programme specification.

Information for current and prospective students

128. Information on PSRB requirements should be made clear in the programme

handbook, so that students are fully aware of anything relating to professional body
conduct, fitness to practise and any requirements relating to assessment, attainment
and attendance.

129. For prospective students, information about professional accreditation of

programmes should be provided in the College prospectus.

26
ACADEMIC PARTNERSHIPS

130. As of 2016, the College is not a validating institution and therefore not in a position
to form academic partnerships involving the validation of other providers’
programmes, or the franchising of its own provision to another provider. With the
approval of the validating university the College may teach one of its existing
programmes at another centre using its own staff, the arrangement often referred to
as ‘flying faculty’. This is to be considered as being within the remit of Chapter B10 of
the QAA Quality Code which covers managing higher education provision with
others. As such, any proposal to deliver an existing College programme at another
centre must be subject to an approval process.

131. The proposal must also take into account whether the proposed delivery:
 advances the College’s strategic objectives
 develops and enhances the College’s provision and grows its student
population
 enhances the experience of students and staff by providing access to
teaching, training, placements, facilities or other opportunities that would not
otherwise be available
 enables continuing commitment to widening participation in higher
education
 enables development of international activities by raising the College’s
international profile and reputation, enabling staff and students to work or
study abroad, and attracting high quality overseas students
 strengthen existing partnerships as well as developing fruitful new ones
 enables continues improvement of the research portfolio and profile where
possible through the development of collaborative links

132. All academic partnerships proposals will therefore take these principles into account
before proceeding to the approval process.

Key Operational Principles of Academic Partnership

133. Partnerships can only proceed if the following operational principles are met:
 The appropriate processes and infrastructure are in place to enable the
College to fulfil its responsibility for assuring the standards of all academic
awards and credit granted in its name
 The processes referred to above include robust arrangements for partner
approval to ensure the College is aligning with partners appropriate to its
strategic objectives and risk considerations, and that this process is distinct
from that for approval of learning opportunities
 The academic standards of all GSM London awards, including those relating
to academic partnerships, meet the expectations of the UK Quality Code,
including the Framework of Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) and any
UK subject benchmark statements
 The quality of student learning opportunities and experiences on off-campus
GSM London programmes are equivalent to on-campus programmes and
enable students to achieve the appropriate academic standards

134. If a remote teaching site is identified and proposed for delivery, an initial proposal to
pursue the opportunity must be submitted to the College Executive Group for
approval to proceed. This must make clear the potential benefits and any risks of
the proposed arrangement.

27
135. If CEG grant approval to proceed a due diligence process must be conducted. A
College team will visit the proposed delivery site and complete a proforma report
including consideration of a range of aspects of the proposed site such as facilities,
legal, organisational and governance arrangements, student support, learning
resources access, teaching spaces, and safety. Some of the information is required
before the visit takes place. The visiting team may include a representative of the
relevant programme but must also include College staff representing learning
resources and quality assurance.

136. The completed report must be submitted to the CEG for consideration before
approval can be granted to proceed, and under current arrangements the
validating university must also have sight of the report.

137. All partnership arrangements are subject to a contractual agreement that maps to
the requirements of the UK Quality Code Chapter B10, and are monitored,
supported and periodically reviewed.

138. If the arrangement is with a teaching centre represented by another organisation

(with whom the contractual arrangement will be made) they must be made aware
of the College’s public information policy and all outlets for information about the
arrangement (such as website pages, published leaflets, etc) carefully monitored at
least once per year.

139. A Programme Moderator will be appointed to provide additional oversight of the

arrangement. The moderator will be from another College programme and be
responsible for monitoring of delivery at the remote centre, and the provision of
public information as mentioned above. The moderator will report annually to the
Education Committee to provide monitoring of the health of the arrangement.

28
QUALITY ASSURANCE FORUMS

140. The QA Forums are open sessions that take place at least once per semester. They
aim to provide staff and students with an opportunity to hear about developments
and issues in relation to QA at the College and nationally, and to raise their own
issues and queries. The forum is not a formal deliberative body and is therefore not
considered as a committee, but each occurrence of the forum will normally feature
several items notified in advance to staff. The forums are normally one hour long
and take place at each of the two main campuses.

29