Qa Handbook 2023 24

Quality Assurance Handbook
Published by the Academic Regulations, Quality and

Standards Office
Students and Education Directorate
Academic session 2023-24

Contents
Contents
Section A Introduction
1. Scope of the procedures

2. List of abbreviations
3. Quality assurance, regulatory and credit frameworks – national
and College
Section B Procedures for programme and module approval and

modification
1. Introduction
2. Internal and External Reference points
3. Programme design
4. Externality
5. Development of a new programme proposal
6. Distance learning, blended learning and e learning
7. Collaborative programme activity
8. The Approval Process
9. Diagram of the approval process
10. Fast track approval process
11. Diagram of the fast track approval process
12. Design and approval of individual modules outside of the programme
approval process
13. Modifications to programmes and modules
14. Timescale for approval
15. Publication of programme specifications
Section C Procedures for programme and module monitoring and review
1. Introduction to monitoring and review

2. Aims, objectives and process
Process flow chart programme enhancement
3. Introduction to module evaluation
4. Periodic programme review
5. Review process
6. Documentation for review
7. Report of the review
Section D Procedures for the approval and monitoring of collaborative

provision
1. Introduction
2. Scope
3. Definitions
4. Key principles
5. Strategic considerations
i
Contents
6. Academic standards and quality

7. Governance
8. Risk assessment and due diligence
9. Legal framework
10. Programme management
11. Approval, monitoring and review of collaborative provision
12 Process maps
13. Flow diagrams
14. Further information
Section E Procedures for validated provision
1. Introduction
2. Definition of Terms
3. Objectives of the validation process
4. Key principles
6. Academic standards and awards
7. Governance
8. Legal considerations
9. Financial considerations
10. Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion
11. Resources
12. Quality Assurance mechanisms
13. Process for approval by the College
14. Approval processes
15. Monitoring and review processes
16. Responsibilities of the College and the Partner
Appendix 1: Memorandum of Agreement
Appendix 2: Typical timeline for operational arrangements in monitoring and
managing activity
Section F Procedures for postgraduate research degrees approval and

monitoring
1. New research degree programmes – approval process

2. PhD by blended learning
3. Monitoring of postgraduate research degrees
Section G Core code of practice for PGT research governance and the
dissertation framework
1. Introduction
2. Purpose of the Core Code
3. The format of a master’s research dissertation
4. Supervision
ii
Contents
5. Ethical approval and statutory requirements

6. Extensions
7. Marking and formative feedback to students
8. Student Feedback
9. Complaints and appeals
Appendix 1: College postgraduate taught dissertation framework
Appendix 2: What might be included in programme/module handbooks?
Appendix 3: Roles and responsibilities
Appendix 4: Research ethics
Appendix 5: Key resources and contacts
Section H Assessment and External Examiners
1. Introduction to assessment
2. Setting of assessment
3. Marking, Plagiarism and feedback
4. External examiners
5. Chief External examiners
6. Diagram of the procedure for the consideration of External Examiners’
reports
Section I Short Course Policy
1. Introduction
2. Definitions
3. Statements Applying to All Short Courses
4. Statements Applying to Credit Bearing Short Courses
5. Appendix 1: funding
Section J Intercollegiate Policy
1. Introduction
2. Definitions
3. General principles applied to all intercollegiate arrangements
4. Principles applied to all intercollegiate programme and module provision
arrangements
5. Principles applied to all elective module sharing arrangements
Section K Policy on closing or suspending a programme
1. Scope of the policy

2. Definitions
3. Principles
4. Rationale for closure or suspension
5. Authority to make decisions about closure or suspension
6. Stage 0: Proposal to close or suspend a programme, during or just prior to, a
recruitment cycle
iii
Contents
7. Stage 1: Faculty consideration

8. Stage 2: Approval
9. Stage 3: Internal communications
10. Stage 4: Applicant and student communications
11. Stage 5: Final closure of programme
Section L Sunset Clause for New Taught Programmes Policy
1. Purpose and scope

2. Definitions
3. Policy
4. Sunset Clause Process
5. Review
6. Reporting
Section M Policy for Module and Teaching Evaluations
1. Scope of the policy

2. Definitions
3. Purposes of Module Evaluation
4. Module Evaluation Baseline Requirements
5. Module Evaluation Design Delivery
6. The Purpose of Teaching Evaluation
7. Individual Teaching Evaluation Baseline Requirements
8. Evaluation of Individual Teaching Design and Delivery
Section N Notes of guidance
Guidance on risk and ethics assessment in the design of modules

Guidance on global connectedness
Guidance on the production of programme specifications and the completion of
programme and module approval and modification forms
College descriptor for standard learning outcomes for exit awards
Guidance for Faculties on the use of external specialists and external peers for
programme approval and review
Guidance on flexible and distributed learning
Guidance on the operation of collaborative teaching activity
Guidance on student placements
Definitions of collaborative activity
Guidance on jointly delivered taught programmes
Guidance on the design of taught interdisciplinary, joint honours and major/minor
combination programmes
Guidance on key principles relating to the management, monitoring and assessment
of joint PhD programmes
Core terms of reference for a Joint Academic Committee for joint PhD programmes
iv
Contents
Guidance on Doctoral Training Partnerships/Centres for Doctoral Training:

approval, monitoring and review
Guidance on equality of opportunity and access in programme and module review
Guidance on professional, statutory and regulatory body (PSRB) reporting
Translation of credits/marks attained through study away from the College
College Marking Framework and Marking Criteria
Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR)
Interruption of Study
Section O Templates and forms
v
Introduction
Section A
Introduction
1
Introduction
2
Introduction
1. Scope of the procedures
1.1 This Quality Assurance Handbook draws together in a single location the policies, processes
and codes of practice which constitute King’s College London Quality, Monitoring, and
Enhancement framework.
1.2 The information in the Handbook covers:

• the approval, modification, monitoring and review of all undergraduate and taught
postgraduate programmes and modules, including collaborative provision, specialist
doctorates and short credit bearing courses
• the procedures for validated provision
• the approval and monitoring of new research degree programmes
• the Core Code of Practice for PGT research governance and the dissertation framework;
• assessment policies and processes
• Short Course Policy
• Intercollegiate Policy
• Recognition of Prior Learning Policy
• Policy on closing or suspending a programme
• Sunset Clause for new Taught Programmes Policy
• Policy for Module and Teaching Evaluations
1.3 Proposals for short courses should follow the approval procedures as laid down by the Short
Course Policy (see Section I). All non-credit bearing short courses should be approved by
the relevant Faculty submitting the Short Course approval form (SCAF) which can be
found at https://internal.kcl.ac.uk/kped/short-courses/proposing-short-course. For credit-
bearing short courses that sit within a Faculty these should also be submitted via OPAMA1.
Short courses delivered by units outside of the faculty structure academic approval for the
delivery of the short course will be the responsibility of the Programme Development and
Approval Sub-Committee.
2. List of abbreviations
2.1 The following definitions of terms are used throughout the Handbook:
Module an individual element of a programme of study which is taught and

examined under the approved regulations for that programme
Programme comprises the approved curriculum followed by a student for a specified
award upon which the student is registered
ARQS Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards team
ASSC Academic Standards Sub-Committee
CEC College Education Committee
CPSC Collaborative Provision Sub-Committee
QAA Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
OfS Office for Students
PSRB Professional, statutory or regulatory body
SPA Strategy, Planning and Analytics team
PDASC Programme Development and Approval Sub-Committee
PRSS Postgraduate Research Student’s Sub-committee
FEC Faculty (Institute/School)2 Education Committee or equivalent body
SITS acronym for the student record system
1
During 2023/24 OPAMA is expected to be replaced with Courseloop
2 Throughout the rest of the document referred to as Faculty
3
Introduction
3. Quality assurance, regulatory and credit frameworks – national and College
3.1 College procedures are required to take account of the various components of the OfS
Conditions of Registration B: Quality and Standards, and the QAA’s UK Quality Code for
Higher Education3; (see https://www.qaa.ac.uk/quality-code). The code is split into 4
Expectations (2x Standards and 2x Quality) and 13 Core practices (4x Standards and 9x
Quality). The Code also has a set of Common practices, but these are not applicable to
universities in England, though we endeavour to adhere to them. Additionally, there are a
set of Advice and Guidance documents to aid us in delivering a robust quality assurance
framework.
3.2 A key component of King’s quality assurance framework is the way in which programmes
and modules are designed, approved, modified, monitored and reviewed. This process
ensures that King’s programmes meet the academic standards set by the university and the
external environment, which includes the OfS, QAA and the various PSRBs. These
standards are then maintained and monitored via the processes of delivery, assessment and
review.
3.3 King’s structure and operation is characterised by the devolution to Faculties

(Institute/School)4 of a wide range of responsibilities within a defined framework.5 The
Academic Board, as the principal corporate body with responsibility for assuring quality in
the academic work of the university sets the framework and defines the standards and rules
to which Faculties must work. It is aided in this task by a sub-structure of committees
which develop, agree and monitor the majority of the policies and procedures governing the
operation of the framework.
3.4 The relevant part of the Academic Board’s sub-structure concerned with the monitoring and
review of programmes and modules is the College Education Committee (CEC) which
overseas these procedures and their implementation by Faculties; while the sub-structure of
CEC concerned with programme and module approval and modification is the Programme
Development and Approval Sub-Committee (PDASC); the sub-committee concerned with
monitoring collaborative arrangements with our partners is the Collaborative Provision Sub-
Committee (CPSC) and the sub-committee concerned with assessment is the Academic
Standards Sub-Committee (ASSC). CEC is also responsible for the oversight of the
education strategy of the College.
3.5 In line with the principles of devolution to Faculty Education Committees (FECs), or
equivalent bodies, as specified in the Faculty core governance functions, Faculties are
responsible for approving and modifying programmes and modules in accordance with the
procedures set out in this Handbook. Faculty core governance functions are available at
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/faculty-governance-functions FECs are also
responsible for collecting Continuous Enhancement Reviews for taught programmes (CERs)
from departments within their Faculty and for reporting on these as advised by CEC. FECs
are also responsible for ensuring that reviews of all programmes within the Faculty are
undertaken and for reporting such reviews to the CEC.
3
The QAA are currently reviewing the Quality Code and updates are due to be published early in 2023/24
4 Throughout the rest of this document referred to as Faculty
5 Throughout this document the term “Faculty (Institute/School)” also includes the grouping of the King’s
Foundations, whose governance structures in relation to quality assurance is via the School of Professional and
Continuing Education
4
Introduction
3.6 There is one set of generic regulations that apply for all undergraduate and taught
postgraduate programmes.6 Programme specific regulatory information is contained within
programme specifications which therefore have regulatory status. Programme specifications
are published only once a year, prior to the start of each session and cannot be amended
during a session. Requests for the suspension of regulatory information in a programme
specification should follow the same procedure as requests for suspension of the Academic
regulations. Further information on the credit framework, associated regulations and level
descriptors can be found on the programmes of study web pages at
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/academicregulations/approvalandmod
3.7 There may, however, be instances, for example with some professional programmes, where
programme specific regulations may be required. In such instances, advice on the necessity
for and the production of such regulations should be sought from Academic Regulations,
Quality and Standards (ARQS) team. These regulations and any subsequent major
amendments will require the approval of the Academic Board before the start of the session
in which the programme is due to commence, and should be appended to, and form part of,
the programme specification.
3.8 Programme Information sheets are provided to all applicants to all programmes where a fee is
attached. These information sheets must be submitted by July of each academic year to the
Head of Course Information role within the Students and Education Directorate. (see
Section B Procedures for programme and module approval and modification).
6A small number of programmes are not in the credit framework. The full list of awards can be found in the
Academic Regulations
5
Introduction
6
Section B
Procedures for programme
and module approval and
modification
Procedures for programme and module approval and modification
Index
1. Introduction
3. Programme design
4. Externality
6. Distance learning, blended learning and e learning
8. The Approval Process
10. Fast track approval process
11. Diagram of the fast track approval process
12. Design and approval of individual modules outside of the programme approval process
1. Introduction
1.1 The design and approval process is the quality assurance mechanism by which a proposed
programme of study is scrutinised in order to assure Academic Board and Council that the
programme meets King’s expectations for quality and academic standards. This process is
mandatory for all new undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes at King’s
including degree apprenticeships, those delivered through collaborative provision
arrangements and by King’s Online unless the proposal meets the specific conditions for the
King’s fast track programme approval process (section 10 below).
1.2 The College’s annual planning process should identify any new programmes that a Faculty
may wish to introduce, and notification of such intended programme approval activity
should be submitted by Faculties through the annual reporting mechanism. Notifying
PDASC of intended programme approval in this way should ensure that any potential areas
for cross-Faculty collaboration are identified at an early stage.
1.3 The approval of a programme is managed in two formal phases with the possibility of a third
phase if there is a complex programme being proposed or a programme involving a
collaborative provision arrangement. The two formal phases are preceded by an informal
initial programme development phase.
1.4 It is expected in all cases that the proposal has, in the first instance, been discussed with and
has the support of the relevant Head of Department, Vice Dean (Education) and Executive
Dean of Faculty1. All new programme proposals must be included in the Faculty's business
plan2 and be approved by the relevant Faculty Education Committee. In exceptional
circumstances where the proposed programme was not included in the business plan, the
proposing Faculty must confirm on the programme proposal form how the programme aligns
with the business plan.
1.5 Where a collaborative programme with a partner institution is being developed which leads
to a separate award by the partner, the Faculty Education Committee should confirm with
1The same applies to both faculties where a programme proposal involves more than one Faculty
2 See fast track programme approval process (section 10) for cases where the programme is being developed to respond to
the needs of a specific employer and has to be delivered at short notice or the programme is being developed following
receipt of external funding and has to be delivered at short notice.
7
the programme proposer whether the programme also has to be approved through the
Partner’s programme approval process and the timescale for completion, including any
registration with the appropriate authority.
1.6 In line with the principles agreed during the recent Portfolio Simplification exercise, the
following principles should be taken into consideration when developing programmes and
modules:
Modules
• A module should be run at least 2 out of 3 years. If a module has not run for 2 years
a review is required to determine if that module should continue to be run.
• A module should be able to be taught by more than one person
• A module must have a minimum of 10 students to enable it to be run.
• Modules are available in multiples of 15 credits only.
• The minimum value of a module is 15 credits3. If a programme wishes to offer a
lower value module, they must seek permission from the College Education
Committee, with an academic rationale for why the lower credit value is
appropriate.
Programmes
• A programme cannot have more than 25% additional modules ‘on the books’ than
those which are offered in any given year.
• Pathways and nested awards in programmes are an exception. There must be a
strong academic rationale for having a pathway or nested award.
• New programmes will be reviewed after 3 year recruitment period to determine
viability of continuing programme (see section 8.26 below).
1.7 Initial Programme Development Phase

Informal engagement with a range of stakeholders4 to
• make them aware of the proposal

• discuss any potential resource implications at an early stage
• discuss programme development and to ensure that considerations about how
employability is embedded into the curriculum are addressed from the outset
• discuss the viability of delivering learning opportunities with a collaborative partner by
assessing any risks at the outset and establishing risk management strategies. This may
involve a review of the risk assessment and due diligence documents by the
Collaborative Provision Sub-Committee, subject to the collaborative activity.
1.8 During this phase the Programme Leader meets with the Embedding Employability
Consultant to discuss what the programme team wants to get out of the Embedding
Employability Workshop and to agree the length and scope of the workshop. If the
Programme Team would prefer a longer planning/conceptual meeting at this early stage this
is also possible. Should the programme team decide in discussion with the Embedding
Employability Consultant that they would like to hold the Embedding Employability
Workshop before the PPF is submitted, this is possible.
1.9 This initial meeting will enable the facilitator to organise a bespoke workshop which will
meet the specific needs of the programme team. In cases where a department is putting
forward a number of programmes for approval which share a significant number of
modules/have a common first year for example, a single workshop covering all programmes
3
Some exemptions apply, See paragraph 5.14
4
See 5.9 below for list of stakeholders
8
might be possible. Whether or not this would be the best approach will be agreed at the
initial discussion.
1.10 Actions required following this engagement will be captured on the Programme Proposal
Form.
1.11 Programme Teams will also be given access to the Embedding Employability Toolkit at this
initial programme development phase to assist in programme development. This will include
examples of documentation from programmes which have already been through the process
and been approved and guidance on the programme director’s role in the process.
1.12 Phase 1
Initial approval of the proposed programme by the relevant Faculty Education Committee
and PDASC. The proposal documentation must include the following:
• comment from estates and facilities, library, marketing and finance cases (note: these
areas are not required to ‘approve’ proposals, but rather to comment on their quality and
any considerations which should be considered by PDASC).
• consideration of the employability context following engagement with Careers and
Employability.
• evidence that the programme is being co-designed with the employer for degree
apprenticeships
• consideration of any involvement with King’s Online, Global Mobility or Global
Engagement team.
• the Ethical Reputational Risk Review form and any risk assessment process undertaken,
for those programmes with collaborative activity (where relevant).
• consideration of Visa Compliance requirements
• the delivery requirements for the programme to ensure appropriate modelling is in place
and requirements are factored into the scheduling of the academic timetable
1.13 Phase 2
Development of programme and approval by Faculty Education Committee (or equivalent).
1.14 Phase 3
Consideration by PDASC of complex proposals and programmes which involve a
collaborative provision arrangement
1.15 The main purposes of the process is to ensure that:

• New programme proposals do not overlap significantly with existing programmes
elsewhere in the university;
• All new taught provision aligns with King's Strategic Vision 2029 and with the
Education Strategy;
• All new taught provision is academically desirable, viable financially, and in terms of
student recruitment;
• The programme takes account of all relevant internal and external reference points;
• Threshold academic standards are met;
• Appropriate student learning opportunities are available;
• Employability is considered at the outset and that embedded employability is clearly
articulated in module outlines and programme specifications;
• Degree apprenticeships are co-designed with employers as well as meeting internal
and other external requirements;
9
• The information provided to students about their studies is complete with regard to
programme content, structure, learning outcomes, modes of assessment, embedded
employability and extra-curricular employability opportunities.
1.16 Phase 4
Following a 3-year recruitment period (from the first year the programme runs) a review will
be conducted. The review will provide assurance to the College that:
• The predicted student numbers noted at the time of programme proposal have been
met
• The programme remains marketable for future students
• The programme remains consistent with College and Faculty strategies.
2.1. In designing a new programme of study, account needs to be taken of several external and
internal reference points.
External Reference Points
FHEQ
2.2. All programmes have to be set at one of the levels within the Frameworks for higher
education qualifications (FHEQ) published by the QAA and demonstrate that they fit the
qualification descriptors for each level. The levels and the main qualifications at each level
are:
Level 4 Undergraduate Certificates of Higher Education

Level 5 Undergraduate Diplomas of Higher Education, Foundation degrees
Level 6 Bachelor's degrees with Honours, Bachelor’s Degrees, Graduate Certificates
and Graduate Diplomas
Level 7 MB BS, BDS, Integrated Masters degrees, Postgraduate Certificates,
Postgraduate Diplomas and Masters degrees
Level 8 Doctorates
Subject Benchmark Statements

2.3. The QAA, in conjunction with the sector, has developed subject benchmark statements
based around broad subject groupings which are designed to represent the conceptual
framework of a discipline and to provide information about the understanding and
employability skills acquired through the study of that discipline. Subject benchmark
statements need to be considered in the design of a new programme. For some programmes
more than one benchmark statement may be relevant and for others there may not be any
statements of direct relevance.
Characteristics Statements
2.4. QAA has also produced a qualification benchmark for Foundation Degrees, which is not
specific to any particular discipline but which sets out a generic framework for Foundation
Degrees that serves as a reference point for use in programme design, delivery and review.
Additionally there are guidance notes on Master’s degree characteristics, Doctoral degree
characteristics, Qualifications Involving More than One Degree Awarding Body and
Higher Education in Apprenticeships Characteristics Statement. A new characteristic
statement on Micro credentials has been developed too.
10
PSRBs
2.5. Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs) are a very diverse group of
professional and employer bodies, regulators and those with statutory authority over a
profession or group of professionals. PSRBs engage with higher education as regulators.
They provide membership services and promote the interests of people working in
professions; accredit or endorse courses that meet professional standards, provide a route
through to the professions or are recognised by employers. At the time of going to print,
King's currently works with 27 PSRBs across 126 programmes.
2.6. Degree Apprenticeships

Degree Apprenticeships combine full-time paid work with part-time study. Apprentices
work for at least 30 hours each week and also study for a bachelor or master’s degree using
flexible study methods which best suits their employer’s needs.
Degree apprenticeships are co-designed by the employer and the degree apprenticeship
provider and have two elements:
• A degree which meets national requirements for quality and academic standards
• Preparation for the achievement of the Knowledge, Skills and Behaviours in the
relevant approved Degree Apprenticeship Standard.
The successful completion of the degree is not necessarily the same thing as the successful
completion of the Apprenticeship.
Apprenticeship Standards are developed by groups of employers called Trailblazers. They

include the approved End Point Assessment (EPA) for that standard. The EPA may either
be assessed by a separate apprentice assessment organisation or integrated into the degree
programme.
The current list of approved standards can be accessed here.
Internal Reference Points

2.7. In addition to the external framework within which programmes have to be constructed, the
following internal reference points should also be taken into account as part of the process:
• Strategic Vision 2029;

• Education Strategy;
• International Strategy;
• Faculty Education Strategy (where one exists);
• Widening Participation Strategy;
• Strategy for Enhancing Student Employability);
• Equality and diversity policies;
• Academic Regulations including the criteria for degrees;
• Credit Framework;
• the views of students;
• the underpinning of joint honours programmes by a clear intellectual rationale, either
educational or academic defined in the following terms:
o an educational rationale applies to instances whereby the components of a joint

honours degree, without necessarily overlapping at subject level, nonetheless
provide the student with a greater breadth of complementary learning outcomes and
thereby a more rounded education than afforded by a single honours degree;
o an academic rationale applies to combinations where there is a significant overlap
between the two subject areas in terms of knowledge and expertise and where
studies in one component thereby shed light on studies in the other to enhance the
student’s understanding of both.
11
3. Programme design
3.1 Faculties should contact King’s Academy if they require any assistance or advice about
programme design. The design of a new programme should identify the following:
• intellectual coherence of the programme;

• level of the programme within the Frameworks for higher education qualifications;
• overall credit value;
• aims and objectives;
• content, structure, distinctive features;
• learning outcomes with reference to any relevant subject benchmark statements;
• learning outcomes with reference to embedded employability;
• the option to include a period of real world experience5 in the programme where this is
not already an integral part of the proposal;
• opportunities to embed research skills into the curriculum;
• opportunities to embed a global dimension into the curriculum and/or to include the
option of student mobility (for example period abroad, attending conference overseas);
• associated modules and whether any are introductory, compulsory, core, optional,
professional practice, prerequisites, co-requisites or excluded combinations and the
combination of levels of credit allowed within the overall credit for the programme6;
• relevant co-curricular Careers and Employability workshops or programmes which will
complement the embedded employability within the programme;
• teaching pattern and modes of delivery to include the embedding of technology
enhanced learning;
• guidance on how Inclusive Practices can be implemented within teaching and
assessment;
• opportunities for interdisciplinary learning;
• assessment methods and how these allow students to achieve the learning aims and
outcomes and how they assess embedded employability. Cognisance should be taken of
the advice and guidance published by the QAA entitled Assessment;
• identification of nested awards (i.e. a lower level and/or volume award which students
may register for) and identification of exit awards (e.g. an award available to a student
unable to meet the credit volume and/or credit level requirements for the award on
which they are registered). A programme that does not wish to offer an exit award must
seek prior permission from ASSC first;
• consideration of how the teaching pattern, content, mode of delivery and assessment
methods allow for equality of opportunity for academic achievement;
• variations in practice in notional learning, credit transfer and levels/volumes of award
with international partners (where relevant)
• for Masters’ programmes, alignment of the dissertation/research project element with
College guidelines (see Core code of practice for PGT research governance and dissertation
framework).
3.2 This process culminates in the production of a programme specification which forms the
basis of programme approval documentation. Guidance on the production of programme
specifications and the completion of programme and module approval and modification
forms can be found here in the Quality Handbook.
4. Externality
4.1 It is necessary for proposals for new programmes to undergo specialist external input/review;
this must be evidenced in the programme approval documentation. At the development
stage of a new programme, departments identify a suitable external specialist. The role of the
5 For example, work placement, experiential learning, live projects, volunteering.
6 Final definitions of status of module still to be approved
12
external specialist is to provide expert subject advice at the design stage of a new
programme. The specialist can be an academic, or a member of a professional, statutory or
regulatory body. It is possible to use a current External Examiner from another King's
programme for this purpose, however, it is not appropriate for the same External Examiner
to then be engaged in the capacity of External Examiner for the new programme until a
period of three academic years has elapsed.
4.2 External peers will be expected to take an overview of the approval process and to ensure
that appropriate attention is given to the setting and maintenance of academic standards
during this process. The external peer will be asked to sign-off the final programme approval
documentation. Guidance for Faculties on the use of external specialists and external peers
for programme approval and review can be found in the Quality Assurance Handbook.
4.3 Employer input into the development of new programmes is also required. For programmes
that are not governed by PSRB requirements, the specific approach should be discussed by
the Faculty and Careers and Employability who will liaise with external employer partners
as part of the informal development phase.
4.4 Degree apprenticeships must be co-designed with employers. For the development of new
degree apprenticeships contact the Associate Director (Academic Regulations, Quality, and
Standards) for advice and guidance.

5.1 All new programme proposals must be included in the Faculty's business plan and be
approved by the relevant Faculty Education Committee. In exceptional circumstances
where the proposed programme was not included in the business plan, the proposing Faculty
must confirm on the programme proposal form how the programme aligns with the business
plan.
5.2 It is expected in all cases that the proposal has, in the first instance, been discussed with and
has the support of the relevant Head of Department, Vice Dean (Education) (via the Faculty
Education Committee) and Executive Dean of Faculty (who may delegate approval). For
those proposals with involvement from another faculty, both faculties must demonstrate
their support for the proposal.
Business plan and marketing

5.3 Whilst the academic rationale and quality of a programme should remain the most important
factors in the consideration of a new programme, Faculties' strategic and operational
planning will be greatly assisted by a business plan accompanying all new programme
proposals. The business plan will indicate how the resources to support the programme will
be provided.
5.4 Programme proposers are expected to send the completed Programme Proposal Form,
including the marketing template, to the Executive Dean of Faculty (or nominee) and the
Director of Marketing (or nominee) so that marketing support can be agreed with the
Executive Dean of Faculty.
5.5 Those programmes that require new staffing resources, the proposal proposer should discuss
with Faculty Education Leads and Territorial Vice-Principals the resource required and
then requests should be submitted as part of the annual Planning Round. Deadlines for such
requests are aligned to the Planning Round and Faculties’ strategic reviews with individual
deadlines set for each of the Faculties. All requests should be completed by December each
year. The role of PDASC will be to only approve the programme based on academic merit –
any staffing requests alongside the programme proposal is not in PDASC’s remit to approve.
13
5.6 The Marketing Department is responsible for presenting and advising on marketing
strategies for each Faculty. Guidance should be sought from Faculty marketing officers
when proposing a programme to ensure appropriate information is provided in the
Marketing Report to PDASC to enable the Committee to make a full decision. Programmes
must not be advertised until final approval has been granted by either the Faculty or
PDASC (depending on the complexity of the programme).
5.7 Consideration should also be given to the planning and marketing of modules for the Study
Abroad market. Further advice should be sought from the Marketing Department.
Initial programme development

5.8 A programme proposal is usually initiated and developed within the Faculty and should be
consistent with the Faculty strategic development plan.
5.9 Faculties must ensure that the following are consulted and where indicated have direct input
into the proposal:
• Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards (as and when required)
• Library (including Skills Support)
• Marketing (direct input is required)
• Finance (direct input is required)
• Careers and Employability (direct input is required)
• Global Mobility team (to consider the option of student mobility)
• Employers 7
• Estates and Facilities
5.10 During the development of the programme specification, Faculties should ensure that the
following are consulted to comment on the quality of the programme, if required:
• Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards (required for all degree apprenticeships)
• King’s Academy
• Global Engagement (if the intention is to run a programme with an international
university)
• Global Mobility (if the intention is to offer study abroad)
• Admissions
• Collaborative links
• Contacts in industry
• King's Online (if the intention is to create a wholly online programme)
• Centre of Technology Enhanced Learning (CTEL)
• King’s Entrepreneurship Institute
• King’s Foundation
• Timetabling
• Visa Compliance
Programme structure
5.11 The offering of nested awards i.e. a lower volume award which shares some of the same
learning aims and outcomes of a larger volume award should be considered in exceptional
circumstances. For example, a Master’s degree may offer a nested award of a postgraduate
diploma and/or postgraduate certificate which would allow the student to leave after
completing the PgDip or PgCert or to progress onto the Masters qualification. In all such
7
Careers and Employability can work with programme teams to facilitate employer input into the initial programme
development phase.
14
cases nested awards are regarded as separate programmes onto which students can be
directly recruited. Students register for nested awards (unlike exit awards) and may progress
from a nested award on to the ‘higher’ award (but do not then receive both awards).
5.12 Where programmes include pathways, nested awards and exit awards, the statements of
programme learning aims and outcomes for each separate award available must be made
clear on the programme specification.
5.13 The credit value of core, compulsory, elective or optional modules shall be a multiple of 15
credits for both undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. The minimum credit value for
a module forming part of a programme of study as a core, compulsory, elective or optional
module shall be 15 credits. Credit values of 60 and 120 (MRes only) are also available for
postgraduate programmes for dissertations/projects.
5.14 5 and 10 credit modules can be developed for CPD/Executive Education purposes and a
combination of modules can lead to a Postgraduate Certificate award. Proposals for the
programme should ensure that consideration is made of assessment load to ensure there is no
overburdening of students. For a Postgraduate Diploma a combination of 5 or 10-credit
modules can be used but there must be in addition a 30-credit research module. For a full
Masters programme a 60 credit dissertation (following the College’s Dissertation
Framework) must also be included with the 30-credit research methods module.
5.15 Approval to use modules with a different credit weighting must be sought from the College
Education Committee.
5.16 Where a programme is jointly awarded with a collaborative Partner, consideration should be
given to the recognition of the award level and title within that country’s jurisdiction,
particularly where a nested award or an exit award is proposed.
Contact hours
5.17 1 credit = 10 hours of learning, therefore a 15-credit module should have 150 hours of
overall student workload including assessments and private study. Where the programme is
a collaborative provision arrangement, consideration should be given to the differences in
credit value for notional learning hours at the partner HEI and a mapping should be
undertaken of the overall student workload against the College’s expectations on notional
learning hours.
5.18 The programme team will need to calculate the breakdown of the contact hours detailing the
amount of hours assigned to lectures, tutorials, seminars, virtual learning and private study
for each module. This information will then be recorded on the module descriptors and be
included on Programme Information Sheets.
Assessment methods
5.19 When designing the programme content the programme team will need to consider
assessment methods. The assessments undertaken must enable the student to demonstrate
achievement of the learning aims and outcomes including employability related learning
outcomes.
5.20 For degree apprenticeships, the programme must prepare apprentices for the achievement of
the Knowledge, Skills and Behaviours in the relevant approved Degree Apprenticeship
Standard.
5.21 Consideration should also be given to the mode of the assessment pattern across the
programme of study to ensure students are not being heavily assessed at particular points of
the programme.
15
5.22 Programme teams should consult King’s Academy for advice about assessment. King’s
Academy has developed an assessment and feedback online resource. Programme teams can
also request a longer workshop to enable them to address a broader range of issues including
assessment design.
6 Distance learning, blended learning and e-learning programmes

6.1 Designers of distance learning programmes should consult the advice and guidance
produced by the QAA: Learning and teaching and Partnerships.
6.2 Distance learning programmes may also be delivered via e-learning, although the two are
not necessarily synonymous. Such provision is often referred to under the heading “flexible
and distributed learning” which can be defined as educational provision delivered and/or
supported and/or assessed through means which generally do not require the student to
attend particular classes or events at particular times or in particular locations.
6.3 Further guidance and support for development of e-learning programmes can be sought from
the Instructional Design and Development team in King’s Online.

7.1 There are instances when elements of the programme are delivered at a Partner Institution
for a defined period of time e.g. jointly delivered programmes or delivered away from the
main campus by a body external to the College e.g. placements. The different types of
collaborative activity currently offered by the College are set out in the definitions of
collaborative activity. The process of programme design should give due consideration to
the quality assurance aspects of such arrangements to ensure that the academic standards of
the programmes are maintained, and that the student experience is not compromised.
Reference should be made to the guidance on the operation of collaborative teaching
activity, and if appropriate, guidance on jointly delivered taught programmes or guidance on
student placements all contained within the Quality Assurance Handbook.
7.2 The Procedures for the approval and monitoring of collaborative provision set out the
approval process for each type of collaborative activity. Approval from PDASC is required
before a programme that involves an award being jointly conferred or jointly offered with a
Partner can be marketed. There are separate procedures that govern King’s validated
provision of programmes offered by other institutions that also require approval from
PDASC. Staff should consult with the Head of Collaborative Provision for advice on the
risk assessment and due diligence processes relating to collaborative provision activity at the
outset and should note that this may also require consideration and approval from the
Collaborative Provision Sub-Committee (CPSC) prior to a programme proposal being
submitted to PDASC, particularly where there is a request to jointly award a degree where
the legal status needs to be confirmed.
7.3 In cases where off-campus learning e.g. internship is to be part of the programme then
careful wording around these opportunities needs to be considered when the programme is
marketed. If the programme is marketed in a way that leads students to believe the off-
campus learning is automatically provided to them or provided by a specific Partner then
this will need to be the case.
8 The approval process

8.1 A summary of the approval process in diagrammatic form is given at 9 below.
8.2 Faculties must include new programmes that they want to introduce in the business planning
round.
16
Phase 1
8.3 Proposals for new programmes, including collaborative arrangements, must first of all be
commented on by: Finance, Marketing, Estates and Facilities, Timetabling, Visa
Compliance and Library, before consideration by the relevant Faculty Education
Committee which will consider the Programme Proposal Form (PPF). All must be signed off
by the Executive Dean of Faculty (or their nominee).
8.4 Proposals for new programmes must then be submitted for approval to PDASC.
8.5 The following documentation is the minimum that PDASC expects to be provided for the
initial approval of a programme proposal:
• Programme Proposal Form (PPF);

• Marketing case;
• Information about the employability context following engagement by the programme
team with Careers and Employability;8 As noted in 1.8 above, the Embedding
Employability Workshop can be scheduled before the PPF is completed if the
programme team, in discussion with the Embedding Employability Consultant, decide
that this would be the best approach to inform programme development (see also Phase
2 below). In cases where PDASC requires further work on and resubmission of the
PPR, the Embedding Employability Workshop should proceed as originally scheduled.
• For degree apprenticeships, confirmation from the Programme Leader that the relevant
employer has been involved in the development of the proposal.
• The Ethical Reputational Risk Review form and any risk assessment process
undertaken, for those programmes with collaborative activity (where relevant).
Programme teams should ensure that they notify Marketing and Finance as soon as possible
when a new programme is envisaged in order to allow Marketing and Finance sufficient
time to carry out the necessary work on the business and marketing cases.
8.6 PDASC will consider the academic merits, along with the marketing and business case and
comments noted by estates and facilities, library, timetabling, Visa Compliance and the
employability context. It will give approval/not give approval for the programme to be
developed and approved by Faculties. If the information provided is insufficient for PDASC
to make a final judgement, then the proposal will need to come back for further
consideration.
8.7 PDASC approval is only valid for one calendar year. If the programme is not approved
within one calendar year of PDASC approval, the programme team will have to resubmit
the PPF to PDASC.
Phase 2
8.8 Following approval by PDASC, the Embedding Employability Consultant will organise an
Embedding Employability in the Curriculum workshop for the whole programme team. As
noted in 1.8 and 8.5 above, the workshop can be scheduled before the PPF is completed if
the programme team, in discussion with the Embedding Employability Consultant, decide
that this would be the best approach to inform programme development. Workshops will not
be a one size fits all model but will be tailored to the requirements of individual programmes
including those which have PSRB requirements. In cases where a department is putting
8The Programme Leader will produce a short statement about the employability context following discussions and in
conjunction with the designated member of Careers and Employability.
17
forward a number of programmes for approval which share a significant number of
modules/have a common first year for example, a single workshop covering all programmes
might be possible. The exact approach will have been agreed during initial discussions
between the programme team, Careers and Employability and King’s Academy.
8.9 The bespoke workshop will usually last no longer than 2 1/2 hours unless the programme
team specifically requests a longer workshop to enable them to address a broader range of
issues, for example, assessment design. Workshops will be facilitated by the Embedding
Employability Consultant and might include input from King’s Academy. If the programme
under discussion is a collaborative provision arrangement, a collaborative provision specialist
from Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards will normally also attend the workshop
to provide advice and support. An Embedding Employability Toolkit will be made available
to programme teams at initial programme development phase. This will include examples of
documentation from programmes which have already been through the process and been
approved and guidance on the programme director’s role in the process. The workshop will
be an opportunity for the Programme Team to review the programme holistically in terms of
how the curriculum and associated assessment enables students to develop skills which will
be valued by their future employers.
8.10 A draft programme specification and module outlines will be required in advance of the
workshop. Programme teams must ensure that they follow the guidance in the Embedding
Employability Toolkit when drafting the documentation.
8.11 The workshop can focus or any one or more of the following, agreed through prior
discussion with the facilitator:
• A review of the module outlines and programme specification prepared in advance of
the workshop;
• Current intelligence from Careers and Employability about employers' expectations of
employability from graduates of such programmes. This information will be tailored to
meet the requirements of individual workshops;
• How employability is embedded in the programme at its current point of development;
• How employers have been involved in the development of the proposal;
• For degree apprenticeships, how the programme enables apprentices to develop the
Knowledge, Skills and Behaviours required in the Apprenticeship Standard;
• the option to include a period of real-world experience9 in the programme where this is
not already an integral part of the proposal;
• opportunities to embed a global dimension into the curriculum and/or to include the
option of student mobility (for example period abroad, attending conference overseas);
• How PSRB requirements are addressed (where relevant);
• Aims and learning outcomes (including how to write employability learning outcomes);
• How employability is embedded in assessment, the overall assessment strategy, load and
timing;
• The alignment of assessment with learning outcomes; the inherent risks to the academic
standards and quality of awards when delivering the programme in partnership with
another organisation. This would be captured in the areas to consider when completing
the Activity Schedule as part of the Memorandum of Agreement;
• Agreement as to any modifications that need to be made to the proposal in the light of
the workshop. These would be captured in an action plan and followed up by the
programme team in discussion with the workshop facilitator.
8.12 Proposals for new programmes must be submitted for approval to the appropriate Faculty
9 For example, work placement, experiential learning, live projects, volunteering.

18
8.13 To enable decisions to be taken independently of those involved in developing and delivery
the programme, Faculty Education Committees should establish programme approval panels
which should include as a minimum:
• a Chair, normally the chair of the Faculty Education Committee. In single department
Faculties and in cases where the programme being approved is from the same
department as the Chair, the Chair of the panel should be from another Faculty;
• a representative from another Faculty (the Chair or a member of the Faculty Education
Committee);10
• the external peer(s)11
• a student representative;
• the Faculty Director of Administration or nominee;
• a representative from Careers and Employability.
8.14 In the case of joint degrees within the College or where the teaching of a programme or
module is undertaken by more than one Faculty, it is necessary for the proposal to be
approved by the Faculty Education Committee of both/all Faculties12
8.15 The following documentation is the minimum that Faculty Education Committees (or their
equivalent) can expect to receive. Faculty Education Committees are free to request any
information additional to this to fit their own particular requirements.
• A programme approval form;13

• Evidence of external input into the design of the programme. This should take the form
of a brief report from a subject specialist expert, external to the College together with the
programme team's response to external feedback. The university's report form template
should be used;
• Evidence that issues relating to inclusion, admissions and PSRB requirements have been
considered. Information about inclusivity and PSRB requirements should be included in
the PAF. A copy of the email correspondence with admissions should be provided;
• Evidence (where required – see 5.10 above) that King’s Academy and CTEL have been
consulted for advice about pedagogy and technology enhanced learning;
• Evidence that the views of students in cognate subject areas have been taken into
consideration. This should take the form of SSLC minutes or the equivalent mechanism
by which student views have been obtained;
• Evidence of engagement with employers (different role to the external peer). This
should have been carried out at programme proposal phase and included in the PPF;
10 The use of CEC/Faculty Education Committee representatives in this way aids the monitoring of the comparability of
standards of programmes of study across the College and assists in the process of quality enhancement through the
dissemination of good practice. A list of CEC members is available from the secretary of CEC
11 The external peers should be different from those who provided input to the design of the programme and will be
excluded from subsequently acting as External Examiner for the programme until a period of three academic years has
elapsed. The external peer will not necessarily be an expert in the field but will have a broad understanding of the
discipline. Their main function is to provide an external viewpoint on the approval process; the specific specialist advice
having been provided earlier at the design stage of the process. External peers are appointed by the College for a period of
two years in the first instance with the possibility of renewal for a further two years (the process being comparable in many
ways to the appointment of External Examiners). Each Faculty requires one or two externals to act in this capacity. The
external peer will be expected to attend all programme approval panels; in exceptional circumstances where this is not
possible they should provide a written report for the panel. They should also attend at least half of the Faculty Education
Committee meetings each year (see Guidance for Faculties on the use of external specialists and external peers for programme
approval and review for further guidance);
12 (please also refer to the Guidance on the design of taught interdisciplinary, joint honours and major/minor programmes in
the Quality Assurance Handbook)

13 (see Guidance on the production of programme specifications and the completion of programme and module approval and
modification forms);
19
• For degree apprenticeships, evidence that the programme has been co-designed with the
employer. This should take the form of a co-signed statement from the Programme
Leader and employer;
• Module approval forms for new modules. Where existing modules are used in a new
programme, the learning outcomes of those modules must be made available with the
programme documentation. Where a programme makes use of optional modules from
outside the department e.g. language modules, then those specific learning outcomes do
not need to be made available at approval, but the learning outcomes of the programme
must include some generic provision for such modules;
• For programmes delivered as part of a collaborative provision arrangement a draft
activity schedule which details out responsibilities for each partner involved in the
programme. Where marks awarded by the Partner will be considered as part of a
student’s classification award, the schedule of activity should have attached to it the
proposed mark translation scheme for the proposed programme, and the arrangements
for external examiner oversight;
• Programme Information Sheets (for Competition and Markets Authority purposes when
sending out offers);
• The action plan from the Embedding Employability workshop together with evidence of
how this has been followed up by the programme team in discussion with the workshop
facilitator;
8.16 It is the responsibility of the Faculty Education Committee to ensure that the following have
been taken into account before a programme is approved:
• All resource implications (i.e. for College services outside the Faculty as well as internal
Faculty resources)
• The marketing implications in the case of programmes
• Confirmation, if relevant, that the appropriate ethical approval has been sought and
granted for modules14
• That equality of access and opportunity have been fully considered in the design of the
programme
• That advice from an External Specialist has been sought and that there is evidence that
the Programme Team has considered and responded appropriately to this advice
• That employability has been embedded across all modules and is expressed in module
outlines and the Programme Specification in line with the agreed actions at the
Embedding Employability in the Curriculum Workshop
• That employers have been involved in the programme design and for degree
apprenticeships that the programme has been co-designed with the employer;
• That for agreements involving collaborative activity with a partner, arrangements will be
implemented securely and managed effectively
8.17 The advice of the Executive Dean of Faculty should be sought in cases where Faculty
Education Committees are not satisfied that the issues above have been addressed.
8.18 Members of the programme team whose proposal is under consideration must attend the
meeting to discuss the proposal.
8.19 In approving programmes and modules Faculties should ensure that their procedures give
due consideration to the academic standards of awards and the quality of the learning
opportunities available and, where external bodies are involved in the delivery of the
teaching, that there are appropriate mechanisms in place to guarantee such standards and
quality.
14 (see Guidance on risk and ethics assessment in the design of modules of the Quality Handbook for further guidance);
20
8.20 Faculty Education Committees should ensure that where programmes and modules are
approved but with conditions attached, that the fulfilment of those conditions is signed off
on the programme approval documentation, reported back to the Faculty Education
Committee and documented in Faculty Education Committee minutes. Programmes of
study are normally approved for a period of six years unless specified otherwise by the
Faculty Education Committee. Re-approval is gained through the process of periodic
programme review.
8.21 Following approval by the Faculty Education Committee, the programme documentation
and Faculty Education Committee minutes should be forwarded to Academic Regulations,
Quality and Standards. Unless the documentation is submitted in full the programme will
not be regarded by the College as being approved. If separate programme regulations are
required, these are subject to further approval by the Academic Board and until this has
occurred students may not be registered on the programme.
8.22 Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards scrutinise the documentation to ensure that
the information related to quality assurance, approval signatures and regulatory matters is
included. For joint/dual awards this includes the completed schedule of activity form and
draft Memorandum of Agreement (MoA).
8.23 When Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards is satisfied that the documentation is
complete, they will advise marketing and admissions of the programme approval and the
programme details will be added to SITS. A summary report of approved programmes by
Faculty will be submitted to PDASC.
8.24 When reaching programme readiness stage of development the Embedding Employability
Consultant should be included in the Faculty process to ensure that all the employability
actions agreed earlier in the programme approval process have been actioned and that a
handover can take place to the Faculty Careers Consultant for the ongoing relationship
between the programme and King’s Careers and Employability team.
Phase 3
8.25 Those programmes that are of a more complex nature e.g. programmes with collaborative
provision attached, or those being offered jointly with another Faculty, the Academic
Regulations, Quality and Standards section will forward the submitted programme
documentation to PDASC members for final approval. Programme details are added to
SITS only after such information has been approved by PDASC and all approval signatures
have been gathered. A summary of all approvals is then submitted to College Education
Committee.
Phase 4
8.26 Following a 3-year recruitment period (from the first year the programme runs) a review will
be conducted. The review will provide assurance to the College that:
met
• The programme remains consistent with College and Faculty strategies.
8.27 The agreed criteria for this review are:

• Agreed student enrolments over the three-year period against the predicted student
numbers at the time of the programme proposal.
• Comparison of programme marketability against the rest of the sector i.e. has the
market in the subject area grown, changed.
• Any further academic context that the department/faculty deems to be relevant.
21
8.28 During this review, if a decision is made to formally close the programme, consideration will
be taken into account of the Student Protection Plan, and any implications relating to
Competition and Market Authority (CMA) regulations.
8.29 Outcomes of the review will be formally reported to Academic Board.
22
Consult and gain initial approval from:
for new programmes Marketing
Finance
Seek Timetabling
Advance discussions of Visa Compliance
new programmes at Careers and Employability
planning round meetings
Employers
Library
Estates & Faculties
Global Mobility Team
Head of Collaborative Provision (where appropriate)
Seek
Submit Programme Proposal Form Initial approval from:
(including business case), marketing case • Relevant Head of Department
and information about the employability • Vice Dean Education, via Faculty
context to PDASC for approval Education Committee
• Executive Dean of Faculty
Design and complete Programme and Module Organise and undertake

Approval forms Embedding Employability Workshop,
taking into consideration and utilising Embedding where the following can be tailored to need:
Employability toolkit:
• Careers and employability embedded
• QAA Framework for higher education
into learning outcomes;
qualifications
• QAA subject benchmark (if applicable) • How to write learning outcomes;
• College requirements/policies • Assessment methods/patterns;
• Academic regulations • Embedding collaborative activity to the
• Requirements of professional, statutory or structure
regulatory bodies (if applicable)
• Specialist external input
• Legal and good practice requirements of
equality and diversity Submit
Seek all paperwork to FEC/ Programme
• Level in the credit framework Ethical
• Aims and objectives Approval Panel for approval:
approval if
• Content, structure, learning outcomes, • well in advance for new
needed for
including employability outcomes programmes/modules/major
modules
• Option to include a period of real world modifications
experience/student mobility • in good time for minor
• Associated modules and status thereof modifications
(programmes only)
• Teaching patterns and modes of delivery
• Assessment methods
ARQS check paperwork. Those complex Following approval by FEC and signing of
programmes are forwarded to PDASC for approval forms, send papers, to include
final approval; otherwise, marketing and Agreement documents for collaborative
admissions advised with PDASC provision / (if applicable), to ARQS
receiving written notification
Following a 3-recruitment cycle, a

review is undertaken of the
continued viability of the
programme.
23
10. Fast Track Approval Process

10.1 It is, on occasion, necessary for new programmes to be approved in a shorter timeframe than
that demanded by the standard programme approval process. In such cases and where
required, there will also be flexibility about the university cut-off point for completing
programme approvals.
10.2 The specific criteria which apply to such fast-track approvals are listed below. If a new
programme proposal does not meet one of the following criteria, the standard programme
approval process must be followed. The fast-track process cannot be used for collaborative
provision arrangements:
• The programme is being developed to respond to the needs of a specific employer and
has to be delivered at short notice
• The programme is being developed following receipt of external funding and has to be
delivered at short notice
10.3 The proposal must have the support of the relevant Head of Department, Vice Dean
(Education) and Executive Dean of Faculty.
10.4 The secretary to PDASC and Programme Leader will agree which internal stakeholders
from 5.9 above need to be consulted. This will be the minimum that are strictly necessary
for the specific proposal.
Phase 1
10.5 If a meeting of the relevant Faculty Education Committee isn't imminent, the proposal will
be approved by Chair’s action and reported on at the next Faculty Education Committee.
10.6 If a meeting of PDASC isn't imminent the proposal will also be approved by Chair’s action
and reported on at the next PDASC. The documentation required for PDASC is as follows:
• Fast Track Programme Proposal Form (PPF);

• Business case
The Programme Leader should send the Fast Track PPF and business case to the Chair of
PDASC at the same time as sending the proposal to the Chair of FEC. This will allow time
for the business case to be reviewed. The Chair of PDASC will not, however, approve the
proposal until such time as approval from the Chair of the relevant FEC has been received.
Phase 2
10.7 The programme team will utilise the embedding employability toolkit to develop the
proposal and will send their draft programme specification and module profiles to a
designated Embedding Employability Workshop facilitator. The facilitator will review the
proposals and provide timely feedback and advice. Only if required following this exchange
will a shorter Embedding Employability in the Curriculum Workshop be scheduled.
10.8 The proposal will proceed to a Programme Approval Panel and subsequent approval by
Faculty Education Committee in line with the process from 8.12 above. Attendance by
virtual means is permitted in cases when a member of the panel (for example the external
peer) is not able to be present at the university.
24
11. Diagram of the approval process for fast track new programmes
Consult, with secretary of PDASC to
determine if the following need
consideration:
Marketing
Finance
Timetabling
Careers and Employability
Employers
Library
Estates
Global Mobility team
Seek
Submit Fast Track Programme Proposal Initial approval from:
form and business case to PDASC for Relevant Head of Department
approval (Chair’s Action may be taken if Vice Dean Education
applicable) Faculty Education Committee
(via Chair’s Action where
applicable)
Executive Dean of Faculty
Design and complete Programme and Module Submit programme and module
Approval forms using the online toolkit paperwork to workshop facilitator.
taking into consideration:
• QAA Framework for higher education Facilitator will provide timely feedback
qualifications and where required will organise a
• QAA subject benchmark (if applicable)
shorter workshop to consider those areas
• College requirements/policies
needed to be worked on.
• Academic regulations
• Requirements of professional, statutory or
regulatory bodies (if applicable) Seek
• Specialist external input Ethical
• Legal and good practice requirements of approval if
equality and diversity needed for
• Level in the credit framework modules Submit
• Aims and objectives all paperwork to FEC/ Programme
• Content, structure, learning outcomes, Approval Panel for approval
including employability outcomes
• Option to include a period of real world
experience/student mobility
• Associated modules and status thereof
(programmes only)
• Teaching patterns and modes of delivery
• Assessment methods
ARQS check paperwork. Those complex

programmes are forwarded to PDASC for final Following approval by FEC and signing of
approval; otherwise, admissions advised with approval forms, send papers to ARQS
PDASC receiving written notification
Following a 3-recruitment cycle, a

review is undertaken of the
continued viability of the
programme.
25
12. Design and Approval of Individual Modules as part of or outside of the programme
approval process
12.1 This section of the process applies to individual modules created as part of or outside of the
formal programme approval process.
12.2 The design and approval of individual modules ensures that all modules meet King’s
expectations for quality and academic standards and that the information given to students
about the module is complete.
12.3 The internal and external reference points listed in section 2 of the programme approval
process above should also be taken into account when individual modules are being
designed.
12.4 The design of a new module should identify the following:
• level of the module (FHEQ);

• overall credit value;
• aims and objectives;
• content, structure, distinctive features;
• learning outcomes with reference to any relevant subject benchmark statements;
• learning outcomes with reference to embedded employability-related learning;
• the option to include real world experience15 in the module where this is not already an
integral part of the proposal;
• relevant co-curricular Careers and Employability workshops or programmes which will
complement the embedded employability within the module
• alignment of learning outcomes with agreed level descriptors;
• opportunities to embed employability into the module;
• opportunities to embed research skills into the curriculum;
• opportunities to embed a global dimension into the curriculum;
• mode of delivery to include the embedding of technology enhanced learning;
• opportunities for interdisciplinary learning;
• assessment methods and how these allow students to achieve the learning aims and
outcomes and how they assess embedded employability. Cognisance should be taken of
the advice and guidance published by the QAA entitled: Assessment;
• whether the module is also available as an option for inbound Study Abroad students or
whether it is available for such students in a modified form;
• whether a module contains some kind of physical procedure or administration of
questionnaires, conducting interviews or making video or audio recordings. All such
activity which involves human participants or raises other ethical issues with potential
social or environmental implications must be submitted for ethical review (see Guidance
on risk and ethics assessment in the design of modules and the research ethics web
pages;
• for Masters’ programmes, alignment of the dissertation/research project element with
College guidelines (see Core code of practice for PGT research governance and
dissertation framework).
12.5 Consideration should also be given to the planning and marketing of modules for the
inbound Study Abroad market. Further advice should be sought from the Marketing
Department.
12.6 The credit value of core, compulsory, elective or optional modules16 shall be a multiple of 15
15 For example, work placement, experiential learning, live projects, volunteering

16 Compulsory, optional and elective modules as defined as “non-core” modules
26
credits for both undergraduate and postgraduate. The minimum credit value for a module
forming part of a programme of study as a core, compulsory, elective or optional module
shall be 15 credits. Credit values of 60 and 120 (MRes only) are also available for
postgraduate programmes for dissertations/projects.
12.7 5 and 10 credit modules can be developed for CPD/Executive Education purposes and a
combination of modules can lead to a Postgraduate Certificate award. Proposals for the
programme should ensure that consideration is made of assessment load to ensure there is no
overburdening of students. For a Postgraduate Diploma a combination of 5 or 10-credit
modules can be used but there must be in addition a 30-credit research module. For a full
Masters programme a 60-credit dissertation (following the College’s Dissertation
Framework) must also be included with the 30-credit research methods module.
12.8 Approval to use any other size unit of credit should be sought from the College Education
Committee.
Assessment
12.9 Consideration should be made of the credit value of the module when designing the
assessment methods to ensure there is no heavy assessment loading. Programme teams
should consider whether the proposed volume of assessment is suitable to the credit attached
to the individual module.
Contact hours
12.10 The programme team will need to consider the contact hours related to each module and the
time dedicated to assessments. Normally, 1 credit = 10 hours of notional learning, therefore a
15-credit module should have 150 hours of overall student workload including assessments
and private study.
12.11 A breakdown of the contact hours detailing the amount of hours assigned to lecturers,
tutorials, seminars, virtual learning and private study for each module will need to be
calculated. This information will then be recorded on the module descriptor.
Embedding Employability
12.12 Module designers must ensure that they follow the guidance in the Embedding
Employability Toolkit when designing a new module be this part of a new programme that
is being developed, a free standing module or a module that is being developed outside of
the programme approval process.
12.13 Module designers should also speak to the Careers consultant responsible for the department
to discuss the proposed embedded employability.
Module proposals
12.14 Documentation for new module proposals should consist of the following:
• an online module approval form (see Guidance on the production of programme

specifications and the completion of programme and module approval and modification forms
in the Quality Assurance Handbook).
The approval process

12.15 The module approval form must be submitted for approval to the appropriate FEC. FECs
are free to request any information additional to this to fit their own particular requirements.
12.16 It is the responsibility of the FEC to ensure that the following have been taken into account
before a module is approved:
27
• all resource implications;
• that module designers have liaised appropriately with Library Services and other
relevant academic support services;
• that module designers have used the Employability Toolkit to inform their approach to
writing employability-led learning outcomes and embedding employability in the
module
• confirmation, if relevant, that the appropriate ethical approval has been sought and
granted for modules (see Guidance on risk and ethics assessment in the design of modules on
for further guidance);
• that equality of access and opportunity have been fully considered in the design of the
module;
• for modules delivered by a collaborative Partner, consideration should be given to the
suitability of the learning environment and available resources for delivering the module.
12.17 Where an FEC identifies that not all of the above have been taken into account, the Chair of
the FEC should endeavour to resolve this in discussion with the Programme Leader. In cases
where the FEC has been unable to ensure that all issues have been addressed, the advice of
the Executive Dean of Faculty should be sought.
12.18 In approving modules Faculties should ensure that their procedures give due consideration
to the academic standards and the quality of the learning opportunities available and, where
external bodies are involved in the delivery of the teaching, that there are appropriate
mechanisms in place to guarantee such standards and quality. FECs should ensure that
where modules are approved but with conditions attached, that the fulfilment of those
conditions is signed off on the programme approval documentation, reported back to the
FEC and documented in FEC minutes.
12.19 Programmes of study are normally approved for a period of six years unless specified
otherwise by the FEC. Re-approval is gained through the process of periodic programme
review.
Modifications to programmes and modules

13.1 Depending on the nature of the programme or module modification depends on whether
consideration needs to be made via PDASC or approval can remain at Faculty level. To aid
faculties with an understanding of what constitutes a modification requiring PDASC
approval, along with implications for Competition and Market Authority (CMA)
compliance, a table outlining individual modifications at programme and module level has
been produced.
13.2 Included in the modification table is identification of when a student (offer, accepted or
current) should be contacted and who in the College to speak to. Template letters are
available to aid with the communications to students.
13.3 For both programmes and modules, there exist, inevitably, some grey areas between
categories of modification which depend upon interpretation as to what might be deemed
significant or substantial and what might be deemed less so. In such circumstances the
programme team should consult, at the earliest opportunity, with the Vice Dean (Education)
and Academic, Regulation, Quality and Standards Team to determine the most appropriate
category. In the event of any dispute about the appropriate categorisation, the Vice-
Principal (Education) shall adjudicate.
28
Modifications to include nested awards
13.4 For programmes that wish to add a nested award to their programme, consideration must be
had on the desirability of the nested award i.e. is it marketable to have both e.g. a PgDip and
MA awards available, as well as the business case for offering both/all awards.
13.5 Modifications to the existing programme must be submitted via OPAMA, accompanied by a
revised business case and marketing report. The programme information must be revised to
include learning aims and outcomes for each of the awards on offer, along with what
modules are required to be taken for both awards.
13.6 The initial proposal form, along with the revised programme specification, revised marketing
reports and revised business case, will be submitted to the Programme Development and
Approval Sub-Committee for approval, following approval by the Faculty Education
Committee (or Programme Approval Panel).
Programme suspension/withdrawal
13.7 Any suspension or withdrawal of a programme must be undertaken in such a manner that
the interests of current students, and students who have applied to the programme, are fully
protected. Advice should be sought from Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards as
early as possible to ensure that the appropriate procedures are followed. Further information
can be found in the Policy for closing or suspending a programme.
13.8 Programmes that will not be offered to students from a known date should be formally
withdrawn using the online system (OPAMA). A supporting statement noting that students
remaining on the programme will be fully supported for the remainder of their studies should
be noted.
13.9 FEC’s should approve the proposal to withdraw the programme before being forwarded to
PDASC for final approval (who are approving on behalf of College Education Committee
and Academic Board).
13.10 In exceptional circumstances where a programme is being withdrawn due to a member of

staff no longer being available (e.g. through illness or resignation) and suitable alternative
teaching or supervision arrangements cannot be provided then students must be contacted as
soon as possible. Faculties should contact the admissions department to arrange for
correspondence to be sent to students as soon as they are aware of the issue. Other options
must be explored with the affected students e.g. considering whether the student can
complete their programme at another institution or whether a student can be offered a place
on an alternative programme at King’s.
13.11 Where a programme is delivered in collaboration with an external partner, the relevant
Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) and related documents should be consulted as to
timescales and processes for terminating the agreement.

Marketing timescales for 2025/26 start
14.1 Where possible the Marketing Department ask the following timescales for approval of new
and major modification to programmes are adhered to as:
UG programmes: 1st January 2024 (ideally) to 1st June 2024 (latest) for 2025/26 start
PGT programmes: 1st June 2024 (ideally) to 1st October 2024 (latest) for 2025/26 start
29
CMA Compliance for 2024/25
14.2 Any changes which impact on the information provided in the Programme Information
Sheets published during 2023/24 can no longer be accepted. In exceptional circumstances
e.g. in response to External Examiner comments changes may be made but all affected
students must be contacted and consulted regarding the proposed change. See the
modifications table for further guidance.
14.3 When introducing a new optional module to the programme, this must be finalised 9 months
prior to commencement, to enable timetabling process to be completed.
14.4 These are recommended timescales to allow for the inclusion of information for UCAS and
the College’s prospectuses. In exceptional circumstances Faculties can introduce a new
programme or module with a shorter lead-time to take account, for example, of the
appointment of a new member of staff; however, in such cases, the Faculty should recognise
that additional steps may need to be taken to market the programme and that adequate sized
teaching rooms cannot be guaranteed as approval of the new module has fallen outside of
normal timetabling procedures.
14.5 Modifications need to have been approved in time to allow them to be reflected in the
documentation given to students at the beginning of each year. Modifications that result in
differing information to that which has been publicised must be communicated to those
students registering admission/interest to the programme advising them of the change.
14.6 Programmes cannot be advertised as being available in UCAS and College documents or
on-line until they have been approved.
15.1 As discussed in paragraph 3.5 of Section A Introduction, the regulatory status of programme
specifications and therefore their importance as providers of accurate information to staff
and students requires their publication on only one occasion a year and via one central
source; ARQS is authorised by the Academic Board as this central source. Before
publication each year Faculties will be required to confirm the accuracy of their programme
specifications for the following year.
30
31
Procedures for programme and module monitoring and review
Section C
Procedures for programme
and module monitoring and
review
1. Introduction to monitoring and review
1.1 Faculty Education Committees (FECs) (or equivalent bodies), as specified in the Faculty
core governance functions (see, https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/faculty-governance-
functions) are responsible for ensuring that monitoring of all programmes within the
Faculty are undertaken and for reporting such reviews to the College Education
Committee (CEC).
1.2 This section outlines the processes for annual monitoring (called Continuous Enhancement
Review for taught programmes) and periodic programme review.
Continuous Enhancement Review for taught programmes
2. Aims, objectives and process
2.1 The purpose of annual monitoring is aimed at continuous improvement of the quality of the
programme offered by King’s. The main function is to provide a regular check for
programmes which is both helpful but realistic in its demands and which focuses on key
quality and standards issues and enhancement.
2.2 The principles of the annual programme review process are based on the Quality Assurance
Agency UK Quality Code for Higher Education, Advice and Guidance: Monitoring and
evaluation that “Monitoring and evaluation of higher education is an essential process
within providers, forming a fundamental part of the academic cycle. It can, and should, look
at all aspects of the higher education experience. All higher education providers are involved
in course monitoring and review processes as these enable providers to consider how
learning opportunities for students may be improved.”
Continuous Enhancement Review

2.3 The Continuous Enhancement Review aims to incorporate NSS reflection, PTES reflection,
graduate outcomes reflections, and TEF action planning with a single streamlined process.
2.4 Strategy, Planning and Analytics (SPA) have produced a series of data dashboards relating
to final degree awards, NSS results, PTES results, Graduate Outcome Survey results etc.
These dashboards will be used by programme teams to review programmes over a period of
time and will enable reflection to be undertaken on how the programme(s) is fairing,
identifying any enhancements to be undertaken.
Completion of the Continuous Enhancement Review

2.5 The Head of Department or academic nominee co-produce a concise Continuous
Enhancement Review with students and which includes all programmes in the department.
It is for the Head of Department or academic nominee to decide how to engage with
students to produce the plan. This review report is a live document and can be updated
throughout the year.
2.6 Where a programme is joint honours it is expected that the two departments involved will
join together to write a response. A programme that has been developed with King’s Online
must be included in the Department report that the programme is taught within. King’s
Online will not write a separate report.
2.7 A single template report has been produced for completion. The report should be forward
looking and focussed on the continuous improvement of the student academic experience,
including around employability in line with faculty strategic ambitions. The report has been
34
drafted to enable a department to reflect on their curriculum based on College
initiatives/strategies, results from surveys etc, with further sections based on TEF categories
(Student Experience and Student Outcome), with questions noted to help aid reflection
(these questions have been based on the new TEF introduced in 2022 to help build
narrative for future iterations of the TEF). A good practice section is also included in the
template so the department can note any areas of good practice that they would like to
highlight to the Faculty Education Committee and College Education Committee. Under
each section an example has been provided to aid the department’s reflection in
understanding what impact may occur with the action to be undertaken.
2.8 Staff in King’s Academy and Careers and Employability are available to assist Heads of
Department with completion of some aspects of the report and can provide guidance
documents or hold workshops if required. Faculties should contact King’s Academy and
Careers and Employability if they wish to take up this offer of support.
Submission of the Continuous Enhancement Review to Faculty Education Committee

2.9 The report must be considered and approved by the relevant FEC prior to submission to
ARQS team. Where the FEC considers the report requiring further information the report
will be sent back to the relevant Head of Department for further work before resubmission
to the FEC.
Submission of the Continuous Enhancement Review to the College

2.10 Faculties must submit their review report to the ARQS team. Staff in ARQS will arrange a
scrutiny group to review all plans submitted and provide feedback at a faculty level. Faculty
representatives will form part of the scrutiny group, along with representatives from King’s
Academy, Careers and Employability, and ARQS.
2.11 Faculties can suggest a meeting should be held with relevant stakeholders within the College
to discuss how the programme(s) can be supported. Where a FEC deems a meeting is
required they should contact the Associate Director, ARQS to discuss. Separate meetings
will be held for UG and PGT programmes in order to ensure timely consideration of any
areas requiring discussion.
2.12 Failure to hold a meeting where required would mean that the Continuous Enhancement
Review for Programmes for that programme would not be registered as complete.
2.13 An overarching summary report of key themes identified in the reports, covering both UG
and PGT programmes, will be produced by ARQS for discussion at CEC.
Timescales
2.14 Faculties must submit their Continuous Enhancement Review for Programmes to ARQS
(arqs@kcl.ac.uk) following detailed scrutiny by their FEC by the following dates:
• UG – submitted by 17th November 2023

• PGT- submitted by 2nd February 2024
2.15 Timescales for submission of review report to the Faculty Education Committee is agreed
by the Faculty but they must have sufficient time to enable the final report to be submitted
to ARQS.
35
Process flow diagram
Data on PowerBI is available for ARQS sends CER template to Faculties

Department. Data for final awards is (July 2023)
available once results have been ratified
Head of Department (or nominee) King’s Academy and Careers

completes separate UG and PGT and Employability are available
template form for advice if required
UG CER report submitted to Faculty Education Committee for

Consideration (November 2023)
PGT CER report is submitted to Faculty Education Committee for
consideration (January 2024)
Faculty Education Faculty Education Committee approves

Committee requests more CER and forwards onto ARQS
information on the CER
and returns to Head of
Department
ARQS organises a scrutiny group to review all reports (separate groups for UG and PGT).
ARQS summarises all findings from scrutiny group and submits summary of key findings to College
Education Committee (May 2024) and Collaborative Provision Sub-Committee (June 2024)
36
Module and Teaching Evaluation
Introduction
3. The primary purpose of module evaluation is the enhancement of teaching quality and students’
learning experience. It is an invaluable part of the academic cycle allowing students the opportunity
to provide feedback on their experience of a module and the teaching staff through anonymised
questionnaires.
• The Module and Teaching Evaluation Policy provides further details and the survey
questions.
The review process

4. Module evaluations are usually run towards the end of a module, but faculties may determine
when they want to launch the survey and the length of time a survey runs, with the opportunity
to send automated reminders. During this time, faculties may wish to remind teaching staff to
allow time in lectures and/or seminars for students to complete the surveys.
5. Once the survey has closed, a complete set of results is automatically sent to the module
convenor. Additional staff who have been surveyed as part of the process will receive the
module results and their individual results, but not the results of their teaching peers.
Closing the Loop

6. Module Convenors are required to write a reflection to the feedback they have received within
4 weeks of the survey closing. Once reviewed, it is this reflection text (known as the ‘Closing the
Loop’ report), together with the scaled question responses that Professional Service staff must
send to the students on the module (please note that free text comments are not distributed to
students).
Periodic programme review
Introduction
7. As one part of King’s Quality Assurance Framework, where we are assuring ourselves that we
continue to meet the expectations of the Office for Students (Ongoing Conditions of
Registration) and the QAA, a methodology known as Periodic Programme Review is utilised to
assess the quality and standards of our programmes1, their constituent modules and the
achievement of students, to ensure the College maintains a high quality academic provision.
8. As a Higher Education provider, it helps to develop strategic principles to ensure that

monitoring and evaluation is relevant, useful, timely and credible. The principles for King’s
College London periodic programme review process are:
• Provide a holistic review of the curriculum and assessment of the programme, assessing the
extent to which students are achieving the intended learning outcomes and ensuring that
aspects such as inclusive education, service learning and research are incorporated into
programmes2.
• Ensuring programmes quality and standards are maintained and as expected, meeting
external reference points, including published information requirements. The programme
1
Definition of programme: a prescribed qualification that has defined learning aims and outcomes that are met
by completing a set of syllabus (modules)
2
This is not an exhaustive list and may change depending on priorities of the College.
37
will be reviewed against various external reference points to ensure it remains current and
valid in respect of developing knowledge and, if appropriate, practice in the discipline.
• Help sustain successful programmes and effective systems in the longer term. This includes
assessing the continued value and durability of the programme.
• Assess how well the programme is assisting with the career development of students.
• Assess levels of satisfaction among students and employers.
• Help develop clear, attainable outcomes, objectives, targets and goals.
• Assess and demonstrate effectiveness in achieving these targets/goals/outcomes.
• Improve organisational planning, performance, enhancement and decision-making.
• Influence and align strategic decision, policy developments, process improvements, learning
and teaching activity and assessment, and provide opportunities to test their effectiveness.
• Identify problems at College, Faculty and programme level, and seek where appropriate an
early remedy.
• Help collect and disseminate good practice and techniques across the Faculty and College.
• Consider partnership arrangements ensuring that there are appropriate mechanisms in place
to guarantee the maintenance of quality and standards, and ensuring partners are involved in
the process, to help enhance the programme meeting students’ expectations.
• Ensure PSRB and other regulatory oversight is tied up with the process.
• Promote ownerships and engagement at appropriate levels.
The review process

9. Programmes of study are normally approved for a period of six years3 and re-approval is gained
through the process of review that operates on a 6-year cycle. Faculties are responsible for
determining their own programme of reviews within the cycle and for providing the College
Education Committee with an annual update to their schedule.
10. There may however be occasions where a programme is deemed to require a review before
their next 6-year review. See paragraphs 24 - 29 for further information.
11. Faculties can request an earlier review, particularly when a programme wants to align the
programme review with a PSRB (re)accreditation event, but Faculties cannot extend the 6-
year cycle for any programme or cluster of programmes without the permission of College
Education Committee (except if a department or single faculty are holding a Quinquennial
Review in the same academic year as the programme review, in which case the programme
review can be deferred to the following academic year). Any requests for an extension should
be submitted to College Education Committee together with a brief reasoned case at the earliest
opportunity. Those whose deferral requests are approved would normally expect the review to
be held in the autumn term.
12. Faculties may review programmes individually or by Department/Division or other appropriate

grouping. Joint honours programmes and programmes that operate across more than one
Faculty/Department should be reviewed under the auspices of the lead Faculty/Department. If
reviewing multiple programmes then the programmes should be reviewed in meaningful clusters
to allow comparisons to be made and to assist in the identification and sharing of good practice.
3
For those new programmes who have undertaken initial review via the Sunset Clause Policy, the 6-year
approval will commence from the Sunset Clause review.
38
13. Periodic programme review should combine an evaluative retrospective approach with a
strategic developmental approach and should serve as an aid to identify opportunities for quality
enhancement.
14. To ensure continued external scrutiny, the review of programmes should involve individuals
external to the design and delivery of the programmes (both internal and external). This
provides assurance to the College of the continued comparability of the programme(s) to the
sector, and the validity of the programme.
15. Faculty Education Committees (FEC) should establish “programme review panels” which
should include as a minimum:
a) A Chair, normally the chair of the FEC. In single department Faculties and in cases
where the review is from the same department as the Chair, the Chair of the panel
should be from another Faculty. In exceptional cases, the Vice Dean Education may
nominate someone from FEC to Chair the panel.
b) A representative from another Faculty (normally the Chair or a member of the FEC but
this can be opened up to other Faculty staff).
c) An external peer. In multi-department Faculties where the Faculty’s external peer is
not a specialist in the subject being reviewed, an external specialist should additionally
be co-opted onto the panel.
d) A student representative: normally this will be the student representative on the FEC
but where attendance is not possible at a specific event then a representative from
KCLSU should be present.
e) The Associate Director Education or nominee.
f) Head of Careers and Employability or nominee.
The Faculty Quality Assurance Manager should be the secretary to the panel.
Where the secretary to the panel is having difficulty in getting panel members they should seek
advice from the Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards team in the first instance.
The review panel should ensure that they meet an appropriate proportion of the programme
team/department under review. Where a programme is jointly delivered with a partner
institution leading to a single, joint, double, multiple or dual award, a representative from the
partner should be included for the review panel to meet.
Panels should also receive input from students into the review; this can either take the form of
the panel meeting students from the programme/department being reviewed in person, or,
where it is not possible to meet the current students, the panel should ask the
department/programme to use alternative methods to gather their input, for example via a
survey. The report should indicate where alternative methods have been used and assurance
given that the review report has taken into consideration any findings.
16. The external peers are the same peers as those appointed to act for the Faculty for programme
and module approval (however see 15c above). The external peer is a full member of the review
panel and is expected to attend periodic review meetings in person4.
4
This could be on-campus or via Teams/Zoom etc
39
17. The documentation required from the programme/department undergoing review is set out
below (paragraph 39). If Faculties consider it helpful, the Chair of the review panel/FEC might
wish to arrange a preliminary meeting with the department to agree how best to proceed with
the production of the review documentation. It is also recommended that the review panel
conduct a review of information about the programme(s) that is available on the web prior to
the review meeting.
18. The review report, which includes within the report recommendations stemming from the
review, is then passed to the programme/department being reviewed who provide a response to
the recommendations and a target date for their completion. Within two months of the review
being held, the FEC should then consider the report of the review, and the response to the
recommendations.
19. After consideration by the Faculty, a copy of the review report and the action plan from the
programme team/department is sent to the Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards
team. The team will submit all review reports to College Education Committee and will flag
any recommendations that are then required by the College5. At the end of the academic year,
the Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards team provide to the College Education
Committee an update on progress of reviews held that academic year and confirmation that
reports have been submitted to the College in a timely manner, along with theme coming across
from the reports submitted.
20. If the FEC approves the report then the programmes are approved to run for a further six years.
Approval may be deferred if serious issues have been raised in the report, in which case a
further response or additional review from the Faculty will be requested. If a review report is
submitted after more than one month from the review being held, and recommendations with a
timescale has already passed or is imminent, then the Faculty may defer approval pending
confirmation that those recommendations have been actioned. In cases where deferral approval
has been given, once the issues have been resolved the six-year cycle will continue six-years
from when the initial review was held, not the date of deferred approval.
21. In cases where programmes have been suspended, the programme review will also be suspended
until such time as the programme is up and running again. Where a programme re-commences
but has been significantly changed, the review should take place alongside a modified form of
programme approval. Such cases should be discussed with Academic Regulations, Quality and
Standards in advance.
22. In cases where a programme has been substantially modified i.e., programme modifications
have resulted in more than 50% of the programme changing, then this will trigger an earlier
programme review. Faculty Quality Assurance Managers should contact the Academic
Regulations, Quality and Standards team to discuss where this is felt to be the case.
23. It is the expectation that within each academic year, review reports for that academic year are
produced and considered by the FEC in time for College Education Committee’s (CEC) last
meeting of the session. When a review takes place towards the end of an academic session the
5
Review panels should aim not to put forward recommendations for the College, but it is recognised there may
be occasion where this is required.
40
report should normally be received by Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards in time
for a summary report to be reported to CEC at its first meeting of the following session.
Earlier review
24. Following the introduction by the Office for Students (OfS) for some metrics to determine
whether a programme(s) is falling below the OfS expected standards, there may be occasions
where early intervention with a programme(s) is required e.g., if there are concerns that the
quality and standards of the programme are falling.
25. As the OfS are interested in student satisfaction, value for money and value of awards over a
period of time, the following data should be used as a mechanism to identify programme(s) that
require early intervention:
• Student satisfaction: NSS and PTES results – teaching quality and assessment and feedback
questions
• Student satisfaction and value of awards: continuation data
• Value for money: Graduate Outcome Survey results
• Value of awards over a period of time: award data, concentrating on good honours (1st and
2:1 award over period of time).
26. A meeting will be held annually (normally October6) to review the data and determine whether
a programme is requiring early intervention or is required to be kept under review in case early
intervention is required. The data will be based on “live data” held by the College (and made
available via existing data dashboards) and will be checked against the OfS data dashboard that
has been established as their checking mechanism against programmes meeting their Ongoing
Conditions of Registration7.
27. Members reviewing the data to determine whether early intervention is required will be:
• Vice-Principal and Vice-President Education and Student Success (Chair)
• 2 x Health Vice Deans of Education
• 2 x Arts and Sciences Vice Deans of Education
• Associate Director of Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards
• Quality Assurance Officer (clerk)
28. If a decision is made that early intervention is required then the Faculty Quality Assurance
Manager will be contacted, advising that a programme review is required to be held in that
academic year, with an outcome report being submitted to College Education Committee
before the end of the academic year.
29. If a decision is made that a programme is required to be kept under review8, then at the next
meeting, the programme will be flagged to members. If the data shows increase/decline in
numbers9, then a programme review will be required to be held in that academic year. If the
data shows no change, then the programme will continue to be kept under review for one
further year. If in the next year the data continues to have no change then a programme review
will be required to be held. Where a programme can demonstrate improved performance in the
6
This is dependent on when the OfS publishes its updated data dashboard
7
The OfS will have metrics that providers will be required to meet.
8
Faculty Quality Assurance Managers will be advised of this monitoring once the meeting has been held
9
Depending on the metric being reviewed
41
data then the programme will no longer be required to be kept under review and can continue
with their planned schedule of review.
Programmes with validation/accreditation by Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs).

30. For those programmes who either require, or choose to seek, validation or accreditation from
relevant PSRBs, a validation or accreditation event may be combined with a periodic
programme review, provided that the review cycle of the PSRB is no longer than five years, the
College’s principles for periodic programme review can be met, and the outcomes reported
accord to the College’s requirement.
31. Where a department/Faculty chooses to combine these two events electronic copy of the
documentation submitted to the PSRB must be submitted to Academic Regulations, Quality
and Standards. If the information submitted to the PSRB does not cover all the College’s
requirements as set out in paragraph 39 then additional information should be provided by the
department/Faculty to take account of this.
32. Where Faculties have chosen to combine periodic programme review with
accreditation/validation they need to ensure that the process allows them to report the
outcomes of a review as specified in paragraph 50. Where there may be some elements of
periodic programme review that are not covered by PSRB reviews, the Faculty will need to,
additionally, review those aspects not covered and produce a report, via an appendix attached
to the PSRB report.
33. The report from the PSRB on the accreditation or validation, with the additional review report
if applicable, must be considered by the Faculty Education Committee, in the same way as a
periodic programme review is considered. Actions to be taken from the review must also be
submitted to the Faculty Education Committee, before being submitted to College Education
Committee in the usual way.
34. In cases where validation/accreditation is not combined with periodic programme review, the
validation/accreditation reports from the PSRB must be considered by the Faculty Education
Committee and College Education Committee in the same way as review reports. The
procedure to be followed is given in Guidance on professional, statutory and regulatory body
(PSRB) reporting of the Quality Assurance Handbook.
Collaborative activity and placement learning

35. Where a programme has some elements delivered away from the main College campuses by
bodies external to King’s, the process of periodic programme review should give due
consideration to the quality assurance aspects of such arrangements to ensure that the academic
standards of the programme(s) are being maintained and that the student experience is not
compromised.
36. Where a programme has a Memorandum of Agreement and/or Schedule of Activity in

operation in relation to the collaboration, this should be reviewed as part of the review process,
in consultation with the relevant partner(s) to ensure its continued currency.
37. Where a programme is classed as a jointly delivered programme (i.e. leads to a single, joint,
double, multiple or dual award), the partner should be included as part of the programme team
involved in the review. Their contribution to the Self Reflection Document should be sought,
42
and staff involved in delivering the programme should also be included in appropriate meetings
with the review panel. Where this may prove difficult due to time differences, any questions the
review team have for the partner should be fed back to them, and their responses sought, to aid
the final decisions of the review panel and final outcome of the review report.
38. Where a programme review is being held with a validated partner of the College then the
review will take place at the validated partner location. This will enable the review panel to
undertake a review of the learning resources of the validated partner to ensure they continue to
meet the requirements of the College.
Documentation for review

39. To aid the review panel in undertaking the review the following information should be
provided by the programme/department undertaking the review:
• A Self-Reflection Document (SRD), including a note of all programmes being covered by

the review. See paragraph 40 for what the report should cover.
• Current programme specification(s), together with a note of all major changes made to the
programme since the previous review.
• A sample of reports from External Examiners for the period since the last review/initial
approval. As a minimum, a selection of reports from the past 2 years should be submitted to
the review panel.
• Summary report on module evaluations since the last review/initial approval.
• Continuous Enhancement Review for Programmes report (and relevant previous
Programme Enhancement Plans)
40. The Self-Reflection Document (SRD) should be evaluative rather than descriptive and should
provide an assessment of strengths and weaknesses. Where weaknesses are identified an action
plan should be provided of how they are being addressed. There is no set limit for the length of
the SRD, but a minimum of 4/5 sides of A4 might be considered as a guide. The SRD should
cover the following points for each programme or group of programmes under review:
• Rationale for the programme, including overall aims and market demand, and how the
programme continues to meet the principles agreed by the College following the Portfolio
Simplification exercise in 2019/2010.
• A holistic review of the curriculum and assessment of the programme, summarising how the
programme meets, or will meet, College strategy relating to flexible curriculum,
internationalism, London, service learning, inclusive education and research11.
• Ways in which academic standards are set and ways in which they are then measured and
achieved by students. This summary should include how the programme meets external
reference points12, including published information requirements, and what updates have
been undertaken/are due to be undertaken due to changes in these external reference points.
• Assessment of the effectiveness of teaching, learning and assessment and how they support:
• Achievement of the programme aims.
10
Refer to paragraph 1.6 of Procedures for programme and module approval and modification
11
This is not an exhaustive list and may change depending on priorities of the College.
12
This includes the College’s criteria for degrees; the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications, and
Subject Benchmark Statements
43
• Learning outcomes and the fit between module learning outcomes and overall
programme learning outcomes.
• Student feedback received in recent national surveys and module evaluations,
identifying any themes, and reporting on action taken/to be taken.
• The progression, completion and attainment of students.
• Equality of opportunity and access.
• Assessment of the effectiveness of the learning environment including:
• Student support mechanisms, to include pastoral support and the monitoring of
academic progress and attendance.
• Learning resources including IT equipment, laboratory equipment (where
applicable), reading lists, blending learning (where applicable), staff (including how
much use is made of visitor lecturer(s)) and accommodation.
• How these facilitate equality of opportunity and access.
• Student feedback received in recent national surveys and module evaluations,
identifying any themes, and reporting on action taken/to be taken.
• Rationale, management, and effectiveness of monitoring of student attendance, and
any contributions made by service teaching.
• Review of partner(s) learning environment (where programmes have collaborative
activity attached).
• Assessment of the effectiveness of quality assurance and enhancement arrangements
including:
• Student input into various practices e.g., student representation on programme,
SSLC’s, contribution to annual monitoring process etc.
• External input, including action taken to External Examiner comments and/or
PSRB (if applicable), and level of engagement with employers and graduates
• If applicable, the monitoring of collaborative teaching activity and arrangements for
student placements
• Ways in which enhancement of the provision is achieved and good practice
disseminated.
• If applicable, management of operations with the partner(s) for jointly delivered
programmes
• Assessment of student’s outcomes relating to employment and further study. This
assessment should include summary of how students engage with the Careers and
Employability team, any extra-curricular activities the programme team put on for students
to aid their graduate attributes, and any extra-curricular activities the student’s may
undertake themselves. The section should reflect on the KASE framework 13and how the
programme(s) have utilised the framework in their curriculum.
• The programme’s involvement with Study Abroad provision, including how the study
abroad reflects the programme’s learning aims and outcomes.
• Summary of the statistical data, including progression and completion rates and the
achievements of students in relation to the intended learning outcomes of the programme(s)
– see paragraphs 41 - 43 for further information
• Discussion of any future developments, including identify any gaps in provision and
sustainability of the programme(s).
Statistical data
13
https://internal.kcl.ac.uk/student/careers/academic-staff/home
44
41. The statistical data will be available to programme teams via existing PowerBI Apps14 that the
College has already established. Where possible, the data available is that which has been
reported to HESA15, thus providing an outline of the data that OfS has available to them. This
data is therefore not “live”, and there may be some variation in student numbers to that
expected due to the reporting requirements HESA has. If there are any queries on the data,
programme teams should contact the Strategy and Planning Analytics office16.
42. The statistical data should cover the previous 6-years since the last review (where available), or
the academic years since the inception of the programme to illustrate:
• Applications profile: a summary account should cover how admissions numbers have been
over the last few years; comparison between applications and actual enrolments; broken
down by age, gender, ethnicity and disability of new entrants.
• Entry profile: summary account of total enrolments over the last few years; numbers
entering with A-level qualifications, and numbers entering with other qualifications; changes
to entry criteria (if occurred) and changes seen due to this change; numbers of high fee and
low fee students and how these equate across to targeted student numbers; broken down by
age, gender, ethnicity and disability of new entrants.
• Progression and completion rates: a summary account of number of students completing on
time; students who have left after their first year of study (withdrawn vs failure); numbers of
students who have taken extra time over the period to complete the programme, again
broken down by age, gender, ethnicity and disability.
• Student attainment: a summary account covering the results obtained, including degree
classifications, broken down by age, gender, ethnicity and disability.
• Graduate outcomes: summary account of where students have moved following their
studies; has there been a change in where the students go onto; is there anything from the
data to suggest that students require more support before they graduate.
43. The summaries of the data need to be evaluative. Where graphs are provided, they should be
accompanied by an analysis of what the data is noting and whether it has been determined that
action is required to be taken, and if so, what this action will be. Analysis should include any
themes found when looking at the data e.g., steady increase of awarding good honours degrees
(1st and 2:1) and an explanation of why this may be e.g., change in assessment methods, or
change in marking practices and action being taken to resolve the trend.
Module evaluations and periodic programme review

44. As part of a bundle of evidence to assist programme teams with reviewing a programme(s) it has
been agreed that some form of summary report on module evaluations should be included.
While acknowledging that there may some general issues to resolve around staff and student
engagement with module evaluation, it is felt that by incorporating these surveys into periodic
programme reviews it will be restating the benefits of running these surveys to help change the
quality of the programme going forward.
45. The summary report can only be a useful data tool however if there is an analysis of the
module’s feedback over a period of time i.e. summarising one-years of data is not sufficient for
this exercise as this would be just one-year’s cohort opinion. The summary report should
14
Admissions, (Data dashboard), Assessment Board (Exams), Graduate Outcomes
15
Higher Education Statistical Agency: the OfS Designated Data Body
16
Queries on the Graduate Outcome Survey should be sent to Careers and Employability team
45
therefore review module evaluations over a 6-year period (where able). Where the data shows
there is not 6-years’ worth of data, the minimum analysis should be 3-years (unless the module
is a new module, see paragraph 47).
46. As a minimum the summary report should cover all core and compulsory modules in the
programme(s) being reviewed. Where a programme has optional modules included, then a set
of factors should be considered before determining which optional modules to include in the
summary report (see paragraph 47), but there should be a sufficient spread to help the
programme team and review panel consider how the programme is running overall. The
member of staff writing the summary report (this could be the Quality Assurance Manager
(Data Analysis), Faculty QA Manager or Student Experience Manager or someone in the
programme team) will determine the modules to be included in the report, before liaising with
the programme lead undertaking the review, noting their rationale for the choice.
47. Where a programme includes optional modules, the following should be considered when
choosing which modules to include in the summary report:
• New modules introduced since the last review should automatically be included in the
summary report (even if the module has only run once).
• Module response rate should be 10% and above, otherwise the data could be deemed
to be meaningless.
• How many times the module has run during the 6-year period. If a module has only
run once during the last 6-years (and is not a “new” module to the programme) then
the module should be excluded from the review17. If a module has run at least twice,
then it can be considered as one of the modules to be included in the summary report.
48. Where a module has been modified in light of the portfolio simplification exercise then there
should be, over the 6-year period, consideration of trends from the previous module’s
evaluation results, and analysis from the replacement modules. Where this is difficult to
manage, the faculty should contact the Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards team for
guidance.
49. The summary report should be reviewing trends across the 6-years, rather than any specific
data analysis i.e., there is no need to calculate an average score across the 6-year period, but
rather review scores across the 6-years to summarise whether students’ feedback has fallen,
risen or remained stable across that time. There is no expectation that qualitative data would
be included in the summary, as this information is not available on the PowerBI dashboard.
Report of the review

50. Following the panel meetings, a report should be produced by the secretary of the panel. The
report should be produced according to the Report on periodic review template (available on
ARQS webpages) and should include the following (where applicable), although Faculties are
free to comment on additional aspects of the provision that may have been addressed during the
review:
• Introductory section on review, including date of review and panel members.
17
It is expected that this scenario does not occur as following portfolio simplification, modules that do not run
for more than 3-years should be closed. However, it is acknowledged that this process can pick up those
modules that may still be “on the books”.
46
• Recommendation that the programme(s) be revalidated for further 6-years or where there is
some concern on this, whether the panel feels the programme can benefit from a further
review a year later before final revalidation is confirmed, or whether the concerns are so
severe the programme should be suspended while the concerns are resolved. In exceptional
cases where a review panel determine the programme should be closed, the Policy for
Programme Closure and Suspension should be implemented.
• A commentary on the commendable aspects of the provision under review, highlighting
examples of good practice.
• Recommendations for further action.
• Review of the programme(s) curriculum and assessment, confirming that the programme is
working towards/finalised revision to its curriculum to meet College strategy relating to
flexible curriculum, internationalism, London, service learning, inclusive education, and
research. This section of the report should note programme specifications have been
reviewed and considered to be an appropriate reflection of the programme and modules, and
confirmation that the programme(s) continue to follow the principles agreed by Curriculum
Commission following the portfolio simplification exercise18.
• An assessment of the academic standards of the programme(s) and the currency and validity
of the content. This section will include:
• Ways in which academic standards are set and maintained. This should include
reference to student’s progression, completion and achievement data over a period of
time.
• The fit between module learning outcomes and overall programme learning
outcomes, and how the assessment patterns of the programme help students
demonstrate these learning outcomes.
• The ways in which equality of opportunity and access are supported in the
programme and its assessment.
• The extent to which attention has been paid to the external reference points, such as
the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications, and if applicable, subject
benchmark statements and PSRB guidelines. Confirmation should be provided that
programmes are meeting any new/revised external reference points e.g., revised
Subject Benchmark Statements.
• An assessment of the learning environment to include:
• Support mechanisms available for students.
• The adequacy of the learning resources (both at home and with partner(s) where
applicable) and how these facilitate equality of opportunity and access. This
reflection should include how the programme(s) make use of visiting lecturers, and
whether there is appropriate staffing resource for the programme.
• The rationale, management and effectiveness of the monitoring of student
attendance.
• Any contributions to the programme made by service teaching.
• A commentary on the effectiveness of the quality assurance arrangements to include:
• Responsiveness to comments from External Examiners.
• Responsiveness to PSBR’s if applicable.
• Engagement with employers and graduates.
• The operation of College and Faculty policies at the local level.
18
See Procedures for Programme and Module approval and modification
47
• Monitoring and management of any collaborative teaching activity, including
student placements.
• A commentary on the programme(s) involvement with Study Abroad provision, including
what support arrangements are in place for students who undertake this study.
• A commentary on the use made of student feedback, any themes that have been found,
action being taken in response to feedback, and what impact (if any) has been seen from
action already taken.
• A commentary on the statistical data to include:
• Admission trends, identifying any impact these trends may be having on the
programme(s) being reviewed.
• Progression trends, identifying any concerns and action to be taken.
• Completion and achievement rates, identifying any increase or decrease in awarding
of good honours19 and causes why this may be so. The commentary should also note
any action being taken in response to these trends e.g., change in assessment type.
• Any attainment gaps found, and action being taken to resolve. (The Student Success
team can help review panels understand the data presented if required).
• Student satisfaction: trends found in national survey results and results from module
evaluation, identifying any common trends that requires attention and action to be
taken.
• A commentary on graduate outcomes, covering:
• Student’s employability outcomes, identifying any concerns found in the data.
• Student’s engagement with extra-curricular activities (if any), and a summary of
any extra-curricular activity the programme team may use to aid students graduate
attributes.
• Programme(s) use of KASE framework, providing a summary of any modifications
being planned by the programme team in updating their curriculum to reflect the
KASE framework.
51. The recommendations from the review will not be classified20, and when the review report is
submitted to the Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards team it should be
accompanied by the programme team’s response and action plan to the recommendations,
including time scales for the action to be completed by. There may be some
recommendations that the review panel determine should be aimed at the Faculty, and in
those circumstances the Faculty Education Committee should provide a response and action
to be completed to meet that recommendation. The review panel should aim to minimise any
recommendations aimed at the College, but where they deem such necessity a suggested
course of action from the Vice-Dean Education should be noted for College Education
Committee to consider the response.
Monitoring of recommendations arising from periodic review

52. Faculty Education Committees will be responsible for monitoring action being taken as a
result of periodic programme reviews. A programme team should report to their Faculty
Education Committee mid-cycle (expecting this to be during the third year following the
review held) to provide an update on implementation of the recommendations. A summary of
19
1st and 2:1 awards (UG); Merit and Distinction awards (PGT)
20
As was previous practice. This is being suggested due to the confusion panels often experienced in
determining the rating to give the recommendation.
48
this update will then be provided by Faculties as part of their faculty report to College
Education Committee, with the report provided as an appendix.
53. The updates on progress-to-date should be prescriptive to provide as much information as

possible as to what has been resolved. For those recommendations, where following the
review the department/programme believes that the recommendation cannot be actioned,
then the progress report should note this, and the Faculty Education Committee should
consider whether this is appropriate or whether it is still felt that the programme team should
take forward the recommendation. Likewise, if the progress-to-date update differs to the
initial action to the review panel recommendation(s), a rationale for this change should be
provided.
54. There may be some exemptional circumstances where a proposed date for implementing a
recommendation has not been possible e.g., staff member has left the College. The progress-
to-date report should note where actions timescales have had to be adjusted and note the new
timescales being worked towards.
49
Procedures for the approval and monitoring of collaborative provision
Section D
Procedures for the approval
and monitoring of
collaborative provision
50
51
1. Introduction
1.1 The procedures for the approval and monitoring of collaborative provision provide a framework
for the approval, monitoring and management of programme activity offered in collaboration
with an approved Partner of the College, and draws together the quality assurance processes
set out in the Procedures for programme and module approval and modification and the
Procedures for programme and module monitoring and review.
1.2 These procedures ensure that the College can implement its strategies through a set of key
policy principles that align where appropriate to the QAA’s UK Quality Code for Higher
Education1; (see https://www.qaa.ac.uk/quality-code), whilst ensuring they meet the various
components of the OfS Conditions of Registration, in particular the B conditions relating to
Quality and Standards that the College is required to comply with to ensure its continuing
registration.
3.2 A key component of King’s quality assurance framework is the way in which programmes
and modules are designed, approved, modified, monitored, and reviewed. This process
ensures that King’s programmes meet the academic standards set by the university and the
external environment. These standards are then maintained and monitored via the processes
of delivery, assessment, and review.
1.3 The purpose of the key policy principles set out in paragraph 4 below is to promote good
practice and to provide a framework for the effective management of King’s collaborative
provision activity in a manner that advances the College’s academic reputation and manages
quality assurance, financial and other risks associated with the Partner and the activity to
ensure that the quality and academic standards of a King’s award are maintained. It is
premised on a risk-based approach and on the adoption of procedures for facilitating the
development, approval, and oversight of partnerships in delivering learning opportunities
with others that are proportionate to the scale and complexity of that type of activity.
1.4 All such activity shall be carried out in accordance with King’s approved regulations,
policies, and procedures.
2. Scope
2.1 The procedures meet the requirements for quality and standards set out by the Office for
Students, making use of the Advice and Guidance documents attached to the QAA’s UK
Quality Code for Higher Education to aid in delivering on expectations, the most relevant of
which is the associated Advice and Guidance: Partnerships, in particular the practices for
standards and quality for UK HEIs in this respect that are as follows:
• it has in place effective arrangements to ensure that the standards of King’s awards are
credible and secure and that the academic experience is of high quality irrespective of
where or how programme activity is delivered or by whom.
• it has in place effective arrangements to ensure that the academic experience is of high-
quality irrespective of where or how programme activity is delivered or by whom.
2.3 These procedures and set of key policy principles outlined in section 4 will apply to the
framework for the management of all collaborative provision. It covers all partnership
activity falling within the definitions detailed in section 3 where this is being delivered,
assessed, or supported through an arrangement with a Partner that leads to or contributes to
the award of King’s academic credit or a King’s qualification. Ensuring effective
1
The QAA are currently reviewing the Quality Code and updates are due to be published early in 2023/24
52
arrangements are in place with a Partner will enable us to continue to meet our ongoing
conditions of registration with the OfS.
3. Definitions
3.1 In this context the term ‘collaborative provision’ will be taken to mean any type of
educational opportunity where the achievement of the relevant learning outcomes for a
King’s module or programme of study is dependent on the arrangement made with a
Partner.
3.2 In this context the term ‘programme of study’ is taken to apply equally to undergraduate,
taught postgraduate and research postgraduate degrees.
3.3 This section outlines the specific types of collaborative activity that the College currently
engages in that falls within these procedures. It is not intended to be mutually exclusive or
exhaustive and there may be occasions where an arrangement is considered with a Partner
that falls outside the types of collaborative provision the College currently offers. In these
cases, approval to offer a new type of collaborative provision activity as part of an approved
programme of the College with a Partner will need the approval of Academic Board. This is
to ensure that the activity and its characteristics, quality assurance mechanisms, risk
assessment and due diligence enquiries can be appropriately understood and defined. More
information on the categories and characteristics of the different types of activity are given in
Definitions of collaborative activity.
a) Articulation/Reverse Articulation: a partnership agreement whereby cohorts of students
studying on a programme at a Partner Institution that is linked to a King’s programme
will EITHER (Articulation) gain access to a higher level of programme at entry level or
with advanced standing where cohorts of students will need to satisfy the academic
criteria to articulate between the two programmes e.g. 3+1 BSc/MSc arrangements OR
(Reverse Articulation) gain automatic access to a programme offered at the same level
e.g. 1+1 MSc/MSc where the partner grants advanced standing or further progression to
students who have successfully completed a specific part of a linked King’s programme.
In both cases Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) or Experiential Learning (EL) may
be considered and will automatically be recognised as part of the entry or progression
requirements.
b) Co-operative partnership, an arrangement whereby the College enters into a partnership
arrangement with another degree awarding body to design and jointly deliver a single
programme of study, but with only one awarding institution.
c) Doctoral Training Partnerships/Centres for Doctoral Training, a partnership arrangement
whereby two or more awarding bodies collaborate in the delivery of studentships, core
and advanced skills training, collaboration in PhD research, co-supervision, and
personal, professional and career development skills training for PhD students.
d) Double or Multiple Award, a partnership arrangement whereby the College and one or
more partner(s) provide a jointly delivered programme, normally for the same
qualification that leads to separate awards and separate certification2 being granted by
both King’s and the Partner(s).
e) Dual Award, a partnership arrangement whereby the College and another Partner work
together to offer a jointly conceived programme with overlapping elements leading to
separate awards (and separate certification3) being granted by both King’s and the
Partner.
2
The acknowledgement of the Partner contribution or separate award for a Double or Multiple Award will only
be referenced on each degree certificate where the Partner in-Country regulations permit.
3
The acknowledgement of the Partner contribution or separate award for a Dual Award will only be referenced
on each degree certificate where the Partner in-Country regulations permit.
53
f) Flying Faculty, an arrangement whereby a programme is delivered in a location away
from the main campus (usually in another country) by staff from the College who also
carry out all assessment. Support for students may be provided by local staff, but the
programme is solely delivered by King’s leading to a King’s only award
g) Joint Award, a partnership arrangement under which the College and one or more
partner(s) provide a programme leading to a single award made jointly by King’s and the
Partner(s). A single certificate4 or document (signed by the competent authorities)
attests to the successful completion of this jointly delivered programme, replacing the
separate institutional or national qualifications.
h) Off-campus shared taught module, a partnership arrangement whereby an external
provider designs learning opportunities or provides specialist teaching and/or resources
for a taught module offered by the College as part of a Taught Degree programme. The
module is subject to the College’s Academic Regulations and quality assurance
mechanisms, and is either entirely or partially delivered, taught and/or assessed by the
partner at the partner premises.
i) Placement provision, a partnership arrangement whereby an external provider delivers a
planned period of experience in a work-based environment, that enables students to
develop particular skills, knowledge and understanding necessary to achieving the
relevant learning outcomes of a programme of study leading to a King’s award.
j) Split-site PhD, an arrangement whereby the College enters into a partnership
arrangement with another institution for a ‘non-resident student’ to register for a King’s
awarded PhD programme and receive joint supervision and access to shared resources.
k) Student Exchange, a partnership arrangement whereby students are offered the
opportunity to experience study overseas and enhance their degree. In return students
from the partner are accepted and enrolled onto King’s modules. The strength of the
partnership is therefore expected to be both sustainable and reciprocal in nature.
l) Validated provision5, a partnership arrangement whereby King’s judges that a
programme of study developed and delivered by another organisation is of an
appropriate quality and standard to lead to a King’s award and is subject to King’s
quality assurance procedures.
3.4 The procedures do not cover:

a) Individual arrangements for student placement where these are not necessary to meet
the learning aims and outcomes for the programme. Advice on placement activity is
covered separately under the ‘Guidance on student placements’.
b) Intercollegiate module opportunities as these are covered separately under the College’s
Intercollegiate Policy, except where the arrangement relates to a jointly delivered
programmes that are more complex and are not covered under the College’s
Intercollegiate cross-party agreement.
c) Off-campus study in research degrees because these are covered under R2 of the
Academic Regulations for Research Degrees.
d) Progression arrangements that are set up with an approved Partner of the College.
Although it is recognised that these types of arrangement may be underpinned by a
legal agreement as the Partner wishes to market the arrangement for students and may
recognise the learning undertaken at King’s to top up their own programme award
allowing students to complete two degrees in a shorter space of time that would
normally be the case, they fall under the College’s standard admissions regulations and
4
Consideration will be given to the Partner in-Country regulations when referencing the Joint Award on a single
certificate or documentation and must be agreed at the outset prior to final approval of the programme.
5
These arrangements are covered by a separate set of procedures
54
policies. This is because entry is not guaranteed and each student is considered for
admission to the King’s programme on a case-by-case basis, therefore no quality
assurance principles relating to the oversight of the partner programme apply.
e) Short courses as these are covered separately under the College’s Short Courses Policy.
f) The provision of learning and research opportunities that do not lead to or directly
contribute to King’s academic credit or a King’s qualification e.g. Recruitment and
Marketing, Sponsorship, incoming Student Mobility/Training, Summer School,
Visiting Lecturers or Researchers, or Voluntary Placements.
4. Key Policy Principles

4.1 Collaborative provision offered for a programme of study with a Partner is expected to
enhance and protect the reputation of the College as well as that of the Faculty6 sponsoring
the partnership. The following key policy principles will underpin all partnership activity
which should:
➢ be compatible with the College’s strategic plans and international strategy, reflecting
the ethos and values of the College’s mission, and bring clear benefits to those involved;
➢ be consistent with the threshold academic standards of awards offered by the College
and designed to provide a high quality academic experience, taking into consideration
any relevant UK HEI sector requirements or best practice;
➢ be supported through the College’s governance arrangements for quality and academic
standards;
➢ be subject to appropriate risk assessment and due diligence processes to identify,
analyse and evaluate risks and determine a plan for managing risks prior to
commencement, including those relating to financial sustainability and resource
planning;
➢ be regulated by the College’s approved legal framework;
➢ be consistent with the College’s commitment to provide an inclusive and welcoming
environment for all its students, irrespective of where the student is studying;
➢ be supported through quality assurance mechanisms to manage the delivery of the
programme following the student lifecycle;
➢ be compliant with the College’s policy and procedures to meet the requirements of the
Academic regulations.
5.1 The College’s Strategic vision 2029 sets out the College’s ambition to make the world a
better place, building upon our history of making a significant contribution to society and
enhancing our world leading education and research, serving the needs and aspirations of
society to deliver tangible impact locally, nationally and internationally.
5.2 This vision is reflected in the College’s partnerships and the College’s Internationalisation
strategy where at the heart of the College’s vision for internationalisation are two core
values: cultural competency and having a global problem-solving mindset. It should be
noted that whilst a partnership that is appropriate to a specific departmental or faculty is
not always best suited to other departments or faculties, these relationships should not be
discouraged if they enhance research, knowledge exchange, learning, and student
experience capacities.
6. Academic standards and quality
6
For the purposes of this document the term ‘Faculty’ is used as defined in College Ordinance B3
55
6.1 The Academic Board has responsibility for assuring the academic standards of awards that
are designed and delivered through partnership arrangements, as well as ensuring that
students receive a high-quality academic experience, enabling a student’s achievement to be
reliably assessed. To be able to assure the academic standards of King’s awards and provide
a high-quality student experience, effective arrangements are put in place to manage the
partnership. This is undertaken through the College’s quality assurance processes of
programme and module design, approval, modification, monitoring and review to ensure
consistency with programmes that lead solely to a King’s award.
6.2 When designing the programme consideration should also be given to how students will be
supported to ensure they have an equitable quality experience, and that the Partner is
willing to adhere to King’s commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion and a zero-
tolerance approach to discrimination on the grounds of any protected characteristic. Ahead
of designing the programme with a Partner reference should be made to the College’s
‘Guidance on equality of opportunity & access in programme & module review and to the
College equality, diversity and inclusion policies and guidance.
7. Governance
7.1 The governance arrangements for partnerships operate under delegated authority from
Academic Board. Those committees who have delegated responsibilities report into
Academic Board activity recently completed under their remit, and where applicable
forward items for approval to Academic Board.
7.2 The College Education Committee (CEC) is a sub-committee of Academic Board and has
specific responsibility for ensuring that the College’s academic provision is of the highest
quality and standard and will enhance the student learning experience. As part of their role,
CEC, on behalf of Academic Board, monitors and reports on the quality assurance and
quality enhancement framework, taking into account both the internal and external context
as they apply to taught education provision, including collaborative provision.
7.3 The Collaborative Provision Sub-Committee (CPSC) maintains the oversight of the
College’s portfolio of collaborative arrangements and reports into CEC, advising on the
conduct of the College’s collaborative arrangements with a Partner Institution and for the
strategic development of policies relating to collaborative provision and Transnational
Education (TNE), specific responsibilities include:
• considering the risks associated with collaborative provision that has either been
escalated to CPSC via other channels or where the activity for a jointly delivered
programme is complex, a new type or involves a non-UK Professional, Statutory or
Regulatory Body (PSRB).
• considering and approving Memoranda of Agreements with UK Partners and the
renewal of partnerships for jointly delivered programme activity reporting their
approval to CEC.
• considering the outcomes from the annual monitoring processes for Taught degrees and
validated provision making recommendations to CEC where appropriate.
• monitoring decisions made by a faculty committee on low-risk activity and by the
Postgraduate Research Sub-Committee (PRSS) for Joint PhD programmes.
• monitoring published information, identifying any potential risks to the College,
7.4 The Programme Development and Approval Sub-Committee (PDASC) reports into CEC
and brings together representatives from all Faculties (Institutes/Schools) to recommend
initial approval of new programmes to CEC, including those delivered through a
56
collaborative provision arrangement. PDASC will also have responsibility for the final
approval of a new collaborative programme where this is considered a complex arrangement.
7.5 The College International Committee (CIC)7 provides the necessary academic governance
and oversight of all King’s international affairs by monitoring Memoranda of Understanding
(MoU), international partnership agreements (MoA) and Student Exchange Agreements
(SEA). The Vice President (International, Engagement & Service) has responsibility for
approving all agreements with an international partner where these have been considered at
the local level or escalated to the Partnerships Committee following an ethical reputational
risk review process.
7.6 The Postgraduate Research Sub-Committee (PRSS) is responsible for all collaborative
activity attached to a Postgraduate Research Degree programme and reports into the
College Research Committee as appropriate. These arrangements fall under the ‘Procedures
for postgraduate research degrees approval and monitoring’.
7.7 Proposals to explore collaborative provision with a Partner for a King’s programme of study
will be initially considered by the Faculty through the relevant Education Committee or
Research Committee who will undertake an initial risk assessment prior to submitting the
proposal to PDASC or PRSS for approval to continue to the next development stage (as
detailed in sections 12.1 below). Following this initial approval, Faculties are responsible for
undertaking detailed scrutiny of the collaborative proposal (as detailed in sections 12.2
below).
7.8 The final approval processes are set out in section 12.3 below. The relevant Faculty is
responsible for approving Activity Schedules with a Partner for straightforward activity
(normally those that are low or medium low risk) whereas both CPSC or PRSS will be
responsible for approving Activity Schedules with a Partner for complex activity (normally
medium to high).
7.9 The management of collaborative provision will rest with the relevant Executive Dean of
Faculty for Faculty initiated partnerships and with a nominated ‘(Senior) Vice-President’
for College-initiated partnerships. Faculties are responsible for overseeing the management
of collaborative arrangements, including monitoring and review processes, up until the
renewal of any agreement with the day-to-day management of the arrangement residing at
the local departmental level. Proposals to renew or terminate an International Partner are
determined by the Vice President (International, Engagement & Service) seeking advice
from the Partnerships committee or dedicated experts. Recommendations to renew or
terminate a UK Partner will be considered and approved by CPSC reporting to CEC.
Postgraduate Research degrees will be reported to PRSS for approval. Proposals to modify
or terminate a Programme of Study with collaborative activity following a review of activity
will be the responsibility of PDASC or PRSS (as detailed in sections 12.4 to 12.7 below).
7.10 The oversight of the College’s register of collaborative partners for delivering programme
activity rests with ARQS and is reported to CPSC on an annual basis.
8 Risk assessment and due diligence
8.1 All collaborative provision activity must undergo a three-stage risk assessment and due
diligence process relating to (a) the Partner and (b) the type of activity proposed. This is to
identify the likelihood and impact of any risks to the delivery of the programme or the
Partner’s capacity to fulfil its designated role and put a plan in place to manage these risks.
7
The College International Committee has temporarily been suspended as its terms of reference and
membership are currently under review. Further updates will follow during the 2023/24 academic year.
57
8.2 Stage One of the approval process enables the proposer to identify and analyse the risks
attached to the Partner and Activity. This is undertaken through a risk review8 and the
Collaborative Activity Risk Assessment Tool (CARAT). Risks to consider include:
• Partner-specific e.g. ethical and reputational risks that could impact on the College’s
reputation, the ability of the Partner to align with the College’s vision and strategic
direction.
• Financial risks e.g. financial stability and transparency of the partner. The activity must
be financially viable and feasible, fully costed and priced accordingly;
• Legal and compliance risks e.g. ability of the partner to legally contract with the College,
compatibility with UK laws including EDI and health and safety, the ability of the
Partner to confer a Joint Award with King’s;
• Operational risks e.g. availability of resources, ensuring departments are not
overstretched and there are no wasted efforts. Their geographical location and cultural
considerations ensuring that students can be supported throughout their programme and
have an equitable experience wherever their learning is delivered and by whom.
• Academic risks e.g. an understanding of how academic standards are defined by each
party ensuring that the academic standards and the quality of the student learning
experience of the King’s award are not undermined.
8.3 The risk review process is the initial screening stage, whereby any risks to entering into an
agreement with the Partner are flagged. Depending on the risks identified, the proposal may
be referred to the Partnerships committee who will consider within the College’s risk appetite
statement and a more detailed risk assessment and due diligence process whether the
partnership should proceed any further. Following this process, a Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) may be put in place with the Partner noting areas for potential
collaborative activity. Where an initiative relates to a specific department or Faculty it is
expected that this will be brought to the attention of the relevant Vice President through the
Executive Dean of Faculty prior to completing the risk review process.
8.4 The CARAT process has been designed to conduct an initial risk assessment and due
diligence relating to any educational partnership, taking into consideration any findings from
the risk review process. This enables the College to determine the overall risk (low, medium,
or high) to the collaborative activity and identify the likelihood and impact of any risks to
the delivery of the programme with a specific partner. Depending on the outcomes from
these processes the partnership arrangement may be escalated to CPSC for further
consideration with any findings reporting into CEC. Where the arrangement is for a new
programme, findings will also be reported to PDASC as part of section 4 of the programme
proposal form (Taught programmes) or considered as part of the approval process by PRSS
(Research programmes).
8.5 Following the initial risk assessment and due diligence process, a more detailed due diligence
process is undertaken at stage two in the approval process through the completion of the
Activity Schedule (as detailed in sections 9.5 to 9.9 below). The purpose of due diligence
process is to identify the factors that may place it at risk and to anticipate future
developments that could jeopardise academic standards, the quality of the students’ learning
opportunities and/or the viability of an award or the partnership itself. Due diligence
processes provide the opportunity for reasonable care and caution to be exercised to mitigate
corporate risk and ensure that students’ interests can be protected.
8
Please note that for international partners different templates are in use for this purpose, please contact the
Global Engagement Office or Global Mobility Office for advice on which template to use.
58
8.6 To inform decision making, due diligence is undertaken through a paper-based process of
completing an Activity Schedule and gathering information from a Partner. Where a proposal
is for a larger or riskier partnership a site visit should also be undertaken to the proposed
partner as this can provide an invaluable understanding of, and insight into, that partner’s
operation and practices. The completion of the relevant sections of the Activity Schedule is
important as it provides a good understanding of the partner and the context in which they
operate. This can include requesting information directly from a partner or seeking
information from well-placed and reliable sources on the following areas:
• Their legal entity and powers.
• Their constitution and governance arrangements.
• Their financial standing.
• Their history and reputation.
• Their teaching, assessment, and educational environment, including language of
instruction, areas for enhancement, student experience and outcomes.
• Their local HE Quality Assurance / Regulatory landscape, including knowledge of and
comparability with sector recognised standards (OfS condition B5).
• Their economic, geographical, cultural, and political landscape in which the partner is
operating.
• Their ease of doing business with King’s, ensuring King’s can meet its own legal and
regulatory obligations.
8.7 Programme teams are reminded that not all overseas HEI’s enjoy the same level of
autonomy that applies to UK Institutions. For example, they may be restricted in how they
can define activity to students, their ability to confer a Joint Award or recognise Dual and
Double Awards on certificates issued to students or for their Country to recognise the award
made by King’s. In addition, there may also be differences between the UK Qualifications
Frameworks, Higher Education Credit Framework for England, Subject Benchmark
Statements, Academic Regulations, UK regulatory requirements (including PSRBs that help
to define our own academic standards) or the use of externality and student feedback in
their processes that help to maintain and enhance a high-quality academic experience for
students.
8.8 Where risks are identified at the outset these should be regularly monitored and reviewed.
As a rule of thumb any high-level risks would need specific measures to be put in place to
mitigate the risks, whereas any low-level risks may simply need a more agile response.
Programme teams should also consider at this stage what KPIs would be put in place to
measure the success of the partnership.
9. Legal framework
9.1 All collaborative provision, whereby outside bodies deliver parts of a King’s programme,
should be underpinned by the College’s legal framework that includes approved template
forms9. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) may be desirable, but not essential to put
in place with a Partner whilst programme teams are negotiating arrangements for
collaborative provision. All types of arrangement that fall under the College’s definitions of
collaborative activity must be underpinned by a legal agreement. The standard format is a
Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) together with an accompanying Activity Schedule or
equivalent. The current MoA template is time-limited to five years to allow for review at
timely intervals. Requests to exceed this time limit must be approved by the relevant
authorised signatory of the College for the agreement for example to align with the timelines
set out in the College’s procedures for the programme and module monitoring and review
relating to the periodic review process.
9
The template forms for the MoU, MoA and accompanying Activity Schedule are available on request from the
College’s Legal Services team. The Student Exchange Agreement is available from the Global Mobility Office.
59
9.2 Legal considerations, particularly those around international contract agreements, are very
complex. For this reason staff entering into collaborative provision with a partner must
follow the College’s policy and procedures for negotiating, approving and signing contracts
and agreements on behalf of King’s located on the governance zone and where necessary
should seek advice from the College’s Legal Services team. Reference should be made to the
College’s Definitions of collaborative activity for the type of activity engaged in as bespoke
templates may be available to reflect the different types of activity, thus ensuring that the
quality assurance procedures and processes are proportionate to the activity being
undertaken with the inclusion and level of detail required determined by the nature of the
activity and its associated risks.
9.3 The MoU is a standard College document and describes the bilateral or multilateral agreement
between two or more parties in its simplest form by setting out common aspirations and goals.
The MoU will not imply a legal commitment but merely a statement of intention. The MoU
will be signed off by either the Vice President (International, Engagement & Service) or
nominee for international partners and by the Vice President (Education & Student Success)
or Vice President (Research) or nominee for UK Partners.
9.4 The MoA is also a standard College document and is used to set out the respective roles,
responsibilities and obligations of the principal parties concerned and is normally time-
limited to five calendar years. This is to ensure that the College and Partner can operate
within any relevant legal or regulatory framework for delivering the programme and that
appropriate governance arrangements are in place to authorize and oversee the development
and closure of the partnership arrangement and monitor their effective operation. The MoA
is a formal and legally binding written document that forms the overarching agreement
between the Parties to co-operate in delivering the programme arrangements.
9.5 The MoA will be signed off by either the Vice President (International, Engagement &
Service) or nominee for international partners and by the Vice President (Education &
Student Success) or Vice President (Research) or nominee for UK Partners. The MoA will
be signed off by the President & Principal or nominee where the arrangement is high profile
and in the top quartile of high risk to the College. The approval of the MoA rests with CIC10
for International Partners and with CPSC reporting to CEC for UK Partners. CPSC will
monitor and have oversight of any MoA that includes an educational partnership falling
within these procedures.
9.6 If the Partner wishes to use their own MoA template care and consideration should be given
to ensure that the roles, responsibilities, and obligations are covered and meet the
expectations and guidance in place at the College, particularly where there is an intention to
incorporate the activity schedule into the main body of the MoA. Where the agreement is
produced in more than one language, a clear statement should be included to indicate which
version is the ruling agreement and which the translation. The use of the Partner’s MoA
template or changes to the College’s MoA template must be flagged to the College’s Legal
Governance and ARQS teams for advice prior to approval by the relevant committee.
9.7 The Activity Schedule is used to set out the details of the operational arrangements and any
special conditions for the delivery of the programme activity, including student protection
clauses should the partnership terminate earlier than expected. The Activity Schedule
should be time-limited to a maximum of five academic years or the duration of the first
cohort of students completing the programme but should ensure it does not exceed the
expiration of the MoA itself. For high-risk programme activity it may be appropriate to
time-limit the schedule to less than five years depending on the risks that have been
identified at the outset even where the MoA has a longer duration period. It will be
10
CIC is currently under review and further updates will follow during the 2023/24 academic year.
60
expected that a review period will be built in to meet any expectations under the College’s
Sunset Clause for New Taught Programmes Policy.
9.8 The Activity Schedule template can be adapted to reflect that the College offers different
types of activity as set out in the College’s ‘Definitions of collaborative activity’ where
different criteria may apply depending on the nature of the activity being offered and the
type of Partner the activity is being offered with. This enables the College to ensure that the
quality assurance processes that underpin the teaching and learning support provided to
students is proportionate to the nature of the activity being undertaken, meaning that the
activity agreed with the partner can be delivered effectively and meet the quality and
standards of our awards.
9.9 All Activity Schedules will set out the respective responsibilities of the partners in the
delivery of the shared activity throughout the student lifecycle and will document the
learning opportunities and support provided to students whilst studying at the College and
the Partner. The schedules will document the academic regulations, policies and procedures
that apply and how academic standards and the quality of the provision will be maintained,
monitored, and reviewed.
9.10 Each Activity Schedule must be attached to a current MoA and will operate within the
same timeframe when admitting cohorts of students to the programme i.e. the first and last
cohort of students admitted to a programme must be at the point that the MoA is still
current, although the last cohort of students admitted may be completing their collaborative
programme after the MoA it is attached to has expired. For Taught degree programmes the
schedules are approved by the relevant Faculty Education Committee (or equivalent) which
maintains oversight of the programme arrangements, except for initial agreements that
involve complex, new types of collaborative provision or the involvement of a non-UK
PSRB, and the renewal of jointly delivered programmes where approval rests with CPSC
reporting into CEC. For Research degree programmes, low risk activity is approved by the
relevant Faculty Research Committee (or equivalent) whereas schedules for Split-Site PhDs
and Joint PhDs require the approval of PRSS who will maintain oversight of these types of
arrangement. In exceptional cases, the Faculty or PDASC or PRSS may escalate a review of
a schedule to CPSC outside its normal committee terms of reference for advice prior to final
approval of a programme by the relevant Committee.
9.11 The expectations around the operational arrangements for each different type of activity have
been listed for ease of reference as schedules 1 to 8 as follows:
Schedule 1: Operational arrangements for Articulation or Reverse Articulation

arrangements
These types of partnership pair a King’s degree programme with that of a degree programme
offered by a Partner either enabling students to gain access to a higher-level linked
programme at entry level or with advanced standing e.g. 2+2 or 3+1 (Articulation) or to the
same level of linked programme at entry level e.g. 1+1 Masters (Reverse Articulation) where
the Partner is recognising the learning undertaken on the King’s programme. A mapping
exercise should be undertaken using the College’s template form to demonstrate the linkage
between the paired programmes in terms of content and level, credit recognition and
content of specified modules, and incorporated into the Activity Schedule. The approval,
monitoring, and management of these types of arrangement rests with the relevant
programme team, with oversight by the relevant Faculty Education Committee reporting
any outcomes and approvals to CPSC. These types of arrangement are also subject to the
Admissions Regulations and policy for recognition of prior learning.
Schedule 2: Operational arrangements for Jointly delivered Taught programmes
61
These types of partnership are jointly delivered or jointly conceived Taught programmes of
study that lead to one or more awards. Examples include (a) Co-operative Partnership
arrangement where the single programme of study is jointly delivered leading to a final
award and the issuing of a degree certificate by the home institution only; (b) Dual Award
arrangements where elements of the Partner programme and the King’s programme are
jointly designed leading to two separate awards and certificates from each of the awarding
institutions; (c) Double or Multiple Awards where a single programme is jointly delivered by
two or more parties and where the programme leads to a separate award and certificate from
each of the awarding institutions; (d) Joint Award where a single jointly delivered
programme leads to a single award that is jointly conferred by the awarding institutions, and
where the single certificate replaces national or institutional qualifications. Care should be
given to how the Partner defines the activity compared to King’s definitions and where
there is a difference in language this should be clearly articulated in the Activity Schedule
and how this will be advised to students to meet CMA compliance. Approval of the
programme will operate in the same way as internal provision with formal approval through
the College’s programme approval process reporting into PDASC. If required, the final PAF
will be subject to final consideration and approval from PDASC following a review of the
operational arrangements by CPSC. The monitoring of the programme will be subject to the
College’s usual procedures for annual monitoring (Continuous Enhancement Review for
Programmes) with a review of activity undertaken prior to the expiry of the MoA reporting
to CPSC for final consideration and approval. Additionally, there should be a Joint
Management Board or Committee established between the College and the Partner(s) to
manage and oversee the arrangements and report into the relevant governance structure.
Schedule 3: Operational arrangements for Joint PhD programmes

These types of partnership are where a PhD programme is delivered jointly by King’s and
another institute of Higher Education where the expectation is that the programme will lead
to a Joint Award. Where several Faculties of the College offer a PhD with the same
institution these will be listed in one overarching Schedule. Approval of the Joint PhD
programme will be the responsibility of Postgraduate Research Sub-committee (PRSS).
Monitoring, management and oversight of the Programme will be through a Joint Academic
Committee (JAC) reporting into PRSS. A review of activity should be undertaken a
minimum of six months prior to the expiry of the agreement by the JAC with final approval
resting with PRSS.
Schedule 4: Operational arrangements for ‘Split-Site’ PhD programmes

These types of partnership are where another institute of Higher Education, or reputable
research institute (normally without degree awarding powers) is the main locus of the
student’s learning, and where a student will spend a period of more than 6 months at the
Partner institution, with defined periods and supervision arrangements agreed at the outset.
The PhD programme will only lead to an award from the College and not from the Partner
and is subject to approval from PRSS. The monitoring, management and oversight rests
with the relevant department supervisor and the Faculty team reporting into PRSS.
Schedule 5: Operational arrangements for Off-campus Shared Taught Module

programme arrangements
These types of partnership provide specialist teaching or resources that are delivered to
students away from the King’s campus to enable them to complete their King’s degree
programme, except where the arrangement is for a specific programme of study in which
case the College’s Shared Module Agreement template should be used instead. Approval of
the shared taught module arrangement will rest with the relevant Faculty Education
Committee and be reported to PDASC as part of the initial programme approval process.
Monitoring, management, and oversight rests with the relevant Faculty and should be
reflected in the Continuous Enhancement Review for Programmes process. The review of
62
activity prior to the renewal of the agreement rests with the relevant Faculty with the
outcome of the final approval being reported into CPSC.
Schedule 6: Operational arrangements for PhD programmes with periods spent off-
campus
These types of partnership are for cohorts of students on a King’s PhD programme who
undertake a period away from the King’s campus (which does not fall under a Split-Site
PhD programme arrangement – see Schedule 4) from the university or the academic
regulations relating to off-campus study, and where this period of study contributes towards
research collaboration. These arrangements usually relate to specialist resources and will
have been assessed as part of the viability of the PhD project and agreed between the
relevant student and their supervisor either in advance, or during the first year of the project.
During periods away from the university, the student will continue to be supervised and
undergo the formal progress monitoring process. Since these arrangements tend to be unique
to individual students it is likely that this type of schedule will only be used in exceptional
cases i.e. where the activity falls under a College wide overarching MoA and is offered on a
regular basis to more than one student or department. Where a schedule is required, this is
subject to the approval and oversight of PRSS with the monitoring and management of the
arrangement resting with the relevant Faculty reporting into PRSS.
Schedule 7: Operational arrangements for placement provision i.e. work-based

learning (such as Clinical or Industrial placements)
These types of partnership include a planned period of experience in a work-based learning
environment for cohorts of students on a specific programme that is assessed as part of the
student’s final award. Where the arrangement is for an individual student or is not
considered an integral planned period of experience for a programme e.g. the accredited
internship programme this will be overseen by King’s Careers and Employability and the
College’s Internship Host Agreement template should be used instead. Approval of work-
based learning is the responsibility of the Faculty Education Committee. Where a
Programme of Study includes this type of placement this should be reflected in the PAF and
approved by the relevant Faculty Education Committee reporting into PDASC as part of
the programme approval process. Monitoring, management and oversight of the activity
rests with the relevant Faculty and where this is attached to a programme of study should be
reflected in the Continuous Enhancement Review for Programmes process. The review of
activity prior to the renewal of the agreement rests with the relevant programme team and
Faculty with outcomes and approvals reported to CPSC.
Schedule 8: Operational arrangements for Student Exchanges

These types of partnership are where there is already or is expected to be multiple activity
taking place with a College-wide Partner. The arrangements for the student exchanges
operate through the Global Mobility Office and may contribute to the student’s final award,
enabling them to experience study overseas and enhance their degree. Where several
Faculties of the College offer a student exchange with the same institution only one
overarching Schedule will be necessary (listing all contributors). Where the arrangement is
department or Faculty specific and there is unlikely to be a MoA in place or further activity
with the Partner, the College’s Student Exchange Agreement (SEA) template should be
used instead. Where the Partner is part of the Erasmus scheme the Erasmus Inter-
Institutional Agreement may be used instead. Advice for all student exchange arrangements
should be sought from Global Mobility prior to completing the paperwork. Approval, for all
student exchange agreements rests with CIC. Where a Programme of Study offers a student
exchange this should be reflected in the Programme Approval Form (PAF) and approved by
the relevant Faculty Education Committee reporting into PDASC as part of the programme
approval process. Monitoring and oversight rests with CIC and the management of the
Partner relationship with Global Mobility. The monitoring, management and oversight of
63
the academic provision rests with the relevant Faculty and should be reflected in the
Continuous Enhancement Review for Programmes process. Where the student exchange is
specific to a programme or Faculty a review of activity should be undertaken at least six
months prior to the expiry of the agreement by the relevant Faculty Education Committee
with outcomes and approvals reporting into CPSC. For College-wide student exchanges or
those falling under an Erasmus + arrangement the review will be undertaken by the Global
Mobility Office reporting into CIC.
9.10 Activity schedules are not required for the following types of arrangement as these are
considered as part of a commercial or research contract, although the operational
arrangements governing the programme and the responsibilities of the parties involved
should be embedded within the body of the agreement itself.
(a) Doctoral Training Centres/Partnerships, part of a research contract, normally determined
by the relevant Research Council.
(b) Flying Faculty arrangements, part of a commercial agreement, normally drawn up by the
King’s Professional and Executive Development (KPED) office.
(c) Validation arrangements, incorporates commercial arrangements into the agreement,
normally drawn up by the King’s Professional and Executive Development (KPED)
office, and subject to final approval from CPSC reporting into CEC.
9.11 The Activity Schedule template may be used for other types of activity such as summer
school or short courses. Where these arrangements are considered credit bearing leading to
an award of the College, they will be subject to approval from PDASC with the monitoring,
management and oversight resting with the relevant Faculty.
10. Programme Management
10.1 For a partnership leading to an award, or the award of credit, the College’s management of
the programme or module shall operate in the same way as internal provision taking account
of any additional requirements that are relevant for the type of collaborative activity being
engaged in with formal approval and review through the relevant College procedures. For
Taught degree programmes this will be through the Procedures for programme and module
approval and modification and Procedures for programme and module monitoring and review
and for Research degree programmes this will be through the Procedures for postgraduate
research degrees approval and monitoring. Where a modification is made to a programme of
study relating to the partnership arrangement this will be subject to the considerations set
out in the Modifications Table. Advice and guidance on programme management relating to
collaborative provision can be sought from the Academic Regulations, Quality and
Standards team.
10.2 The following areas (where appropriate for the activity) should be agreed during the
establishment and before the commencement of the activity for the management of the
programme and specified in the Activity Schedule:
• Type and nature of activity being offered;
• Relevant timescales for the programme activity;
• Financial arrangements;
• Administrative contacts;
• Marketing and publicity;
• Recruitment and admissions;
• Enrolment and registration;
64
• Student records;
• Student support;
• Teaching or supervision arrangements;
• Assessment arrangements;
• External Examiner arrangements;
• Conferment of Award;
• Certificates and Graduation;
• Student Conduct and Appeals arrangements;
• Quality Assurance and Management processes;
• Monitoring arrangements;
• Alumni programme.
10.3 All programme activity should meet the requirements of the College’s Academic regulations,
relevant policies, and programme specifications, unless a suspension has been sought and
approved prior to programme approval or modification. Approval must be sought to
establish a bespoke set of academic regulations for a jointly delivered programme or
validated provision and where this is the case the Academic Regulations will be subject to
final approval from the College’s Academic Board.
10.4 Advice and training should be given to students on any differences they may encounter in
the learning environment, including cultural differences and use of social media. Students
should be advised on how they will be supported and what mechanisms will be in place to
bring about improvement in the effectiveness of their learning experience. For students who
are predominantly or fully studying abroad for an award of the College on a Transnational
Education programme consideration should be given to ensuring that their experience
equates to an on-campus programme, fostering a sense of community and access to staff, and
ensuring there is no digital divide.
11 Approval, monitoring, and review of collaborative provision
11.1 Each stage of the approval, monitoring and review processes for collaborative provision
activity are mapped in section 12 below.
11.2 There are slight variations to the approval and monitoring processes for certain types of
collaborative activity for the reasons stated as follows:
• Doctoral Training Partnerships / Centres for Doctoral Training, because DTP/CDT

arrangements are externally funded and their approval as well as governance and
management is largely predefined by the funder the approval and monitoring processes
for these arrangements are set out in separate guidance.
• Flying faculty, because these types of arrangement are typically commercial

agreements where a Partner is delivering resources to support students on a programme
that is offered by King’s. The programme arrangements follow the College’s standard
processes for the approval and monitoring of collaborative provision, but responsibility
for the negotiations with the Partner and the drafting of the commercial agreement rests
within King’s Professional and Executive Development (KPED) and is not subject to
consideration for approval and renewal or termination from CPSC, although as the
partnership activity relates to the student experience and quality enhancement
processes, it will be monitored through the standard monitoring processes.
65
• Validation: because this type of activity is deemed very high risk to the College, these
arrangements are subject to an enhanced approval and monitoring process that is set out
in the Procedures for validated provision. Where approval is given to validate a Partner,
an annual monitoring meeting will take place with the Partner, chaired by the relevant
Faculty Executive Dean of Education, with the minutes and any recommendations
arising from the minutes being reported to CPSC. The validated programmes will be
subject to periodic review in accordance with the College’s standard Procedures for
programme and module monitoring and review.
11.3 Flow diagrams for the approval and monitoring of specific collaborative provision
(Articulation/Reverse Articulation, Jointly Delivered provision, Shared Taught Modules
and Student Exchange) have been provided in section 13 below.
11.4 A list of collaborative activity arrangements that the College engages in and guidance and
templates on the processes to follow can be located on the collaborative provision webpages
that are managed by the ARQS team. The proposer should consult with the ARQS team
and appropriate professional services departments for advice and support prior to developing
a programme proposal for the following activities:
• All activity - ARQS
• Articulation - the Widening Participation teams, Head of Undergraduate Admissions
and Head of Postgraduate Admissions in the Students and Education Directorate. For
these types of arrangements, you are also strongly encouraged to speak to your Faculty
Marketing Officer.
• Commercial agreements – KPED
• Cultural partners – King’s Culture team
• International partners – Global Engagement
11.5 Advice and guidance on collaborative research degree programmes including Joint PhDs
should be sought from the Centre for Doctoral Studies
11.6 Consideration of all ‘other’ types of collaborative activity that are not covered by these
procedures’ rests with the relevant Faculty in consultation with the relevant Senior Officer
of the College.
12 Process maps
12.1 Stage One (Approval in principle to explore partnership)

The College holds a Register of Collaborative Partners which details all the activity engaged
in by the College with that Partner. The register is hosted on a SharePoint site with access
given on request by ARQS. Information on International Partners is also available via a
PowerBI report entitled ‘King’s International Collaboration Dashboard’ hosted by the Global
Engagement Office.
Initiation of a partnership may come from the College or the proposed partner. Prior to
committee consideration, Informal discussions should be held with the Vice President
(Education & Student Success) for all collaborative programme activity involving an award
or academic credit from the College. The Vice President (International, Engagement &
Service) should also be consulted with where a proposed collaboration is with an
international partner. All proposals are subject to a risk assessed due diligence process to
ensure it fits with the College strategic plan, is financially viable, and that resources
66
committed to the development of a proposal provides a reasonable likelihood of final
approval via the process outlined below.
Approval of the Partner11
Consult • The College Register of Collaborative Partners for a list of approved

partners and activity offered with that partner.
Where the Partner is not listed, you will need to seek approval of the partner by
contacting the relevant team and completing a risk review process
Risk Review process
Consult: • International Partners: Global Engagement Office for advice on

completing their template form for reviewing the risks associated
with the partner or obtaining a copy of the existing risk
assessment and due diligence forms.
• Student Exchange: Global Mobility Office for advice on risk
assessment and due diligence paperwork relating to the Partner.
• UK Partners: the risk assessment should use readily published
information on gov.uk databases relating to the Partner e.g. OfS
register, charity register, companies house register, care quality
commission.
Proposed collaborative activity with a Partner
Complete: • The Collaborative Activity Risk Assessment Tool (CARAT)

Where relevant, please also complete the following:
• Activity checklist form (Articulation, Dual, Double or Joint Awards,
or Shared Taught Modules only)
• Curriculum Mapping proforma (Articulation or Dual Awards only)
Please contact the Quality Assurance Officer (Collaborative Provision) for

advice on completing the documentation. Endorsement will be required from
the relevant Executive Dean of Faculty for the CARAT form. Please note that
where the activity already exists with the proposed partner for another
programme, information can be used from that programme to inform the
discussions around risk without the need to complete a separate CARAT form.
Forward: Completed collaborative provision documents together with the outcome of any
risk assessment process relating to a partner should be submitted to the ARQS
team or CDS for review alongside the programme proposal form. Documents
may also be escalated to CPSC for expert opinion where the likelihood and
associated risks identified are deemed complex and may pose a significant risk to
the College’s reputation or business continuity.
11
Following consideration of the risk assessment and subsequent approval of a new Partner a Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) may be put in place with the Partner.
67
Taught degree programmes
Complete • Programme Proposal form (PPF)
Part 4 of the PPF relates to collaborative provision and you are expected to
consult with the Head of Collaborative Provision, Global Engagement and Global
Mobility. Information provided as part of the risk review process and, where
applicable. proposed collaborative activity with a partner process will be used for
this purpose. Proposers are expected to provide a summary statement advising
on the following:
• How the arrangement with the partner will align to the College and
Faculty strategies, including where applicable providing details of any
existing arrangements with the partner.
• What role the partner will play in delivering the teaching, assessment,
and learning resources for the proposed programme and what assurance
can be given for the oversight of the partnership arrangement to ensure
that the quality and standards of a King’s award can be maintained.
• What risks were identified in respect of the partner and the activity and
what plans will be put in place to manage these risks.
• Comment on feedback received from the Head of Collaborative
Provision, Global Engagement and Global Mobility.
Submit: PPF together with the forms from the risk review process and, where applicable,
proposed collaborative activity with a partner process to the relevant Faculty
Education Committee (or equivalent) for consideration.
Approval: • Executive Dean of Faculty

• Relevant Vice President and (if applicable) Senior Vice President
Send: Final PPF to ARQS for consideration by the Programme Development and
Approval Sub-Committee (PDASC).
Research degree programmes
Complete: • Initial Proposal for New Research Programme form
Submit: Initial Proposal for New Research Programme form together with the risk
review process and CARAT to the relevant Faculty Research Committee (or
equivalent) for consideration.
Once approved in principle, the form and outcome report should be forwarded
to the Centre for Doctoral Studies for approval via the Postgraduate Research
Students Subcommittee (PRSS).
• Associate Dean of Doctoral Studies

Approval:
• Executive Dean of Faculty
• Relevant Vice President or Senior Vice President (where required)
All collaborative proposals
Risk The overall level of risk attached to the proposal will be categorised as ‘low’,
category: ‘medium’ or ‘high’ as determined by the risk review and proposed collaborative
activity processes.
Outcome: PDASC or PRSS will consider the proposal and either:

(a) give approval to proceed to Stage Two;
68
(b) refer back to the proposer for clarification or reasons for decline;
(c) refer to another appropriate committee or office for consideration.
(d) reject proposal
Stage One Where Stage One is complete all proposals shall move to Stage Two
Completion:
12.2 Stage Two (Detailed scrutiny of proposals for collaborative provision)

Detailed scrutiny of proposals for collaborative activity should be undertaken to complete
the risk assessment and due diligence process. Depending on the partnership and nature of
the activity, the level at which the scrutiny will take place is defined by the risks identified
in Stage One. Consult with ARQS and the Centre for Doctoral Studies to check what
agreement documentation is already in place and for advice on completing or amending
new/existing paperwork.
Discuss Finalise mapping of programme activity with partner and identify respective
roles, responsibilities and obligations of each partner in the organisational
arrangements for the programme
Complete A Memorandum of Agreement with the Partner where this does not already
exist
• For International Partners this should be undertaken in consultation with
the Global Engagement Office who will provide the College’s template as
the basis for discussion. Approval of the MoA will be the responsibility of
the Vice President (International, Engagement & Service).
• For UK Partners this should be undertaken in consultation with the
ARQS team who will provide a suitable template for the basis of
discussion. Approval of the MoA will be the responsibility of the
Collaborative Provision Sub-Committee (CPSC) and will need to be
approved alongside any accompanying Activity Schedule.
Draft An Activity Schedule for the type of arrangement being entered into in liaison
with the Partner. ARQS will advise on the appropriate template to use for
discussions with the Partner.
Forward The Activity Schedule or MoA where this incorporates the Activity Schedule
to ARQS for review. The documents may be escalated to the Collaborative
Provision Sub-Committee to provide the relevant expertise and advice on areas
that need to be addressed or considered further.
Complete: Taught programmes only: the Programme approval and/or module approval or
programme/module modification documentation (via OPAMA).
Submit: All documentation and any additional supporting documentation required as an

outcome of the risk assessment process at Stage One to the relevant Faculty
Education Committee (Taught programmes) or Faculty Research Committee
(Research programmes) or equivalent for detailed scrutiny. The documentation
submitted forms the due diligence process and is used to aid the scrutiny of
proposals and inform the recommendation for approval.
Approval by: Faculty Education/Research Committee or equivalent
69
Outcome: ARQS will review the final programme documentation. If appropriate this may
be forwarded to PDASC for final review. For complex arrangements or as a
condition of Stage One approval the draft activity schedule may be forwarded
to CPSC for final consideration and approval before moving to Stage Three of
the process.

PRSS will review the final programme documentation and draft agreement
Outcome:
documentation for final approval
Stage Two Where Stage Two approval is given all proposals shall move to Stage Three
Approval:
12.3 Stage Three (Final approval of proposals for collaborative provision)
Final Approval: Final approval by PDASC or PRSS (programme documents) and where
applicable by CPSC (MoA and/or Activity schedule) either by full
committee or Chair’s action.
Signed Authority Where appropriate the Memorandum of Agreement must be signed by

for MoAs with the Vice President (International, Engagement & Service)
International
Partners:
Signed Authority Low risk: Head of Department (department level) or Executive Dean of
for MoAs with UK Faculty (Faculty level)
Partners:
Medium to High risk: Vice President (Education & Student Success) or
Vice President (Research)
Signed Authority The Activity Schedule is not valid without a legally binding
for Activity Memorandum of Agreement being in place. Once this is in place, the
Schedule Activity Schedule should be signed by the relevant Executive Dean of
Faculty (Faculty level activity) or Head of Department (departmental
level activity) or their nominee.
Submit: Electronic copy of the final signed documentation to ARQS
Stage Three The approval process is complete when the final signed copy of the MoA
Approval: and accompanying Activity Schedule has been submitted to ARQS and is
added to the College’s register of collaborative partners for routine
reporting to the Collaborative Provision Sub-Committee.
12.4 Stage Four (Monitoring and Management of collaborative provision)

Prior to the activity commencing, monitoring, and management arrangements for continual
review of the activity should be agreed between all partners, including putting in place a
mechanism for the effective management and oversight of the administration necessary to
monitor the shared activity and arrangements for teaching out should the need arise.
The arrangements with the Partner for delivering the teaching and learning support and
resources should be included in the Continuous Enhancement Review for Programmes with
a fuller review taking place in accordance with the notice period clause set out in the MoA
and at least six months prior to the expiry of the agreement. The full review should consist of
a periodic programme review together with a review of the partner. For medium to higher
70
risk types of activity additional monitoring requirements should be put in place, see section
12.6 below. Where practical, a King’s representative should undertake a visit to the Partner
prior to a new agreement being signed and this should be reported as part of the review of
activity or periodic review process.
Annual Monitoring of Taught degree programmes
Consult: All Taught programme activity including those with collaborative provision
are subject to the ‘Procedures for programme and module monitoring and
review’.
Provide: Information on the collaborative activity that is either offered as a learning

opportunity for a programme or jointly delivered with a partner or is part of
a UK or overseas campus arrangement should be included in the Continuous
Enhancement Review for Programmes template form.
Submit: Continuous Enhancement Review for Programmes paperwork to the

relevant Faculty Education Committee for approval.
Outcome: The relevant Faculty Education Committee reviews and approves the
Continuous Enhancement Review for Programmes paperwork.
Where the FEC considers the report requires further information this will be
sent back to the Head of Department for further work before resubmission
to the FEC.
Forward: Faculties must submit their review report to the ARQS team. Staff in ARQS
will arrange a scrutiny group to review all plans submitted and provide
feedback at a faculty level. Faculty representatives will form part of the
scrutiny group, along with representatives from King’s Academy, Careers
and Employability, and ARQS.
Faculties can suggest a meeting should be held with relevant stakeholders
within the College to discuss how the programme(s) can be supported.
Where a FEC deems a meeting is required they should contact the
Associate Director, ARQS to discuss. Separate meetings will be held for UG
and PGT programmes to ensure timely consideration of any areas requiring
discussion. Where the meeting fails to take place the Continuous
Enhancement Review for Programmes will not be registered as complete.
An overarching summary report of key themes such as collaborative
provision that have been identified in the reports will be produced by ARQS
and submitted for discussion to CEC.
For validated provision, the minutes of the Annual Review Meeting will be
submitted direct by ARQS to CPSC reporting to CEC.
Annual Monitoring of Research degree programmes
Consult: All programme activity including those with collaborative provision are
subject to the ‘Procedures for postgraduate degrees approval and
monitoring’.
Provide: Information or a report from your Joint Academic Committee (JAC), a JAC
report for College-wide partners will be produced centrally by the Centre
for Doctoral Studies, including any relevant minutes of meetings held about
the programme, to your Faculty Research Committee for consideration and
inclusion in the Faculty annual report.
71
Outcome: A Faculty Annual Report will be completed, including reference to any

issues arising from jointly delivered PhD programmes.
Forward: Faculty or JAC Reports to the Centre for Doctoral Studies for review and
consideration by PRSS. JAC reports will additionally be reported to CPSC.
Review of Activity
Complete: • Review of activity form;

• EITHER draft a new agreement (MoA and/or Activity Schedule)
setting out the terms of reference and details for the shared activity
between the partners to renew the arrangement OR draft a formal letter
withdrawing from the agreement and setting out the mechanisms by
which both parties agree for enabling current students to complete their
programme under the terms of the expiring agreement.
Submit: Final documentation to the relevant Faculty Education Committee or

equivalent (Taught programmes) or Faculty Research Committee or
equivalent (Research programmes) for consideration.
Forward: The final Review of Activity form and draft agreement/activity schedule or
withdrawal letter to ARQS for report to or consideration by CPSC.
A new Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) may be put in place with the
Partner following the review of activity process
Outcome: Approval or termination of low-risk activity (Articulation/Reverse

Articulation, off campus shared Taught Module and, Placement provision)
rests with the Faculty Education Committee (or equivalent) with the
outcome reported to CPSC.
Approval or termination of medium to high-risk activity (Co-operative
partnerships, Double, Dual, Multiple or Joint Awards) rests with CPSC.
Approval or termination of Student Exchanges rests with the Global
Mobility Office reporting to CIC, except where these are programme
specific in which case the decision to approve or terminate the arrangement
rets with the Faculty Education Committee (or equivalent) with the
outcome reported to CPSC.
Decisions taken by both the Faculty Education Committee (or equivalent)
or CPSC will be reported to CEC.
Outcome Following consideration by the relevant Faculty Research Committee, final

documentation should be submitted to the Centre for Doctoral Studies for
review and approval by the Postgraduate Research Student Sub Committee.
Final decisions will be reported to both CPSC and the College Research
Committee.
72
Final approval: Faculty-initiated partnerships: recommendation for renewal or termination

following consideration of the documentation by the relevant College
Committee rests with the Executive Dean of Faculty (low risk activity) or
the Vice President (Research) (medium/high risk activity).
College-initiated partnerships: a recommendation for renewal or termination
following consideration of the documentation by the relevant College
Committee rests with the VP (Research) for UK partnerships or the VP
(Global Engagement) for International partnerships.
Final Approval: Following the final outcome by the relevant committee, a new MoA and
accompanying Activity Schedule or formal letter terminating the activity
must be signed and dated by the appropriate authority depending on the risk
category of both King’s and the Partner.
Signed Authority Where appropriate the Memorandum of Agreement must be signed by the
for MoAs with Vice President (International, Engagement & Service)
International
Partners:
Signed Authority Low risk: Head of Department (department level) or Executive Dean of
for MoAs with UK Faculty (Faculty level)
Partners:
Medium to High risk: Vice President (Education & Student Success) or
Vice President (Research)
Signed Authority The Activity Schedule is not valid without a legally binding Memorandum
for Activity of Agreement being in place. Once this is in place, the Activity Schedule
Schedule should be signed by the relevant Executive Dean of Faculty (Faculty level
activity) or Head of Department (departmental level activity) or their
nominee.
Submit: Final signed MoA and/or Activity Schedule to ARQS.
Stage Four The approval process is complete when final approval for the continuation or
Approval: termination of the programme has been given, and a final signed copy of the
MoA and/or Activity Schedule or formal termination letter has been
submitted to ARQS and the College’s Register of collaborative partners is
updated.
12.5 Programme modification and variation to the existing agreement documentation

Where the continuous enhancement review for programmes process triggers a modification
to the programme delivery (including suspension/termination) or a variation/termination of
the agreement this will be subject to the relevant College procedures for modifying a
programme and the relevant terms and conditions set out in the agreement and/or Activity
Schedule underpinning the programme arrangements.
12.6 Additional monitoring for jointly delivered awarded programmes:

To ensure that jointly delivered programmes offered with a Partner are managed effectively,
the following requirements will apply:
• Jointly delivered taught programmes: A Joint Programme Management Committee

should be established with terms of reference and membership from all parties involved
in monitoring the delivery of the programme. The Committee should meet at least
annually (virtual meetings are permitted) and will be responsible for overseeing the
administrative and quality aspects of the programme including relationship
management, changes to the programme structure, student admissions, progression and
assessment matters, student engagement, external examiner reporting and any other
73
issues identified for the effective management and oversight of the administration
necessary to monitor the shared activity in liaison with the partner. Identified areas of
quality enhancement and any issues that have arisen during the academic year in
question should be fed back through the appropriate mechanism of the College e.g.
assessment matters referenced in the relevant assessment board minutes and External
Examiner reports, the views of programme team and participating students clearly
referenced in the Continuous Enhancement Review for Programmes process.
• Jointly delivered research programmes: a Joint Academic Committee should be

established to oversee the arrangement following the College’s ‘Core terms of reference
for a Joint Academic Committee for joint PhD programmes’.
12.7 Additional considerations for review of activity

As part of the review of activity process it is expected that an updated risk assessment and
due diligence process is carried out, this may be done by updating initial risk screening and
CARAT forms or by completing new documentation. The Activity Schedules should only
be renewed once the review of the activity process has been undertaken and approved at the
relevant Committee level. Where a recommendation is made by the relevant Committee to
terminate an agreement this will require the endorsement of the relevant Executive Dean of
Faculty or relevant Vice-President.
12.8 Useful resources

• Academic regulations
• Careers and Employability
• Centre for Doctoral Studies
• Collaborative Provision
• Collaborative Provision Sub-Committee
• Global Engagement
• Global Mobility
• Legal Services
• Programme and Module approval and modification
• Procedures for postgraduate research degrees approval and monitoring
• Procedures for programme and module monitoring and review
• Definitions of collaborative activity
• Guidance on jointly delivered taught programmes
• Guidance on the operation of collaborative teaching activity
• Guidance on student placements
• OfS Advice and Guidance: Quality and Standards
• QAA Quality Code Advice and Guidance: Partnerships
74
13. Flow diagrams
13.1 Flow diagrams have been provided for the following types of activity:
• 13a Articulation/Reverse Articulation approval process

• 13b Articulation/Reverse Articulation monitoring and review process
• 13c Jointly delivered taught programmes with an international partner approval process
• 13d Jointly delivered taught programmes with a UK HEI approval process
• 13e Jointly delivered taught programmes monitoring and review process
• 13f Joint PhD programmes with new partners approval process
• 13g Joint PhD programmes with existing partners approval process
• 13h Shared Taught Module approval process
• 13i Shared Taught Module monitoring and review process
• 13j Student Exchange approval process
• 13k Student Exchange monitoring and review process
75
13a Articulation/Reverse Articulation approval process
Is the proposal with an existing Partner?
No
Yes
Is the proposal with an International Partner?
Yes
No
Contact: the Global Engagement Office and Faculty Vice-Dean International (or
equivalent) for advice on completing the initial risk screening process for the partner.
This is subject to endorsement from the VP (Global Engagement). If appropriate, a
MoU will be put in place following endorsement
Complete: the CARAT form

Contact: the Quality Assurance Officer (Collaborative Provision) for advice on completing the form
Complete: the following documents:

• Curriculum Mapping Proforma (Articulation agreements only)
• Articulation/Reverse Articulation Checklist
Draft: Activity Schedule template form for an Articulation/Reverse Articulation arrangement, and if applicable,
the MoA.
Forward: documents to the Quality Assurance Officer (Collaborative Provision) for review who will also be able
to provide advice on completing these forms. The draft Activity Schedule may be escalated to select CPSC
members for expert opinion
Submit :All documents to your Faculty Quality Assurance Manager (or equivalent) for consideration and
approval at the relevant Faculty meeting
Following approval by Faculty

Sign: final version of Activity Schedule together with Partner
Submit: an electronic copy of the signed Activity Schedule to ARQS. The final document will be added to the
Register of Collaborative Partners and reported to CPSC.
International Partners only: ensure details of the partnership arrangement are included in Partnership
Agreements Report to the College International Committee
76
13b Articulation/Reverse Articulation monitoring and review process
Annual Monitoring
Establish: an annual monitoring meeting with the Partner to review the following:
• The number of students accepted through the Articulation/Reverse Articulation route for the incoming
academic year. This should also be reported to the Quality Assurance Officer (Collaborative Provision) by
31st March for inclusion in the annual monitoring of activity report considered by the Collaborative Provision
Sub-Committee reporting into the College Education Committee.
• Currency of the programme mapping document to ensure that this remains an appropriate fit
• Progress of students through this route compared to students who applied to the programme directly
• Feedback from students relating to their integrated programme study
• The Marketing arrangements for the activity and whether the expectations of the programme alignment are
clearly outlined to students
Report: information, including any challenges/best practice, via the normal Continuous Enhancement Review for
Programmes under the relevant sections relating to collaborative provision.
Review of Activity
(All Partnership arrangements are subject to a Review of Activity prior to renewing or terminating an agreement)
Complete: Review of Activity template form six months prior to the expiry of the MoA and related documents.
Draft: either Activity Schedule to be attached to a new or existing MoA or withdrawal letter
Forward: documentation to the relevant Faculty Education Committee or equivalent for consideration and
approval.
Submit: final documents to the Secretary of the Collaborative Provision Sub-Committee for reporting outcomes
to the committee. The final decision to renew or terminate an agreement will also be reported to the College
Following final approval:
• Check: a current (signed) MoA is in place
• Sign: final version of Activity Schedule together with Partner
• Submit: an electronic copy of the signed Activity Schedule to ARQS. The final document will be added
to the Register of Collaborative Partners and reported to CPSC.
77
13c Jointly delivered taught programmes with an international partner12 (i.e. Dual Award13,
Double/Multiple Award and Joint Award arrangements) approval process
Is the proposal with an existing partner?
(Check Register of Collaborative Partners or contact ARQS)
No Yes
Complete the following documents:

• For International Partners contact the Global Engagement Office and Faculty Vice-
Dean International or equivalent for advice on completing the initial risk screening
form. This is subject to endorsement from the VP & VP (International). If appropriate, a
MoU will be put in place following endorsement.

CARAT form. Contact the Head of Collaborative Provision for advice on completing the form
Programme Proposal Form (PPF)
Jointly Delivered Taught Programme Checklist
Curriculum Mapping Proforma (Dual Award agreements only)
Forward: all documentation to the Head of Collaborative Provision for review. Documents may also be
escalated to CPSC for expert opinion if deemed appropriate.
Submit: All documentation to the relevant Faculty Education Committee (or equivalent) for consideration
Submit: PPF for Taught programmes to ARQS for approval by PDASC.
Liaise with the Partner to prepare the following documents:

Activity Schedule and MoA (if this does not already exist)
Mark Translation Scheme (where required). This will be subject to approval from ASSC prior to final
programme approval
Programme Approval Form (PAF) and Module Approval Forms (MAF). For King’s this process
should be undertaken via OPAMA
Submit: documentation and any supporting documentation required as an outcome of the risk assessment and
due diligence process to the relevant Faculty Education committee for consideration and approval. The final
draft agreement should also be sent to the Head of Collaborative Provision for review by CPSC.
Forward: documentation (via Opama) to ARQS for oversight and approval by PDASC.
Sign: MoA and Activity Schedule following final approval and submit an electronic copy to the Quality
Assurance Officer (Collaborative Provision) for updating the Register of Collaborative Partners
12
Prior to entering into these types of arrangement, the Faculty should consider whether the partner and activity
fit within its own strategy.
13
For Dual award arrangements you may wish to consider using the College’s Curriculum Mapping Proforma
template for mapping how the two programmes overlap or can use Partner documentation.
78
13d Jointly delivered taught programmes with a UK HEI (i.e. Co-operative partnership and
Joint Award arrangements) approval process

No Yes
Consult: with ARQS for advice on the risk assessment relating to the Partner

• CARAT form. Contact the Head of Collaborative Provision for advice on completing the form
• Programme Proposal Form (PPF)
• Jointly Delivered Taught Programme Checklist
Forward: all documentation to the Head of Collaborative Provision for review. Documents may also be
escalated to CPSC for expert opinion if deemed appropriate.
Submit: All documentation to the relevant Faculty Education Committee (or equivalent) for consideration
Submit: PPF for Taught programmes to ARQS for approval by PDASC.
Liaise with the Partner to prepare the following documents:

• Activity Schedule and MoA (if this does not already exist)
• Mark Translation Scheme (where required). This will be subject to approval from ASSC prior to final
programme approval
• Programme Approval Form (PAF) and Module Approval Forms (MAF). For King’s this process
should be undertaken via OPAMA
Submit: documentation and any supporting documentation required as an outcome of the risk assessment and
due diligence process to the relevant Faculty Education committee for consideration and approval. The final
draft agreement should also be sent to the Head of Collaborative Provision for approval by CPSC.
Forward: documentation (via Opama) to ARQS for oversight and approval by PDASC.
Sign: MoA and Activity Schedule following final approval and submit an electronic copy to the Quality
Assurance Officer (Collaborative Provision) for updating the Register of Collaborative Partners
79
13e Jointly delivered taught programmes (i.e. Co-operative partnership, Dual Award,
Double/Multiple Award and Joint Award arrangements) monitoring and review process
Annual Monitoring
Establish: a Joint Programme Management Committee to monitor and manage the arrangements with the
partner and provide the necessary oversight of all aspects of the students’ academic experience, ensuring that
this is of high-quality throughout. The Joint Programme Management Committee should have its own terms of
reference, membership from both King’s and the Partner (including student reps) and should meet as a
minimum once a year.
Consult: the ‘Procedures for programme and module monitoring and review’ detailed in the QA handbook
Complete: the Continuous Enhancement Review for Programmes (CERP) and include any discussion areas
arising from your Joint Programme Management Committee in your commentary in each section.
Submit: the Continuous Enhancement Review for Programmes to the relevant Faculty Education Committee
for approval.
Forward: plans to ARQS for review. An overview report will be produced and submitted to the College
Education Committee including collaborative provision, with information specific to the Partner and the
collaborative arrangement also being reported to CPSC.
Programme and Partner Review

(A Partner review should be undertaken at the same time as a periodic programme review and preferably 12
months prior to the expiry of the relevant agreement)

• Periodic programme review paperwork including any modifications required to the Programme and/or
Modules (via OPAMA). This may be subject to approval from PDASC if the change to a programme is
a major modification.
• Review of Activity form, ensure you also complete the sections relating to jointly delivered programme
activity
• Draft Activity Schedule to be attached to a new or existing MoA or withdrawal letter
Submit: the final Review of Activity form and draft Activity Schedule or withdrawal letter to the Head of
Collaborative Provision for consideration and approval by CPSC.
Forward: All documents to the relevant Faculty Education Committee for consideration.
Sign: MoA & Activity Schedule or withdrawal letter following approval by CPSC and the relevant Faculty
committee or PDASC. Please note that for the MoA with an International Partner the designated signatory is
the VP (International, Engagement & Service) and for the MoA with a UK Partner the designated signatory is
the VP (Education & Student Success). The Activity Schedule should be signed by the designated authority as
determined by the relevant Faculty (or equivalent).
Submit: an electronic copy of the documentation to the Quality Assurance Officer (Collaborative Provision) for
updating the Register of Collaborative Partners.
80
13f Joint PhD programmes with new partners approval process
Before progressing with any collaborative provision the academic proposer must discuss this
with departmental professional services staff and gain support from the Head of Department.
They should then liaise with the Global Engagement office, who will advise on the options
available. A joint PhD programme may not be the best option for a new partnership. If it is
determined that the department will go ahead with a joint PhD the following process must
be followed:
Following approval from the Head of Department and discussions with Global Engagement, the proposer should
contact the Centre for Doctoral Studies, who will provide guidance on the general principles of a joint PhD and
will provide the relevant forms for completion
The proposer (with help from Professional Services, as necessary) must complete the Proposal for a New Research
Programme (joint PhD) form. This must be signed and approved by the Dean of Faculty or Vice Dean
(Research) where responsibility has been delegated - and the Associate Dean for Doctoral Studies and discussed
at the relevant faculty PGR meeting. The proposer should inform the Centre for Doctoral Studies and Global
Engagement once this has been completed.
Global Engagement will liaise with the partner institution to complete the due diligence process, including the
initial risk assessment form and MoU. These documents will be referred to the VP (International, Engagement
& Service) for approval.
Once partner approval is confirmed and the MoU has been signed by both parties, Global Engagement will liaise
with the partner institution to complete the MoA. At the same time the proposer can draft the Schedule of
Activity, both templates available from Legal Services, with support from the Centre for Doctoral Studies. The
proposer must liaise with the partner institution to complete their sections of the Schedule and negotiate the
terms.
The proposer must submit the completed Proposal for a new Programme form, Schedule of Activity and MoA to
the Centre for Doctoral Studies for final scrutiny and referral to the Postgraduate Research Students
Subcommittee (PRSS). Where necessary, proposals may be referred to the Collaborative Provision
Subcommittee for additional scrutiny and feedback.
If approved by PRSS, the Schedule of Activity and MoA must be signed by King’s and the partner institution.
Both institutions must keep an original hard copy. Scanned copies should be sent to the Centre for Doctoral
Studies and Global Engagement who will update the College’s Collaborative Partners Register and submit a
copy to ARQS for their records.
81
13g Joint PhD programmes with existing partners approval process
The following flowchart is just for new programmes that will be offered under an existing
agreement, i.e. where a joint PhD is already offered with another department/faculty.
Consult with Global Engagement and the Centre for Doctoral Studies regarding existing arrangements and the
documentation to complete.. Where an existing Schedule of Activity is in place the new programme must follow
the documented procedures. In some cases, a new Schedule of Activity may be required, for example if the
proposing faculties have different processes to those covered in the existing Schedule. In this case a new
Schedule must be drafted but arrangements should not be too dissimilar to those already in place.
Complete the Proposal for a New Research Programme (joint PhD) form and submit it to the relevant Faculty PGR
meeting.
If the Faculty supports the proposal, forward the form (and the Schedule of Activity, if necessary) to the Centre
for Doctoral Studies for the attention of the Postgraduate Research Students Subcommittee (PRSS).
If approved, the programme can be added to the existing Schedule of Activity (where applicable) and a new
programme code can be created.
82
13h Shared Taught Module approval process
Is the proposal with an existing Partner?
No Yes
Is the proposal with an International Partner?
Yes No
Contact: the Global Engagement Office and Faculty Vice-Dean International (or
equivalent) for advice on completing the risk screening form. This is subject to
endorsement from the VP (International, Engagement & Service). If appropriate, a MoU
will be put in place following endorsement.

CARAT form. Contact the Quality Assurance Officer (Collaborative Provision) for advice on
completing the form
Shared Taught Modules checklist
If applicable, complete PPF, noting arrangements for the collaboration in section 4. Contact the Head
of Collaborative Provision for advice on completing this section of the form.
Submit: documents the relevant Faculty Education Committee (or equivalent) for consideration together with
risk screening, CARAT, and checklist forms. If applicable, following consideration by the Faculty, submit PPF
to Academic Regulations and Quality Standards (ARQS) for approval by PDASC.
Complete: the MAF and include the information in the PAF, via OPAMA, for consideration and approval by
the relevant Faculty Education Committee (or equivalent). Following consideration and approval by the
Faculty the MAF and the new or modified PAF will be reported to PDASC for final approval.
Draft: Agreement documents i.e. Shared Taught Module Agreement or Activity Schedule template form
where a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) is already in place with the Partner.
Forward: draft Agreement documents together with risk screening and CARAT forms to the Quality Assurance
Officer (Collaborative Provision). All agreements relating to UK partners will require additional approval from
CPSC.
Following final approval

Sign: final version of Shared Taught Module Agreement or MoA and/or Activity Schedule with the Partner
Submit: an electronic copy of the signed agreement documentation to the Quality Assurance Officer
(Collaborative Provision). The final document will be added to the Register of Collaborative Partners and
reported to CPSC.
83
13i Shared Taught Module monitoring and review process
Annual Monitoring
Complete: Continuous Enhancement Review for Programmes (CERP): in liaison with the Partner complete
information within each section to reflect on the collaborative provision arrangement.
Submit: the CERP to the relevant Faculty Education Committee for approval.
Forward: plans to ARQS for review. An overview report will be produced and submitted to the College
Education Committee, with information specific to the Partner and the collaborative arrangement being
reported to CPSC.
Review of Activity
(All Partnership arrangements are subject to a Review of Activity prior to renewing or terminating an
agreement.)
• Review of Activity form
• If applicable, modification to a Programme and/or Module. For King’s this process should be
undertaken via OPAMA and may be subject to approval from PDASC if the change to the programme is
considered to be a major modification.
Draft: Agreement documentation (e.g. Shared Taught Module Agreement or MoA with accompanying
Activity Schedule) or withdrawal letter.
Submit: All documentation to the relevant Faculty Education Committee or equivalent for consideration and
approval.
Following approval from the relevant Faculty Committee, forward all documentation to the Quality Assurance
Officer (Collaborative Provision) for either final consideration and approval from CPSC for UK partners or
report to CPSC for International partners.
Following final committee approval, submit an electronic copy of the signed agreement or withdrawal letter to
the Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards (Quality Assurance) for reporting to CPSC. The partnership
arrangement will then be added to the Register of Collaborative Partners.
84
13j Student Exchange approval process
(Approval of new student exchange partnerships will require less scrutiny at Faculty level where these have
been initiated at College level)
Is the proposal with a partner with an Erasmus Charter for Higher Education (ECHE)?
(Check with Global Mobility Office)
No Yes

No Yes
Contact the Global Engagement Office for advice on completing the initial risk screening
form where this is required. This is subject to endorsement from the VP (Global
Engagement). If appropriate, a MoU will be put in place following endorsement.
Complete: the following document:
CARAT form. Contact the Quality Assurance Officer (Collaborative Provision) for
advice on completing the form. This form will not be required if the student
exchange is initiated at College level.
Submit: documents to the Quality Assurance Officer (Collaborative Provision) for review.
Is the programme new?
Yes
No
Complete: PPF noting arrangements for the collaboration in section 4.
Submit all documentation: to relevant Faculty Education Committee (or equivalent) for consideration and
approval. For new programmes the PPF will also need to be submitted to ARQS for approval by PDASC.
• Contact the Global Mobility Office for advice on drafting either a Student Exchange Agreement (SEA),
Erasmus Inter-Institutional Agreement (EIIA) or Activity Schedule and MoA (if this does not already exist).
• Complete the Programme Approval Form (PAF) or modify the existing PAF via OPAMA. Where the
arrangement is compulsory to meet the learning aims and outcomes for the programme, section 4 of the PAF
relating to collaborative provision should be completed in full.
• Submit the documentation to the relevant Faculty Education Committee (or equivalent) for consideration
and approval. The PAF will be processed and reported to PDASC for final approval by ARQS
Following consideration of the documentation by the relevant Faculty Education Committee (or equivalent) and
PDASC, the Student Exchange Agreement will be finalised by the Global Mobility Office, signed by the VP
(Global Engagement) and reported to CIC and ARQS for uploading onto the Register of Collaborative Partners.
The Faculty should formally add the Partner as a study destination for students. Global Mobility will include the
partner in promotion and seeks module spaces for prospective inbound exchange students from department(s).
85
13l Student Exchange monitoring and review process
Annual Monitoring
Complete: Continuous Enhancement Review for Programmes (CERP): complete information within each
section to reflect on the student exchange arrangement with the Partner. In addition, partnership reviews are
undertaken by the Global Mobility team’s internal process via which they consider whether any action or changes
are required with the partner or need to be raised with King’s academic departments with the partner attached to
a programme of study. They are conducted biennially or annually. You may wish to consider adding any
information from these reviews into the CERP if relevant to the standards and quality of the programme being
offered.
Submit: the CERP to the relevant Faculty Education Committee for approval.
Forward: plans to ARQS for review. An overview report will be produced and submitted to the Education
Committee, with information specific to the Partner and the collaborative arrangement being reported to CPSC.
Review of Activity
(Department-led student exchanges with an International Partner outside the Erasmus + programme)

• Review of Activity form
• Agreement documentation or withdrawal letter
• Modification to a Programme and/or Modules (if applicable). For King’s, this process should be undertaken
via OPAMA and may be subject to final approval from PDASC as per the major/minor modification table.
• Draft: Agreement documentation (e.g. SEA or MoA and accompanying Activity Schedule)
Forward: All documentation to the relevant Faculty Education Committee (or equivalent) for consideration and
approval.
Signatory: Agreement documentation or withdrawal letter should be signed by the VP (International,
Engagement & Service) or delegated authority. The final agreement or withdrawal letter with a Partner will be
noted to the next meeting of CPSC.
Submit: an electronic copy of the documentation to the Quality Assurance Officer (Collaborative Provision) for
updating the Register of Collaborative Partners.
The Global Mobility Office is responsible for reviewing all College-wide Student Exchange Agreements
and those that fall under the Erasmus + programme
86
14.1 In addition to the UK Quality Code and Associated Guidance documents, in particular
Partnerships, the QAA website also provides useful information and guidance relating to
how collaborative activity can be managed with a Partner and correspondence between UK
and Irish frameworks with the European qualifications frameworks, see for example:
• Characteristics statements: Characteristics Statements (qaa.ac.uk)

• Higher Education Credit Framework for England: Advice on Academic Credit
Arrangements
• Qualifications Frameworks: Qualifications can cross Boundaries: Guide to comparing
qualifications in the UK and Ireland
• Quality Evaluation and Enhancement of Transnational Education: Transnational
Education (qaa.ac.uk)
• Review of Transnational Education (overseas provision)
https://www.qaa.ac.uk/international/transnational-education-review
14.2 Universities UK International (UUKi) is the international arm of Universities UK,

representing UK universities and acting in their collective interests globally. They actively
promote universities abroad and publish information on international developments to
support universities international strategy https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/international
87
Procedures for validated provision
Section E
Procedures for validated
provision
88
89
1. Introduction
1.1 These procedures provide a framework for the approval and effective monitoring and
management by King’s of validation arrangements and draws together current individual
procedures for programme and module approval, monitoring and review and collaborative
provision that have been approved by the College Education Committee. They comply
with the Expectations, Practices and Advice and Guidance set out in the UK Quality Code
for Higher Education56, specifically the advice and guidance with Partnerships.
1.2 The College has ultimate responsibility for academic standards and the quality of learning
opportunities and will only consider arrangements with a Partner where there is (a) a strong
strategic reason for doing so, (b) where the Partner is also subject to the UK Quality Code
and (c) where the Partner can demonstrate it has the infrastructure in place to safeguard and
maintain King’s standards and the quality of awards. For this reason, the College will only
consider requests for validation from UK Partners.
1.3 The procedures are intended to support working in partnership with another organisation in
a manner that safeguards the College’s reputation and the quality of learning opportunities
for students. This is undertaken through a set of key policy principles set out in paragraph 4
below.
1.4 These procedures are intended to provide information to members of staff at King’s and to
our validated partners to enable us to meet our regulatory obligations, particularly to the
Office for Students (OfS), whilst maintaining a continuing dialogue with the Partner In
respect of academic development and quality assurance.
1.5 These procedures do not cover ‘accreditation’ of partner’s provision, broadly defined as the
process whereby an institution without degree awarding powers is given wide authority by
the College to exercise power and responsibility for academic provision. The College
remains ultimately responsible for the standards and quality of its awards but chooses to only
exercise limited control over the quality assurance functions of the Partner. For this reason,
the College is unlikely to enter into these types of arrangement due to the high complexity
and risk involved.
2. Definition of terms
2.1 The following definitions are used in this document:
Validation is the process whereby the College judges that a programme of study developed
and delivered by another Partner institution or organisation is of an appropriate quality and
standard to lead to a King’s award and is subject to the College’s quality assurance
procedures. The College will determine on a case-by-case basis the extent to which it
exercises direct control over the quality assurance aspects of the programme’s management.
Partner describes the institution or other organisational body with which the College enters
into an agreement to collaborate. It refers to partners that have one or more of their
programme offerings validated by the College.
56
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/quality-code
90
3. Objectives of the validation process
3.1 The objectives of the validation process are to establish whether ostensibly a case for
validation exists and to ensure that the key principles underpinning the arrangement can be
initially met. This will be determined through an approval process, including a validation
event and the subsequent recommendations made. Following approval, the validated
provision will be subject to a monitoring and review process to ensure that the key principles
underpinning the arrangement can continue to be met.
4. Key principles
4.1 The following key principles will underpin all validation activity at the College. The
arrangement must be able to:
➢ Complement the strategic priorities set out in King’s Strategic Vision 2029 and the
College Education Strategy, including whether the Partner is of good standing and fits
with the College’s ethos and values.
➢ Fit into a subject discipline that the College has expertise in enabling the arrangement to
be assigned to a particular department within a Faculty who will have the necessary
oversight.
➢ Demonstrate that the programme(s) offered will be delivered at the appropriate standard
and level to meet the requirements for the relevant King’s award, including
compatibility with any relevant benchmarking information and PSRB requirements.
➢ Establish an appropriate governance structure that can be supported through the
College’s governance arrangements to ensure the necessary oversight for maintaining the
academic standards of awards.
➢ Ensure that the College’s legal obligations can be fully met.
➢ Demonstrate that the partner institution has a secure medium to long term future and is
financially sound.
➢ Demonstrate that the Partner can meet its legal obligations in respect of equality,
diversity and inclusion matters.
➢ Demonstrate that the appropriate resources, including staffing and support services, are
in place to provide a stable and suitable learning environment that allows students to
succeed.
➢ Demonstrate that the appropriate quality assurance mechanisms/regulatory frameworks
are in place to guarantee the operation of the programme(s) to the required quality and
standards as determined by the College.
➢ Ensure that the College’s obligations for its ongoing conditions of registration with the
Office for Students can be fully met.
5.1 The King’s Strategic Vision 2029 is to make the world a better place and to continue to
expand the significant contribution that King’s makes in London and within the UK, and
beyond that to an international community that serves the world. The Education Strategy is
built upon the first priority of Vision 2029 - ‘educate to inspire and improve’. King’s
Strategic Vision 2029 and Education Strategy can be located at:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/strategy/index.aspx
91
6. Academic standards and awards
6.1 King’s is responsible for the academic standards of validated programmes, their oversight
and maintenance and for the compatibility of such standards with any relevant benchmark
information and qualifications framework recognised within the UK. This responsibility
rests with the Academic Board at King’s and its sub-structure. It will be carried out through
several quality assurance mechanisms such as the approval, monitoring and review of the
Partner and the programmes, representation at assessment sub-boards and the appointment
of an external examiner who is expected to submit a report to King’s.
6.2 Awards offered by the College are set out in the Academic Regulations. Where a Partner
wishes King’s to validate an award not offered by the College this will be subject to approval
from the College’s Academic Board at the outset.
7. Governance
7.1 The governance arrangements for partnerships operate under delegated authority from
Academic Board through its sub-committee structure. Academic Board will be responsible
for determining if there is a prime facia case for considering the proposal and will have final
approval of the validated Partner and the provision offered, including their Academic
Regulations, associated policies and procedures.
7.2 The College Education Committee (CEC) is a sub-committee of Academic Board and will
endorse the recommendation from the Faculty and formally request final approval of the
validated Partner and provision offered from Academic Board. CEC has specific
responsibility for ensuring that the College’s academic provision is of the highest quality and
academic standards and will enhance the student learning experience.
7.3 The Collaborative Provision Sub-Committee (CPSC) reports into CEC and brings together
key representatives from all Faculties (Institutes/Schools) and key professional services staff
who have knowledge of the College’s collaborative provision. CPSC is responsible for, inter
alia, reviewing the terms of reference agreed with the Partner and the operational
arrangements set out in the validation agreement (also referred to as the MoA), the
recommendations made in validation reports and providing expert advice to CEC. CPSC is
responsible for monitoring these arrangements once the partnership arrangements have
commenced and reporting into CEC
7.4 The Academic Standards Sub-Committee (ASSC) has responsibility for the strategic
development of assessment policy and regulation and oversight of assessment matters
reporting into the CEC. Following approval of the validated Partner’s Academic
Regulations by Academic Board as part of the validation approval process, ASSC will have
responsibility for continuing to monitor the validated Partner’s Academic Regulations and
recommending their approval to Academic Board via CEC on an annual basis.
7.5 The Programme Development and Approval Sub-Committee (PDASC) provides a strategic
overview of the development of new taught programmes and has oversight of Faculty
approvals at module level. Following approval of the validated Partner’s programmes and
modules by Academic Board as part of the validation approval process, PDASC will have
responsibility for approving any new validated programme or modifications to existing
validated programmes that are proposed by the Partner, and for monitoring Faculty
approvals at module level.
7.6 The Faculty is responsible for maintaining the oversight of the validated Partner and the
programmes offered and will be responsible for assuring Academic Board that the objectives
92
and policy principles of the validation processes can be met. This reflects the subsequent
operation of a validated programme whereby it becomes the responsibility of a Faculty
(Institute/School) to approve, monitor and manage the arrangement via the usual routes of
the Faculty Education Committee (or equivalent) with the Faculty Assessment Board Chair
attending the validated Partner’s Assessment Board to ensure the necessary oversight of the
student results leading to a King’s award. Therefore, proposals for validating a Partner and
the programme(s) they wish to offer will normally initially be considered by the Faculty
through their committee governance structure prior to submitting the proposal to Academic
Board.
7.7 Initial validation will normally be for a period of five years and will be subject to annual
monitoring in the second academic year following either the enrolment of the first cohort of
students on a minimum two-year degree programme or the graduation of the first cohort of
students on a maximum one-year degree programme. A review of the partnership and
programmes will be scheduled at the start of the fourth academic year by the relevant
Faculty Education Committee (or equivalent) reporting into CEC for formal approval.
7.8 Responsibility for managing the partnership arrangement rests with the relevant Executive
Dean of Faculty reporting to the Vice President (Education and Student Success). The
Faculty is expected to nominate an academic and professional services lead whose roles will
be any day to day operations of the validated programme and to liaise with the Head of
Collaborative Provision and support the Partner. The role of the Vice-Dean Education for
the Faculty is to chair the annual monitoring meetings and the periodic programme review
process. The role of the relevant Assessment Board Chair is to represent the College at the
assessment board where any decisions on progression or award are made and support the
Partner in ensuring the continued assurance of our academic awards and sharing knowledge
and expertise on assessment matters. The Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards
(ARQS) team role is to provide support to the relevant Faculty team to maintain oversight
of the operational arrangements for the validation of a Partner’s programme(s). They will
also act as the first point of contact for the Partner in respect of the arrangements covered by
the validation agreement. A list of responsibilities for managing the partnership arrangement
is set out in paragraph 16 below.
8. Legal considerations
8.1 Legal considerations around contract agreements may be very complex. For this reason, the
College undertakes due diligence enquiries through the approval processes to satisfy itself
that the proposed Partner has the legal status to enter into an agreement with King’s to
protect the College’s interests and to safeguard against any potential conflicts of interest or
competing priorities.
8.2 Advice should be sought from the College’s Legal Services Department at the outset to
review the first draft agreement to provide the necessary assurance that the terms of the
contract are consistent with all applicable laws and protect the rights and interests of King’s
with the Partner advised to seek similar advice in their own right.
8.3 Following a successful validation event, a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) will be put in
place setting out the respective roles, responsibilities and obligations of King’s and the
Partner, including the operational arrangements for delivering the programme activity and
providing students with a high-quality experience and positive outcome. The specific details
of the MoA will vary according to the nature of the partnership but an indication of the
likely areas that will be covered are given at Appendix 1 below.
8.4 The agreement is intended to be legally-binding and will be drafted by the College and sent
93
to the Partner for comment and review. The terms of reference and the operational
arrangements must be fully agreed where possible between all the relevant Parties, with any
issues resolved, before the programme activity can commence.
8.5 The College’s policy and procedures for negotiating, approving and signing contracts and
agreements on behalf of King’s will apply and can be located on the governance zone.
9. Financial considerations
9.1 The arrangements for establishing and maintaining a validation arrangement should be fully
costed at the outset and discussed with the Partner.
9.2 The financial considerations for maintaining a validation agreement should consider the
costs associated with the quality assurance of the programme (e.g. design; approval;
modification and monitoring through King’s Committee structures and the programme
review process) and those associated with supporting the student through their academic
studies (e.g. student records; academic regulations and associated student policies;
assessment boards; issuing of certificates and graduation ceremony). Typical operational
aspects of a validation arrangement are provided at Appendix 2.
9.3 The Partner shall pay fees to the College on an annual basis. These should be agreed
between the parties at the outset, accounting for any potential annual increase to the initial
fees, as a rule of thumb the expectation is that there would be a 5% annual increase to the
initial agreed fee. Information on the agreed fees and uplift to the fees should be included in
the Memorandum of Agreement. The information provided should state who at the Partner
and within the Faculty have responsibility for ensuring invoicing and receipt of payments on
an annual basis, including how any annual adjustments will be applied throughout the
duration of the agreement.
9.4 Fees will be renegotiated prior to the expiry of the agreement at the same time as the
programme and partner review and before a new agreement is put in place. These costs take
account of any additional fees payable to cover the costs associated with re-validating the
programmes through the programme and partner review, including the costs associated with
drafting and finalising a new agreement.
9.5 The costings for validating a Partner’s provision should be undertaken by the relevant
Senior Finance Business Partner and Assistant Director of Finance for the relevant Faculty
(Management Accounts).
10. Equality, diversity, and inclusion
10.1 It is expected that validated partners have in place a strategy for equality, diversity and
inclusion (EDI) that includes policies demonstrating their commitment to embedding EDI
throughout their organisation that is compatible with that of the College’s commitment to
EDI and a zero-tolerance approach to discrimination on the grounds of any protected
characteristic. King’s commitment is to promote equality of opportunity and create an
inclusive environment where all members of its community are valued and able to succeed.
10.2 The equality of access and opportunity should be fully considered in the design of the
programme and module components. When designing the programme consideration should
also be given to how students will be supported to ensure they have an equitable quality
experience, including an Access and Participation Plan that meets both the expectations of
the UK Quality Code and the Office for Students.
94
10.3 The validation event and subsequent annual monitoring and review processes will assess the
measures that have been put in place by the validated partner to ensure that their
commitment on EDI principles will be met.
11. Resources
11.1 Students of validated partners will not have access to the teaching and learning resources
e.g. library offered by King‘s College London. The partner is therefore expected to ensure
that the necessary teaching and learning resources, including the teaching premises, staffing
arrangements and student services, will be available and accessible to students to support the
delivery of the programme and the student learning experience. Thus ensuring that
successful outcomes can be delivered for all students.
11.2 The partner must ensure that as part of its contingency planning it will have sufficient
numbers of appropriately qualified staff to support the expected number of students
recruited to the programme and staff training and development packages.
11.3 The Partner should have plans in place for teaching and learning resources, including any
specialist resources and/or licences needed, that will meet the needs of the expected
numbers of students recruited to the programme.
12. Quality assurance mechanisms
12.1 The College has ultimate responsibility for the academic standards and quality of learning
opportunities delivered in its name and cannot delegate that responsibility. The academic
standards of a King’s award are aligned with the various components of the UK Quality
Code for Higher Education, published by the Quality assurance Agency (QAA), and are
comparable with others in the sector. They describe the level of achievement that a student
has to reach to gain a King’s award. The College’s quality assurance mechanisms and
reference points, including national qualifications frameworks, subject benchmark
statements and characteristics statements help the College to secure the academic standards
of our awards. These are maintained and enhanced through our quality assurance
mechanisms and regulated through our academic regulations and associated policies.
12.2 The College is also subject to the ongoing conditions for registration with the Office for
Students (OfS) including any expectations relating to how it ensures the quality and
standards of its awards offered by a validated Partner, equality of opportunity for students,
financial sustainability and good governance. The Partner is expected to register with the
OfS in their own right and demonstrate how they will be able to meet the initial and
continuing conditions of registration and protect the College’s interests. This includes
demonstrating how they will meet or exceed any minimum outcome thresholds set for
student continuation, completion, progression and student experience.
12.3 The College’s quality assurance mechanisms ensure that where a programme is delivered by
a validated Partner, they are able to meet any expectations for ensuring that the standards of
King’s awards remain credible and secure, and the student experience is of a high quality.
This is undertaken through the College’s processes for programme approval, monitoring,
and review, set out in paragraphs 13 to 14 below and aligns to the College’s internal
processes to provide consistency of practice and quality across all programmes offered or
awarded by King’s. The Partner will be expected to demonstrate knowledge and
understanding of the OfS Ongoing Conditions of Registration and UK Quality Code and
support King’s in meeting its obligations by ensuring that the quality assurance mechanisms
in place remain effective for delivering the programmes validated by King’s.
95
12.4 The validation process provides assurance that both the College and the Partner have a
shared understanding of their role, responsibilities, and obligations in developing and
delivering the activity through its quality assurance mechanisms and can discharge their
duties effectively in this respect. The respective responsibilities of both the College and the
Partner in the validation process are set out in section 16 below.
13. Process for approval by the College
13.1 King’s will receive requests from Partners to validate one or more academic programmes of
study offered by their institution, where they do not have the capacity to award the degree
under their own degree awarding powers. The request will be sent to the Faculty who is
best placed to act as the home for the Partner because they have the necessary disciplinary
knowledge to support the Partner.
13.2 Prior to the Partner being invited to submit a formal request for validation that is considered
under the three stages of the approval process, the Faculty will conduct an initial scoping
exercise to determine if the request is worth pursuing from both viewpoints and to ensure
that both the Partner and the Faculty have a shared understanding of expectations and the
responsibilities. In this respect, the Faculty will appoint academic and professional service
leads to liaise with the Partner and the College throughout the approval process and any
subsequent monitoring and management processes. The Faculty leads will be expected to
cost out the proposal with the relevant Senior Finance Business Partner and Assistant
Director of Finance for the Faculty. Thereafter, the leads are expected to meet with the
Partner to discuss the proposal and costings, including the Partner’s short- and long-term
goals, and the level of commitment required from both parties to successfully deliver on
these objectives.
13.3 Following discussions with the Partner the Faculty should complete the College’s standard
partnership template forms to assess the risks and the Executive Dean of Faculty should then
consult with the Senior Vice-President (Academic) and Vice-President (Education &
Student Success) to discuss the proposal, focusing on:
• How the Partner and proposed programme(s) can contribute to the strategic direction
and goals of the College.
• The Partner’s experience of delivering programmes within that field and how this can
be supported by the Faculty.
• The Partner’s readiness to accept proposed costings for validation.
• An indication of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats relating to the
proposal.
• How the risk attached to the proposal aligns with the College’s own risk appetite
statement.
13.4 Where discussions are favourable, the Partner should be invited to make an application to
the College for the validation of their programme(s) that will involve a three-stage approval
process. This approval process is designed to establish whether the Partner can meet the key
principles set out in paragraph 4 above and offer a programme that is designed and delivered
to a high-quality providing a coherent learning experience and leading to credible and
recognisable positive outcomes for students. This will be determined through a risk-based
assessment of the Partner and a due diligence process that comprehensively examines the
academic integrity of the programme(s) proposed and consists of three stages as follows:
➢ Stage One (Approval in principle of the Partner Institution)
➢ Stage Two: (Detailed scrutiny of the academic provision)
96
➢ Stage Three: (Final approval)
13.5 The authority to approve the request for validation rests with the College’s Academic Board
through its governance structure, outlined in section 7 above.
14. Approval processes
Stage One (Approval in principle of the Partner Institution)
14.1 Stage One consists of a preliminary assessment of the Partner Institution to establish
whether a prima facie case for validation exists.
14.2 The Partner will be expected to submit a self-evaluation document together with a business
case setting out the rationale for validation that demonstrates:
• Evidence of good standing, including history, mission, legal status and relationships
with other Partners and position within the national and local context.
• Information on the Partner’s educational partnership arrangements that may impact
on King’s as the validating body, including where validation may or has been sought
from another Partner.
• Information on assets, including estates, facilities, funding and any third-party rights
in this respect that may impact on King’s as the validating body.
• Mutually beneficial strategic fit, including where the Partner understands where
they will fit with the relevant Faculty’s own strategic direction and expertise in the
subject discipline.
• Financial sustainability, including a minimum of three years of annual accounts
where available or financial forecasts.
• Full marketing report, this should include details of market research, evidence of
initial and future demand for the programme and likely competitors.
• Knowledge and experience of the education sector in the UK, including details of
current and future academic plans, how your regulatory framework and associated
policies will be developed to support the delivery of the programme and assessment
of students. Where already offering educational activity information should be
provided on recent student performance data e.g., enrolment, retention, progression
and completion and mechanisms for managing quality and standards.
• Statement of intent setting out a commitment to the continuity of teaching, learning
and assessment of the programme being validated to ensure that a high-quality
student experience can be met and maintained.
• Diagram showing the current or proposed structure and reporting lines of your
organisation’s main governance and organisational structures.
• Description of your HR policies relating to the recruitment and development of
teaching, professional services and other support staff.
• Description of your equality, diversity and inclusion strategy and how you intend to
embed this within your organisation and the programmes being offered to students.
• Outcomes from any internal or external audits or reviews relating to the organisation
and academic provision.
• Risk appetite statement for your organisation.
97
• Information on the programme proposed through the completion of the College’s

standard Programme Proposal Form (PPF) for validated partners.
14.3 Documents should be submitted to the relevant Faculty for consideration and review
through their relevant governance committee structure.
14.4 The Faculty will report their findings to the College’s Academic Board who will determine
whether the Partner is (a) of good standing and a fit with the College’s ethos and values; (b)
confirm that the Partner has a secure medium to long term future and is financially sound;
and (c) that the design and delivery of the programme(s) will meet the expectations of
students to the quality and standards required and make a judgement on whether a prime
facia case has been made to explore the proposal further and move to stage two (validation
event) in the process.
14.5 Following the decision from Academic Board, the Faculty leads should inform the Head of
Collaborative Provision of Academic Board’s decision and provide the documentation
submitted by the Partner as outlined in paragraphs 14.2 and 14.3 above. The Head of
Collaborative Provision will liaise with the Faculty leads to advise the Partner of the
outcome from Academic Board and advise on next steps.
Stage Two (Detailed scrutiny of the academic provision)
14.6 Stage two in the process consists of a detailed examination of the academic programme(s)
and associated resources and support services proposed for which the validation is requested.
14.7 If Academic Board approves the request for validation a validation event with the potential
Partner will then take place. ARQS will liaise with the Partner, the Faculty and other
relevant College staff to agree a date and timescale for the event.
14.8 Prior to the validation event, the Faculty leads are expected to liaise with the Partner over
the completion of their programme and module specifications and organise an Employability
workshop to discuss potential careers pathways for students and resources that the Partner is
likely to need to support students. This documentation should be submitted as part of the
paperwork required for the validation event and forms part of the programme approval
process. In addition, the Faculty leads should liaise with the Partner to ensure that the final
report from the employability workshop is submitted back to the Careers and Employability
Office following the event.
14.9 The validation event offers the opportunity for staff and students from King’s and our
external advisors to meet with the Partner’s programme team and senior management, and
where possible student reps, to discuss the proposal. The aim is to test the academic rigour of
the proposal, including the process of programme design, governance and management
arrangements, institution and student resources and any other related academic and quality
assurance requirements. This will enable King’s to feel assured that the appropriate
mechanisms are in place to ensure that the Partner and programme can deliver and sustain
successful outcomes for participating students and maintain the quality and academic
standards of King’s awards.
14.10 Approximately six weeks before the agreed date of the event the potential Partner should
forward to the ARQS Office one electronic and one paper copy of the validation
documentation. The exact format of the submission is a matter for the Partner who may
make use of existing documentation submitted for other purposes e.g., registration with the
Office for Students (OfS), PSRB accreditation.
98
14.11 The Faculty Leads are expected to support the Partner in providing information to the
College for the validation event by sharing with the Partner relevant regulations, policies
and procedures that are in place at the College and by commentating on any drafts ahead of
the final submission of paperwork. The leads should also consult with relevant teams at the
College who can offer advice and guidance to the Partner on specific areas. The information
required from the Partner to be submitted should include the following:
Background information
• Statement about the history and mission of the Partner in delivering education,
including an indication of the positioning of the programme or academic provision
within the local and national context
• Strategic plan
Equality, Diversity & Inclusion

• Equality, diversity & inclusion policy
• example of Equality Impact Assessment
• statement on approach to student access and participation, including equal opportunities
monitoring
Admissions
• Recruitment, selection and admissions regulations, policies and procedures, including
how these will be monitored and reviewed
• entry criteria, including any subject specific requirements
• fees, other costs and financial support
• programme marketing and prospectus arrangements
• statement on recruiting and monitoring international students, including UK Visa and
Immigration compliance (if applicable)
• Access and Participation plan
Programme content and organisation

• aims and objectives of the programme(s)
• outline curriculum structure
• syllabus for each year of the programme(s) broken down by module or unit if appropriate
• contact hours per year broken down by type e.g., lectures, seminars, practical work
• mode of delivery e.g. on-campus, online or hybrid and how this will be supported
• teaching and learning philosophy and methods
• opportunities for embedding employability within the programme
• If applicable, arrangements for placements, internships, or study abroad, to include
briefing, monitoring, and de-briefing
• management arrangements for the programme(s)
• programme and module specifications and associated regulations
Assessment
• rationale for the assessment methodology and how it allows achievement of the
programme’s objectives, including opportunities for recognition of prior learning
• assessment and feedback practices, including how student’s progress will be monitored
and feedback provided
• details of assessment methods both formative and summative
• details of marking schemes and approach to moderation
• terms of reference, constitution and mode of operation of examination boards
99
Information given to students

• statement on how consumer law conditions will be met, including draft information
sheet and offer letters to students
• examples of student handbooks
• student terms and conditions
• example transcript and achievement record
• student prizes
• draft Academic Regulations and associated student policies
• Student Protection Plan
Student welfare
• personal tutor system
• health and welfare facilities and advice available for students
• Co-curricular support and careers advice available for students
• procedures for student complaints, appeals and conduct
• Prevent strategy and policies for safeguarding students
Management and governance arrangements

• details of the Partner’s committee structure together with terms of reference,
constitution and mode of operation of committees concerned with the programme(s)
and/or teaching in general
• statement on intended relationship with students to support them in becoming co-
creators of their education and how this will be embedded into the management and
governance arrangements
• use made of management information e.g., progression, withdrawal and success rates
• details of first destination returns
Staff
• list of academic, technical and administrative staff involved with the programme(s)
• brief CVs of academic staff to include qualifications, current position and teaching
responsibilities, previous teaching and other relevant experience, research, consultancy
and other scholarly activity relevant to the programme(s), with dates
• policy on and details of staff development, training and welfare
Resources
• description of IT, library, teaching facilities and any other learning resources appropriate
to the programme(s), including intentions for staff and student access to these resources
• description of how the provision of learning resources is related to the needs of the
curriculum and provides a suitable learning environment for students
• business continuity plan
• risk register
Quality Assurance
• mapping document against the UK Quality Code for Higher Education
• plan for ensuring that the quality and standards conditions set out by the OfS can be met
• description of the quality assurance mechanisms that will be put in place for the review
and enhancement of the programmes (annually and periodically), including use of
externality in the design, delivery, assessment methods and review of the programme(s)
and arrangements for students to provide feedback
14.12 The format of the Validation event will be conducted by a panel who will visit the Partner
and provide feedback on the feasibility of the arrangement:
100
Panel membership
The composition of the panel will normally be as follows:
(i) Chair of the College Education Committee, who will chair the panel
(ii) Executive Dean of the relevant Faculty
(iii) The relevant Faculty Vice Dean Education or Associate Dean Academic Portfolio or
Chair of Approval and Standards panel
(iv) A representative from another Faculty, normally the Vice Dean Education or
equivalent serving on the relevant Faculty education or academic committee.
(v) Faculty Assessment Board Chair or equivalent
(vi) Faculty academic and administrative leads
(vii) External Peer Reviewer and where appropriate an External Peer Specialist
(viii) Student Representative
(ix) Executive Director, Education & Students
(x) Associate Director Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards
Other Senior Officers of the College may be called on to serve on the panel depending on
the outcome of the approval of the Partner at Stage One or profile of the Partner e.g., Senior
Vice President (Academic), President & Principal
Administrative support for the event will be provided by Academic Regulations, Quality
and Standards in liaison with the relevant Faculty Quality Assurance Manager or
equivalent.
14.13 The responsibilities of the panel are to:

➢ Explore teaching and learning strategies relevant to the discipline and ensure that these
are appropriate for the structure and content of the programme proposed by the Partner
and align to King’s education strategy.
➢ Assess whether the proposed programme is well designed and able to provide a high-
quality student experience to meet King’s expectations for the quality and academic
standards of awards in line with national quality assurance frameworks and sector-
recognised standards.
➢ Confirm that the content of the programme is appropriate to the subject and the
qualification concerned, including compatibility with the relevant benchmark
statements.
➢ Confirm that students will be provided with the learning aims and outcomes for the
programme and that these are achievable and appropriate to the type and level of award.
➢ Confirm that assessment methods are appropriate to meet the objectives for the type and
level of award offered.
➢ Confirm that the appropriate resources are in place to deliver the programme and
provide the necessary support to students, enabling them to demonstrate their
achievement and success with a good graduate outcome that meets the minimum
baseline requirements of the OfS.
➢ Confirm that staffing arrangements are adequate to deliver the programme, including
whether there is a wider infrastructure in place to support staff training and
development.
101
➢ Confirm that appropriate mechanisms are in place to allow students to engage fully in
the quality of their student experience.
➢ Confirm that regulations, policies and procedures comparable to those operated by
King’s are in place to deliver the programme and ensure fair access, equality of learning
and the protection of students.
➢ Confirm that the information provided to students and the public about the programme
is accurate and transparent.
14.14 The panel will have received the validation documentation six weeks in advance of the
event but may request additional information or clarification of issues from the potential
Partner in advance of the event.
14.15 The event will be conducted at the Partner seeking validation. Discussions are expected to
be conducted in the spirit of a critical friend with an emphasis on how the Partner will meet
the academic standards and quality of a King’s award and deliver positive outcomes for
students. The discussions with the Partner also offer the opportunity to share best practice
and support the development of the partnership.
14.16 The timetable will be agreed in advance between the College and the potential Partner and
is likely to follow the model described below, although the length of sessions will vary
depending on the number of programmes to be considered, the experience of the Partner and
any areas for further investigation arising from stages one and two of the process:
30 minutes preliminary meeting of panel

2 hours meeting with programme team(s), including introduction from the
Partner
1 hour lunchtime meeting with students (where applicable)
1 hour tour of facilities
1 hour meeting with student support staff e.g., IT, library, advice, admissions
and registry services, personal tutors
30 minutes meeting with senior managers of the Partner
30 minutes private meeting of panel
30 minutes feedback to Partner on outcome
14.17 Following discussions, the Chair of the panel will report the outcome and any
recommendations and/or commendations to the partner institution. The panel will
recommend one of the following outcomes:
➢ Approval with no conditions attached for an initial period of five years. Proposal directly
proceeds to Stage Three.
➢ Approval subject to confirmation that any conditions or requirements have been met by
the Partner within agreed timescales. The Partner will be required to meet any
conditions prior to the proposal proceeding to Stage Three.
➢ Non approval. The proposal will not proceed any further at this stage and the College
will provide the Partner with the reasons for its decision and suggestions for a way
forward. This does not imply that a re-submission of the proposal would necessarily lead
to validation.
14.18 A written report of the proceedings will be produced, normally within three weeks of the
event. A copy of the draft report will be forwarded to the potential Partner for comments on
issues of factual accuracy.
14.19 The drafting of the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA), also referred to as the validation
102
agreement, setting out the terms of reference, roles, responsibilities and obligations of the
Partner and King’s should be commenced alongside the panel event and will be subject to
approval from the College’s Collaborative Provision Sub-Committee. If there are
disagreements between the College and the Partner institution over any aspects of the MoA
it may be necessary to convene a further meeting between the Partner and the Faculty to
resolve such issues prior to final approval being given by Academic Board. See Appendix 1
for information contained in the MoA.
Stage Three (Final approval)
14.20 The Faculty Education Committee or equivalent will consider the final report and outcome
from the validation event together with the final drafts of the programme and module
specifications, academic regulations and validation agreement and follow up with the
Partner on any outstanding issues reporting on final outcomes to CEC. The Chair of CEC
will be responsible for submitting the final report to Academic Board requesting final
consideration and approval.
14.21 Following final approval by Academic Board, College officers will liaise with the Partner to
sign the validation agreement.
14.22 The Partner will not be permitted to advertise a programme to students as being validated
by the College until Academic Board has given final approval and has received confirmation
that the Partner has successfully registered, or that registration is conditional with
agreement, with the Office for Students (OfS).
14.23 The approval process is completed once the final MoA is in place having been signed by all
relevant Parties and the College’s register of collaborative partners has been updated to
reflect the partnership activity. For King’s the authorised signatory for the MoA will be the
President & Principal or their nominee.
14.24 A flow diagram of the approval process is set out in section 14.25 below.
103
14.25 Flow diagram of the approval process
Partner Executive Dean of Faculty Faculty Executive Dean consults

contacts appoints academic and leads with relevant Senior Vice
relevant administrative leads to complete President and Vice President
Faculty with undertake scoping risk (Education & Student
request for exercise, cost out proposal assessment Success) to consider request
validation and meet with Partner forms
Documents reviewed by Partner completes PPF for Request Request

relevant Faculty validated programmes and approved, Partner declined,
Committees reporting into submits to Faculty leads invited to make Partner
Faculty Executive together with their SED an application to informed,
Committee and Business case the College for no further
validation action
Faculty submits report to Proposal rejected, Partner

Academic Board informed, no further action
Proposal ARQS contacts the Faculty leads:

approved, Partner and Senior • Organise employability workshop
request College staff to • Support Partner with drafting their documentation, and
moves to organise a validation any other support necessary for enabling the Partner to
Stage Two. event. prepare information for the validation event
Academic Validation Written Validation Partner submits

Regulations Agreement report Event held information
submitted to drafted and produced at Partner requested to
ASSC to request considered following site and ARQS six weeks
formal approval and the event outcome prior to the date
from Academic approved by determined. of the validation
Board CPSC event
ASSC CPSC Faculty review report, follow up on

recommends reports to any outstanding issues, and submit
CEC endorse CEC as part of briefing document with
request for final recommendation to CEC
approval
CEC reports on outcome of validation process to Academic Board and recommends Academic Board
approval of the Partner’s request for validations, including final approval of their final approval
Academic Regulations and the signing of the Validation Agreement
Approval process Arrangement entered onto Final Validation Agreement signed

completed the College’s register of following Academic Board approval and
collaborative partners. any conditions met by the Partner.
104
15. Monitoring and review processes
15.1 All validated provision approved by the College is subject to the College’s monitoring and
review processes. These are based on the Quality Assurance Agency UK Quality Code for
Higher Education and associated Advice and Guidance: Monitoring and Evaluation that
notes “monitoring and evaluation of higher education is an essential process within providers,
forming a fundamental part of the academic cycle. It can, and should, look at all aspects of the
higher education experience”. The purpose is to provide a regular health check that is both
helpful and realistic focusing on key quality and standards issues and enhancement through
annual monitoring and periodic review processes. Undertaking these processes enables us to
assess the quality and standards of the provision offered and consider how the teaching and
learning opportunities for students may be continuously improved.
Annual monitoring
15.2 The Partner is responsible for submitting an annual report to the College by the 31st of
January each academic year with the expectation that the annual monitoring meeting will
take place by the end of April unless agreed otherwise between the Partner and the Vice
Dean Education. The submission of the annual monitoring report following the approval to
validate will take place in the second academic year following the first cohort of students
commencing on the validated programme and will continue annually thereafter until the
final year of the validation agreement where a periodic programme review will take place
instead.
15.3 The Partner is free to design their annual report on the operation of the programme(s) for
submission to King’s for the annual monitoring meeting. However, the design should be
approved by the relevant Vice Dean Education to ensure that King’s responsibilities can be
met. The annual report should include, where available, the following information:
• Teaching Quality, the Learning Environment, Student Outcomes and Learning Gain with
action plans.
• Statistical data relating to:
➢ Admissions and widening participation
➢ Student numbers i.e., continuations, withdrawals and interruptions
➢ Student achievement and graduate outcomes
• Details of any amendments being made to academic regulations for use in the following
academic year
• External Examiner reports including summary of their consideration and action taken
or proposed
• Details of support and guidance provided to students including the use made of student
feedback with institutional and programme policies, procedures, and regulations
• Summary of available and proposed resources, including physical environment to
support students achieve success outcomes and support staff development
• Areas of good practice to highlight and plans for continuous improvement
• List of any student complaints or appeals received and their outcome
• Summary of equality, diversity and inclusion considerations, including action plans
• Any other quality assurance matters relating to the delivery of the programme e.g.,
PSRB accreditation.
105
15.4 To evaluate teaching and learning and impact, commentary should focus on what you did,
how you did it and why, whether what you did made any difference and how do you know,
with action plans at both institutional and programme level. From the second occasion of the
annual monitoring process, action plans should include updates on implementations from the
previous academic year.
15.5 Notes should be provided on the statistical data requested e.g. admissions and widening
participation, student progression, achievement and graduate outcome survey results
(including where possible data on graduate salaries), identifying any trends emerging from
the data, particularly around protected characteristics, attainment gaps.
15.6 Commentary should be provided on the following areas:

• How students are actively engaged in their studies and how their comments feed into
and are acted upon within the relevant governance structure of the validated partner;
• What current resources are available to support students on the programme and how
these are reviewed to ensure they are sufficient to meet the needs of the students;
• How staff are supported and enabled to personally develop their skills and knowledge to
deliver a high quality academic experience;
• How the programme and support for students has been continuously enhanced,
including highlighting any areas of good practice that can be shared with King’s;
• What complaints and appeals have been received throughout the year and how these
have been resolved, including any trends from previous years;
• What actions are being taken to embed equality, diversity and inclusion within the
curriculum and promote equality of opportunity;
• Any other areas that any impact on the quality and standards of the programme and
support for students, for example where the programme includes accreditation from a
PSRB who may have commented on quality and standards issues.
15.7 In addition to the annual report form, the external examiner reports should be included as an
appendix and any issues arising highlighted with resulting action plans (if appropriate) as
well as areas of good practice identified.
15.8 Where there have been any changes to policies, procedures or academic regulations or
suspension of regulations this should be included as a separate report. Academic Regulations
will require approval from the College’s Academic Board on an annual basis.
15.9 The minutes of the annual monitoring meeting will be agreed with the Partner and reported
into the College’s Collaborative Provision Sub-Committee for consideration.
Periodic review
15.10 The validation of the Partner and validated provision is for a specific period. In the first
instance the validation period will be between three and five years depending on the
outcome of the validation event. Thereafter, the validated provision will be subject to
renewal for a five-year agreement period in line with the College’s periodic review process.
The validation period is set out in the validation agreement (MoA) and includes the expiry
date of the validation agreement that considers the timeline for the periodic review process,
negotiation of the new agreement and CMA compliance.
15.11 Prior to the expiry of the validation agreement, the Partner and programmes offered are
subject to periodic review. Ideally, this is conducted around the 4th anniversary of the
106
validation date, in the first instance, and a minimum of one year prior to the expiry of the
initial and any subsequent validation agreement to allow plenty of time for the revalidation
of the Partner’s programme(s) ahead of the final cohort of students registering for the
programme and any marketing considerations for future cohorts of students.
15.12 The process is undertaken by the relevant Faculty team following the College’s standard
procedures for review of programmes that is in place at the appropriate time. Where the
Programme is also accredited by a professional body, the review may be undertaken jointly.
15.13 The review process should also focus on the continuing relationship with the Partner and
plans for sustaining the relationship further. This will be done via the completion of a
Review of Activity form and a review of the validation agreement alongside the periodic
programme review.
16. Responsibilities of the College and Partner
16.1 In addition to the monitoring and review processes set out in section 15 above for managing
the arrangements with the Partner for the validated provision, the day-to-day management
of the arrangement around the student lifecycle will operate in a similar way to King’s
internal provision with named contacts and their roles, responsibilities and obligations
detailed in the validation agreement and a typical timeline for the operational arrangements
in monitoring and managing the activity between the Partner and the College is set out in
Appendix 2.
16.2 The Faculty is responsible for the oversight of the Partner’s validated provision with the
Partner being responsible for the day-to-day operations of the validated programme and the
student contract. Students will not have a direct contract with the College and will not be
able to use the College’s student resources and facilities.
16.3 The main responsibilities of the Faculty in ensuring that the validated programme(s) offered
by their Partner are appropriate for an award made by the College are as follows:
• To appoint academic and administrative leads to act as key contacts for the Partner and
liaise with the Head of Collaborative Provision and other relevant central departments
at the College.
• To liaise with the Head of Collaborative Provision and the Partner in issuing the formal
validation agreement setting out in detail the roles, responsibilities and obligations of the
College and Partner, including financial and marketing arrangements.
• To liaise with the Partner and the College’s communications team to announce and
publicise the partnership.
• To provide introductions to the Partner for the Registry Services team to facilitate
uploading data onto the College’s SITS system for the purposes of invoicing and
providing assessment results leading to final award.
• To issue an invoice to the Partner for the validated programme(s).
• To appoint an external examiner(s) for the validated programme(s) reporting into the
relevant Faculty Assessment Board. The arrangements for this should be agreed with the
Partner and put in place at the outset before the programme is delivered by the Partner.
• To attend the Partner’s assessment board meetings and scrutinise external examiner
reports. The external examiner(s) will be paid by the College following the submission
of their report.
• To liaise with the Boards and Awards team to ensure that students of the validated
107
Partner are issued with formal certification of their award, including relevant date of
award.
• To liaise with the Partner and the Boards and Awards team to approve the wording of
the student transcript issued to students where this relates to the final award made by
King’s and on the design of the final degree certificate that will be issued to students.
The College will send the degree certificates to the Partner for distribution to their
students alongside the approved transcript.
• To inform the Partner of any relevant College regulations, policies or procedures that
may impact on them and to provide support, including where appropriate introductions
to College staff, to support the Partner in developing their own regulations, policies and
procedures.
• To consider the Partners Academic Regulations and submit this to Academic Board for
approval via the College’s usual committee governance structure.
• To provide guidance to the Partner on any matters pertaining to student complaints
where the student has a final right of appeal to the College through stage three of our
complaints procedure.
• To liaise with the Head of Collaborative Provision in facilitating the annual monitoring
meeting. The annual monitoring meeting will be serviced by ARQS office.
• To formally review the Partner’s validated programmes through the College’ annual
monitoring and periodic review processes.
16.4 The main responsibilities of the Partner for ensuring that the validated programmes are
delivered at an appropriate level to satisfy the academic standards and quality of a King’s
award are as follows:
• To provide the Head of Collaborative Provision via the relevant Faculty leads with
publicity and promotional material relating to the programme and information to
students, including programme handbooks.
• To agree with the Faculty leads the publicity and promotion of the programme,
including holding discussions on the use of the King’s brand and marketing material, on
an annual basis. Discussions should also focus on terms and conditions issued to
students ahead of each annual student recruitment cycle.
• To establish a framework for managing records relating to the validation to meet any
legal or regulatory requirements and for audit purposes.
• To provide the College’s Student Lifecycle Systems team via the relevant Faculty leads
with details of their students, their status and if applicable, module registrations within
the relevant timeframe i.e. six weeks after each process takes place. This is to ensure that
records can be created for the purposes of invoicing the Partner for the number of
students participating in the validated programme, and that assessment boards can be set
up correctly to receive paperwork in a timely manner to enable the College to award the
final degree to the Partner’s students within the agreed timeframe set out in the
validation agreement. The Partner is also responsible for ensuring that the College is
made aware of any changes to a student’s initial registration status to ensure that the
accuracy of records can be maintained.
• To liaise with the Faculty leads on the design of the student transcript. The design of the
transcript will need to be approved by the College’s Boards and Awards and Brand and
Marketing teams ahead of the first cohort of students completing the programme.
• To issue co-branded transcripts to students following their successful completion of the
programme. Students who have successfully completed the validated programme and
108
been formally awarded by the College will be invited to the College’s Graduation
Ceremony.
• To establish a formal mechanism for dealing with student appeals and complaints and
route through to the College’s complaints procedures ahead of final completion of
procedures and referral to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) and to
maintain records of any students appeals and complaints received.
• To nominate an external examiner(s) for the programme(s) who will be appointed in
accordance with the College procedures taking into consideration the advice of the
Partner and the endorsement of the relevant Faculty Assessment Board.
• To provide induction and support to the external examiner(s) to help them in
performing their duties.
• To establish an Assessment Board with relevant terms of reference and membership in
liaison with the relevant Faculty Assessment Board Chair. The membership must
include the College’s appointed external examiner and Faculty Assessment Board Chair
or nominee. Student results discussed and approved at the meeting should be noted on
the College’s approved template for reporting of results and submitted together with the
minutes of the meeting within one week of the meeting taking place to the College’s
Assessment Boards and Awards team. The template form for results should be requested
from the College’s Student Lifecycle team at least four weeks ahead of the scheduled
meeting as it will need to include the King’s student ID.
• To support the external examiner in submitting their report to the College, including
scrutinising the report, and responding to any requests for further information from the
relevant Faculty Assessment Board Chair.
• To submit a final draft of their Academic Regulations for use in the following academic
year together with an advisory note on changes relating to the current regulators to the
Head of Collaborative Provision by 31st March in any given academic year. These will
be considered by the relevant Chair of the Faculty Assessment Board or equivalent
reporting to Academic Board for final approval via the College’s Academic Standards
Sub-Committee (ASSC) and College Education Committee (CEC). This is to ensure
parity with King’s own academic regulations and that the necessary framework is in
place to ensure the quality and standards of a King’s award.
• To provide an annual monitoring report to the Head of Collaborative Provision on
request.
• To participate and provide necessary information to the Faculty Education Committee
or equivalent as part of the periodic programme review process.
109
Appendix 1
Memorandum of Agreement (MoA)
All collaborative arrangements must be covered by a Memorandum of Agreement, signed by the

relevant authorities. The purposes of the Agreement are to:
(i) establish legally binding terms of reference between the Parties;

(ii) define the means by which the quality and academic standards of the programme will be
maintained for the delivery of the programme and student experience;
(iii) ensure that the nature of the collaborative arrangement is clearly set out, will operate
smoothly, and that channels of authority and accountability are clearly identified.
The specific details will vary according to the nature of the collaboration, but the following gives an
indication of the areas that will becovered.
1. Background to the arrangement.

2. Definitions used within the context of the agreement.
3. Description of validated provision.
4. Period of Programme validation.
5. Regulatory framework under which the validated programmes will operate.
6. Management and governance arrangements;
7. Staffing arrangements;
8. The respective roles, responsibilities and obligations of the College and the Partner in respect
of the oversight and maintenance of the academic standards of awards and quality assurance
for delivering the programme(s), including approval, monitoring and management
mechanisms.
9. Responsibilities for the recruitment and selection of students;
10. Responsibilities for the enrolment and registration of students, maintenance of student
records and provision of information and support, including reporting to external agencies.
11. Responsibilities relating to student discipline, complaints and appeals. As the College is not
permitted to delegate responsibility for the academic standards of its awards, ultimate
responsibility for academic appeals and complaints about academic standards will be
retained by the College.
12. Assessment and examination arrangements to include the appointment and role of external
examiners.
13. Responsibilities for the conferment of awards, including the issue and secure control of
award certificates.
14. Responsibilities for the issue of transcripts.
15. Financial and statistical arrangements.
16. Publicity and promotional material arrangements, including use of King’s branding.
17. Staff arrangements.
18. Operating arrangements, including reporting and communication requirements for the
provision of regular and sufficient information to enable the College to be confident that the
responsibilities of the Partner are being met. Feedback mechanisms between the College
and Partner.
110
19. Responsibilities for Intellectual Property Rights, Data Protection and Freedom of
Information.
20. Duration and termination of the agreement, including provisions for review, and procedures
for enabling either Party to withdraw from or suspend the agreement if the other Party fails
to fulfil its obligations.
21. Consequences of termination of the agreement in respect of obligations to students.
22. Dispute resolution mechanism.
23. Other legal considerations, including those that pertain to the entire agreement;
confidentiality; GDPR; governing law and jurisdiction; exclusion of contracts; third party
rights; indemnity and insurance; assignment; Force Majeure; notices, waivers and variation
to the agreement.
111
Appendix 2
Typical timeline for operational arrangements in monitoring and managing activity
Activity Timeframe Responsible

Changes to partnership arrangements held six times a year Partner and Faculty
including approval of new programmes,
modifications to existing provision
considered by Faculty Education
Committee and where appropriate PDASC
Marketing of programmes Agreed annually prior to marketing Partner and Faculty in liaison
deadlines with Brand and Marketing
Receipt of and maintenance of student Created annually and updated as Partner and Faculty in liaison
records including changes to student status applicable. Data to be received with Student Lifecycle
within six weeks of cohort starting Systems
on programme
Production of course materials and Reviewed annually. To be Partner and Faculty
handbooks including advice from Faculty received within six weeks of cohort
on changes at the College that may impact starting on programme
the Partner
Assessment Boards to consider results, Held in each semester Partner and Faculty
possible student appeals, academic Assessment Board Chair
regulations and external examiner reports
Receipt of assessment and award results Partner and Faculty in liaison
with Boards and Awards
Issuing of student degree certificates Undertaken within 4 weeks Boards and Awards in liaison
following relevant Assessment with Partner
Board
Graduation Ceremonies Held in January and July Faculty in liaison with Partner
and Student Transition and
Outcomes
Review of academic regulations by the Held annually. To be received by Partner and Faculty Board
Faculty Assessment Board Chair 31st March from Partner and Chair
recommending final approval to Academic reviewed by Assessment Board
Board via ASSC and CEC Chair ahead of ASSC meeting in
May
Annual Monitoring meeting Held annually prior to end of April Head of Collaborative
Provision in liaison with
Faculty Vice-Dean Education
and Partner
Programme review and/or review of the Held 12 months prior to the expiry Faculty in liaison with Partner
partnership arrangements of the MoA
112
113
Procedures for postgraduate research degrees approval and monitoring
Section F
Procedures for postgraduate
research degrees approval
and monitoring
115
1. New research degree programmes – approval process
1.1 Proposals to introduce new research degree programmes should be made on the appropriate
form (see below for further information). This process relates only to new programmes for
awards already offered by the College. For programmes that will lead to an award not
currently offered by the College, please contact the Centre for Doctoral Studies in the first
instance, as new awards and award titles require approval by Academic Board.
1.2 All new programme proposals, except collaborative activity, must seek approval via the
following method:
a) Proposers must complete the Proposal for a New Research Programme form and discuss
this at the relevant Faculty Research Committee
b) Once approved in principle the form must be referred to the Centre for Doctoral
Studies for approval via the Postgraduate Research Students Subcommittee (PRSS).
1.3 Where the programme proposal involves blended learning or the structure differs to the
standard 3/4 years, proposers must complete the Proposal for a New Research Programme
form (blended or non-standard) and seek approval via the relevant Faculty Research
Committee and PRSS.
1.4 Programme proposals that involve collaborative activity (e.g. joint PhDs) must seek
approval via the following method:
(a) Check if there is an existing partnership and Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in

place by speaking to the Global Engagement Office (for international partners);
(b) Complete the Proposal for a New Research Programme (joint PhD) form and discuss this at
the relevant Faculty Research Committee;
(c) Once approved in principle the form must be referred to Global Engagement and the
Centre for Doctoral Studies for information;
(d) The Global Engagement Office will liaise with the partner institution to complete the
due diligence process, including the Ethical & Reputational Risk Review (ERRR) and the
Memorandum of Understanding (if necessary). This will be approved via the College
International Committee (CIC);
(e) Proposals that are deemed high risk or involve arrangements that are outside of the norm
will be referred to the Collaborative Provision Subcommittee for additional scrutiny;
(f) Once partner approval is confirmed and the MoU is signed, Global Engagement will
liaise with the partner institution to complete a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA). At the
same time the proposer can begin drafting the Schedule of Activity in liaison with the
partner and with assistance from the Centre for Doctoral Studies.
(g) Once completed, the Proposal for a New Research Programme (joint PhD) form, MoA and
Schedule of Activity must be submitted to the Centre for Doctoral Studies for final
scrutiny before being referred to PRSS for final approval.
1.5 The following information in support of requests for new research degree programmes is
required:
(a) The academic rationale for the introduction of the new programme, including the
scope and scale of the related academic activity in the proposing department(s);
(b) The way in which the new programme complements existing programmes already
offered;
(c) The research environment that will be available to students, in particular whether
they will be part of a critical mass of students and have access to research seminars;
116
(d) The potential recruitment benefits of the new programme;

(e) Anticipated student numbers, including any existing students who may wish to
transfer to study under the new programme title.
1.6 Where a programme includes a taught element, such as a professional doctorate, please refer
to Section B of this Handbook, Procedures for programme and module approval and
modification, for approval of the taught aspects of the programme.
2. PhD by blended learning
2.1 The College will offer PhD programmes by blended learning (distance and e-learning)
where a department/division is able to make a case that there are suitable students who
would benefit from this arrangement. Departments/divisions should direct this case to the
Dean for Doctoral Studies for consideration in the first instance.
2.2 The College needs to ensure that any such programmes meet the standards and deliver the
quality of student experience for which King’s conventional programmes are renowned.
The College therefore needs to ensure that, until experience of the arrangement has built up,
all PhDs programmes to be offered by blended learning are approved individually and are
monitored for the quality of their delivery.
2.3 Once the College has more experience in delivering such programmes and a track record of
successful delivery, programme approval can become light touch.
2.4 The following basic principles will apply in respect of PhD by blended learning:
(a) Non-residential students will be registered full time for the normal period of
candidacy and will pay full fees;
(b) Students should be interviewed carefully to ensure that they are personally suited to
independent study that will involve some isolation. Only students thought to be
capable of handling such potential isolation and thought to be highly self-motivated
should be considered for non-residential study;
(c) Every potential non-residential student should undertake a learning needs analysis
before enrolment to ensure that they already possess, or can show that they have the
opportunities to acquire, the generic and transferable skills necessary to complete
their PhD successfully and progress in their career. Where students do not possess
these skills and cannot acquire them through presence on courses or through e-
learning they should not be admitted;
(d) Each programme should have an intensive period of induction requiring attendance
at the College; typically this will be of one month’s duration;
(e) It is vital that supervisors keep in regular contact with non-residential students,
preferably at least once per fortnight. This will ensure that signs that a student is
becoming demotivated or isolated can be picked up at the earliest opportunity.
Supervisors should log the date of each interaction and keep a written record of
discussions.
2.5 Each department/division wishing to offer distance PhDs should complete the Proposal for a
New Research Programme (blended or non-standard) form available via the Centre for
Doctoral Studies, which specifies how the risk factors inherent in delivery by blended
learning have been mitigated. This must be approved by the faculty.
2.6 The form will then be considered by the Postgraduate Research Students Subcommittee
which will recommend its approval or modification.
117
2.7 The Postgraduate Research Students Subcommittee will review evidence annually to ensure
the programme is meeting the College’s standards and delivering an appropriate student
experience. That subcommittee will request certain information (e.g. on student progress)
that the programme co-ordinator will need to supply in advance.
2.8 Once the programme has run successfully for four years and has delivered submission and
completion rates that are in line with conventional PhD programmes in that discipline then
separate annual monitoring will cease.
3. Monitoring of postgraduate research degrees
3.1 An annual report from each faculty in respect of research degrees is submitted to the
Postgraduate Research Students Subcommittee.
3.2 For joint award research degrees a separate annual report from the Joint Academic
Committee (JAC) is required to be submitted to the Centre for Doctoral Studies for
consideration by the Postgraduate Research Students Subcommittee.
118
119
Section G
Core code of practice for PGT
research governance and the
dissertation framework
120
121
Core Code of Practice for PGT research governance and the dissertation framework
1. Introduction
1.1 This Core Code sets out the policy of King’s College London on good practice in all matters
concerning postgraduate taught dissertations. A copy of the Core Code will be made
available to all postgraduate students and supervisors on an annual basis. It will be reviewed
annually by the College Education Committee.
1.2 The Core Code should be read in conjunction with the guidelines set out in the appropriate
Faculty (Institute/School) and Departmental57 or student handbook58, the relevant
‘Academic regulations59, T Regulations concerning students and General regulations’ of King’s
College London, procedures for quality assurance of taught programmes published under
the authority of the Academic Board of the College and programme specifications.
1.3 The term ‘research’ in the Core Code has been interpreted in its broadest sense and may
encompass a range of data-collection methods. The different types of dissertation adopted
by the College and covered in this Code can be found in Appendix 1.
1.4 Supervision of postgraduate taught students is influenced by many factors including the
individuals involved, the type of work, the discipline, the size of the department and the
environment in which students and supervisors work. Some variation across an institution
as large and complex as the College is therefore inevitable. Faculty (Institute/School)
practice may therefore strengthen and build upon the Core Code, which should be seen as
laying down the minimum standards expected.
2. Purpose of the Core Code
2.1 The purpose of this Core Code is to provide a framework for the effective management and
implementation of good practice in all matters relating to postgraduate taught research
activities at King’s College London.
2.2 It aims to ensure that all students are effectively supported and supervised so that:
• A research dissertation/project appropriate to study at level 7 study is made

available/agreed with the student
• The potential of the student as a researcher may be developed.
• The dissertation/project60 is submitted within the timeframe laid down by the

programme
2.3 It should be noted that it is the student’s responsibility to ensure that their work is submitted
on time and of a satisfactory standard to achieve at least a pass.
2.4 The roles and responsibilities of those involved in postgraduate taught research activities
are provided in Appendix 3.
57 The word “department” is used throughout the Core Code to refer to departments, divisions, research group
or other units within a Faculty/School/Institute that are responsible for postgraduate taught students
58
Some faculties may have module dissertation handbooks
59 https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/academicregulations/kings-academic-manual
60 The word dissertation and project are used interchangeably throughout this document
12
2.5 The Core Code sets out the minimum threshold expectations; Faculties (Institutes/School)
may seek approval from the Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards (ARQS) office
to supplement and build upon the Core Code.
3. The format of a master’s research dissertation
3.1 The research project is a core requirement for a taught Master’s degree 61 at King’s and is
the key element distinguishing the Master’s degree from a professional certificate or
postgraduate diploma programme.
3.2 The structure of a taught master’s programme in the College varies and may differ from the
traditional format that it is taken over 1 calendar year Full Time or 2 years Part Time62.
3.3 This normally comprises a workload over 45-46 weeks plus holidays, to average 40 hours
per week. This equates to a total of 180 credits at ‘M’ level, of which the taught master’s
research dissertation forms a significant component, usually 60 credits (as described in
Appendix 1).
3.4 Details of the structure and format of the taught Master’s research project should be
documented in a student/dissertation handbook.
3.5 Word count limits would normally include footnotes and endnotes. It does not include
bibliography, references, or appendices unless otherwise specified in student handbooks.
4. Supervision
4.1 Normally each student pursuing a dissertation will be allocated a research supervisor. Some
programmes utilise a research practice project model; students on these programmes will
have their work on this project overseen by a module convenor63 rather than a supervisor
(further details can be found in Appendix 3).
4.2 Supervisors and module convenors should consult the College Core Code (and where
appropriate their Faculty (Institute/School) for guidance on policy, regulation and good
practice relating to the supervision of students.
4.3 Supervisors and module convenors should hold regular64 supervision meetings with their
students, on an individual or a collective basis dependent upon the dissertation model
(Appendix 1), and where deemed necessary should keep a record of those meetings.
Supervisors may require students to provide this formal record.
4.4 For programmes delivered online similar arrangements will need to be made electronically.
4.5 When a student’s supervisor is unable to perform their required supervisory duties for more
than one month, s/he should inform the student and appropriate authority within the
Faculty (Institute/School) and make appropriate arrangements for cover. The Head of
Department/Division should ensure that appropriate cover is provided.
61 MRes degrees have different requirements as shown in Appendix 1

62 Professional programmes such as those in the Dental Institute, Physiotherapy and Medical Engineering may run over
2-4 years in accordance with professional body requirements. 1+3 programmes such as the MPhil Stud in Philosophy
63 This may occur in the Dickson Poon School of Law
64 Happening over a period of time to establish a pattern, though not necessarily a strict one
12
4.6 Heads of Department or a delegated named representative are responsible for making
appropriate arrangements in the case of students changing or wishing to change, their
supervisor, where it is deemed necessary.
4.7 Heads of Department or a delegated named representative are responsible for ensuring that
students are aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Health and Safety at Work Act,
occupational health clearance, CRB checks and visa requirements where appropriate.
4.8 Students are responsible for the submission of their dissertation and are permitted to submit
their work in the absence of approval from the supervisor. Programmes that require
dissertations to be ‘signed-off’ by the supervisor must provide details of this process in the
module handbook.
4.9 It is the student’s responsibility to make sure the research dissertation is submitted on time
(Appendix 3)
5. Ethical approval and statutory requirements
5.1 Supervisors and module convenors should notify students of their obligation to obtain
ethical approval. Ethical approval is required for all research that involves human
participants. This is sometimes applicable to the use of data derived from humans. Studies,
requiring ethical review, must not begin without full approval. Students should be aware
that this is a mandatory requirement of the College and that conducting research without
such approval constitutes misconduct.
5.2 Students may sometimes require ethical approval for the re-use of secondary data. This is
appropriate if the data is sensitive or identifies individuals. Some research work can be
socially or environmentally sensitive. This may also require approval. The College
webpages provide more information about further analysis of pre-existing data.
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/research/research-environment/rgei/research-ethics
5.3 Some research studies are subject to external ethical review. This is due to legal or other
governance requirements. Such studies do not usually require approval from the College.
For example, the NHS has its own research ethics committees (NHS RECs). In such cases
supervisors have responsibility for ensuring that students have ethical approval and that
other statutory requirements such as for GM work and animal work are in place.
5.4 Research which does not fall under the remit of the NHS should be submitted to one of the
review bodies accountable to the College Research Ethics Committee (where the project
involves human participation in some form, or in certain cases use of data derived from
humans).
https://internal.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/governance-ethics-integrity/research-
ethics/committees/index
This page will direct you to the correct review procedure for your Faculty (Institute/School).
6. Extensions
6.1 Overview
6.1.1 An extension is when a student’s submission is extended beyond the original deadline as
set out by the academic regulations. The following provides details of the requirements and
12
circumstances for seeking extensions of postgraduate taught research dissertation

submission deadlines and advice when considering such requests.
6.1.2 Any request for an extension to a dissertation submission deadline must be made as soon as
the student is aware that they will be unable to meet the original published deadline due to
acceptable circumstances.
6.2 Applications for extension requests for submission deadlines must be approved at
Programme/Departmental level. In order for an extension to a dissertation submission
deadline to be approved, a Mitigating Circumstances Form65 must be submitted. Details
for applying for an extension can be found at: https://self-service.kcl.ac.uk/article/KA-
01744/en-us.
If at all possible, the student should continue to work towards the original published
deadline until the outcome of the extension request is known.
6.3 It is expected that the Programme/Department will reach a decision on the student’s
request as soon as is reasonably possible.
6.4 Supervisors and/or the programme team should encourage students to discuss difficulties in
meeting the deadline at the earliest opportunity. It is important that students on distance-
learning programmes are aware of the regulations governing extensions and have easy
access to the appropriate forms.
6.5 A request close to the original published deadline may not be considered until after the
deadline has passed. In that situation the student should submit their work as soon as is
reasonably possible after the deadline, even if they have not been notified of the outcome
of their extension request.
The student should be aware that in such instances, if their reasons for requesting an
extension are deemed unacceptable, their work will receive a mark dependent on the time
that has passed since the original submission date.
6.6 Absences for relevant training or time spent in industry should not lead to an extension or
change to the submission date.
6.7 Illness
6.7.1 If a student experiences ongoing medical/health problems throughout their studies but
decides they do not wish to interrupt their studies, information must be kept on record in
case an extension to their dissertation submission deadline is required nearer the time.
6.7.2 Short periods of absence through illness during the research period should be brought to
the attention of the supervisor by the student and recorded by the programme
team/supervisor and/or brought directly to the attention of the Chair of the Assessment
Sub-board as this may eventually have an impact on a student’s dissertation submission
deadline, and without a record of such periods it will be difficult to grant an extension.
6.7.3 In all cases of medical/health problems medical certificates/doctors notes/counsellors’

reports must be provided by the student, noted by the research supervisor/programme team
65
An Mitigating Circumstances Form can be found at:
https://self-service.kcl.ac.uk/article/KA-01744/en-us
12
and kept on the student file for future reference if and when required by the Chair of the
Assessment Sub-board. Without supporting documentation, an extension may not be
granted.
6.7.4 Students learning by distance should be permitted to provide original medical

documents/certificates and other supporting evidence electronically
6.7.5 If an accident/unexplained illness that affects a student during or in the lead up to the
submission of the dissertation the student must submit a mitigating circumstances form 66.
The form can be submitted no later than 7 calendar days after the date of a missed deadline.
6.7.6 In cases of illness or injury that involve absences of more than two weeks, the student should
inform the supervisor and/or programme team/ department and medical certificates should
be requested. Where a student is or is expected to be absent for more than two months,
whether consequently or cumulatively then the appropriate administrative unit should be
informed, and arrangements put in place to interrupt the programme of study where
appropriate.
6.8 Other
6.8.1 For maternity leave, up to nine month’s interruption can be approved automatically and
the date of research dissertation submission extended. Students can also apply for up to
three further months, and again the date of submission would be extended. For paternity
leave, students can take up to 10 days automatically (which will not affect the date of
submission); students may also take up to 13 weeks within 12 months of birth or whatever
is permitted by government legislation. If the additional time is taken, the date of submission
will be extended by the appropriate period.
6.8.2 Where a student has experienced difficulties with their supervisor it is the responsibility of
the Head of Department/Division or designated representative to deal with/rectify this as
quickly as possible. Therefore, such circumstances, unless in extreme cases, should not be
the sole grounds for seeking an extension.
7. Marking and formative feedback to students

7.1 All dissertations are to be double marked according to the College’s Marking Framework.
External examiners shall have sight of both markers feedback and marks, along with a
note of how the final mark has been agreed.
7.2 The marking can be independent of the supervisor or supervisor-led but there should be a
standardized department approach to the marking.
7.3 All students should be provided with one opportunity for receiving formative feedback
prior to the final submission of the dissertation. This formative feedback can either be
feedback of one chapter or feedback of numerous chapters. The Department should
agree what approach to be taken.
66 Mitigating Circumstances form can be found at:

https://self-service.kcl.ac.uk/article/KA-01744/en-us
12
8. Student Feedback
8.1 All Programmes are expected to have procedures in place to collect feedback from students
regarding the dissertation experience and support infrastructure as a whole even if
comprised of more than one module.
8.2 The College participates in the national Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES)
which gives postgraduate taught students the particular opportunity to feedback their
dissertation experience67.
8.3 It is acknowledged that some students may not have started on their dissertations by the
time PTES closes and that its value as a conduit for feedback in these cases may be limited.
8.4 However, where possible it is expected within this code of practice that note is made and
action taken if necessary, by programme/department/ Faculty (Institutes/School) in
response to feedback from students about their research experience.
9. Complaints and appeals
9.1 Students should refer to the Student complaints procedures if they are dissatisfied with any
aspect of their studies.
9.2 Students whose registration is terminated for failure to make sufficient academic progress
may appeal under the Academic Progress Regulations68.
67https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/reports-publications-and-resources/postgraduate-taught-experience-
survey-ptes
68 https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/progression-award-for-ug-pgt
12
Appendix 1: College Postgraduate Taught Dissertation Framework
Rationale
It is a College commitment that as a research-intensive university the development of an
understanding of research methodology, design and practice should lie at the core of all masters’
programmes. In order to instigate greater clarity whilst ensuring probity and rigour across the
College and in order to ensure that the research process is embedded within programmes in a fair
and transparent manner the following types of dissertation should be adopted. Programmes will
select the most appropriate type for their programmes with the overall aim of enabling students to
demonstrate specialised understanding and independent critical evaluation.
In accordance with the QAA Masters Characteristics all Masters programmes must include an
element of research as a core component of the programme as described by the following models69.
Programmes included in the framework

Master of Science (MSc); Master of Arts (MA); Master Public Health (MPH); Master Teaching
and Learning (MTL); Master of Laws (LLM); Master Business Administration (MBA); Master
Clinical Dentistry (MClinDent), Master of Nursing (MNurs) and Master Music (MMus)
Programmes must provide students with details of the specific dissertation(s) models that they
intend to apply.
Word count limits would normally include footnotes and endnotes. It does not include bibliography,
references, or appendices unless otherwise specified in student handbooks.
Model 1 - Original/empirical research dissertation

This model applies to those research projects undertaken in a laboratory as well as in clinical settings
or elsewhere in the field and involves the collection and analysis of original data. This model also
applies to the theoretical analysis of a mathematical problem involving original mathematical
investigations, computer experiments such as particle phenomenology and or atomistic simulation.
Ethical approval may be required for certain topics.
Credit value: 60. Max word limit: normally 15, 000
Model 2 - Retrospective/secondary data research dissertation

This model applies to those research projects that make use of publically available electronic datasets
or an existing dataset from previously undertaken local research. This model may also include the
collection and analysis of retrospective clinical material or the theoretical analysis of a mathematical
problem following the collection and analysis of data applied to existing mathematical models that
are relevant for the problem itself. Ethical approval may be required for certain topics.
69As agreed by College Education Committee May 2017, a programme that has taught elements made up of 5 and 10
credits must have a 30 credit research methods module and 60 credit dissertation
12
Model 3 - Practice/performance evaluation research dissertation

This model applies to the analysis of practice and includes clinical audit and policy analysis as well
as the critical appraisal of service development or healthcare provision. This model can also apply to
the evaluation of the performance of laboratory equipment or comparison of difference analytical
techniques.
Model 4 - Composition-based research dissertation

This model is only applicable in fields such as music and digital humanities and the main outcome of
the research is presented in a practical format. For music, this may take the form of a composition
and/or performance material. For digital humanities, the project may be comprised of 'software’
(normally conceived as a prototype or model) that expresses a significant part of the intellectual
work, (e.g. a database design that models a real-world phenomenon that is being investigated).
In either case the candidate should submit in addition a textual component that establishes the
research questions that govern the submission as a whole.
Credit value: 60. Max word limit: normally 7, 500 (textual element)
Model 5 - Information/library-based research dissertation

This model applies to those research projects that are library-based and will involve the systematic
review and/or meta-analysis of a specific topic. This model may also include the analysis of legal
and/or philosophical sources demonstrating advanced skills in legal and/or philosophical analysis or
a systematic review using information technology of the state of the art in theoretical physics or
mathematics. A candidate may be required to include text that describes the method used for the
evaluation and/or analysis of the knowledge base.
Credit value: 60 Max word limit: normally 15, 000
Model 6 - Artefact construction and analysis dissertation

This model applies to fields such as Informatics, where an artefact is constructed with a view to
answering a particular research question. The artefact can take a variety of forms, such as one or
more algorithms; a formal mathematical model; representation formalisms to encode data,
information or knowledge; software applications; a robot with control software; a design or; a
theoretical model of framework; etc. A candidate may be required to provide a demonstration of the
artefact and material related to the artefact, such as source code, installation instructions, and user
evaluations.

(Excluding installation instructions and user evaluations)
Model 7 – Professional/practice dissertation
This model applies to those research projects, which aim at furthering the professional development
of students by offering a practice project. This model will enable the application of research to
professional situations and would require the candidate to use a range of techniques and research
methods applicable to professional activities. The practice-based research project can take different
forms, such as the submission of a framework for documentation for clients/service users, or the
critical evaluation of a practice-oriented case study.
Credit value: 40 or 45 Max word limit: normally 12,000

Credit value: 60 Max word limit: normally 15 000
12
Model 8 - Portfolio research dissertation of applied research learning and skills (King’s Online)
This model applies to the development and demonstration of knowledge and skills in research
design, analysis and reporting, and primarily targeting those undertaking a King’s Online Managed
Programme. This model will include modules to provide a set of core research- related knowledge
and skills, that combine into a portfolio of applied learning. The portfolio-based research project
may include the development of an application for human research ethics approval; critical appraisal
of empirical literature; the development of a research methodology to examine research objectives
and hypotheses; and the analysis of qualitative or quantitative data to meet research objectives or
test a null hypothesis. Students may also be able to continue a single research topic across the four
modules to build a portfolio.
Credit value: 6070 Max word limit: normally 15,000
Model 9 – Blended learning dissertation
This model applies to the development and demonstration of discipline specific knowledge and skills
in research design, analysis and reporting. A candidate may take up to two online modules that
describes research methodology and analytical tools used for the evaluation and/or analysis of the
knowledge base. The candidate will study using a mixture of online and campus-based modules
linked to critical research methodology and practice.
Credit value: 6071 Max Word Limit: normally 15,000
Model 10 - Online Professional or Practice Masters Degrees
This model applies to professional/practice oriented online programmes which integrate core
research skills within taught modules. This is done in order to foster the ability to apply research to
professional situations, both practical and theoretical, as well as the ability to use a range of
techniques and research methods applicable to professional activities. A richer suite of taught
modules will be developed, resulting in demonstrated knowledge and skills that will be assessed and
evidenced in both formative and summative assessments. A separate research methods online
resource will normally be developed as a non-credit bearing element of the programme to support
students.
Credit value: Integrated in a minimum of four taught modules
Max Word Limit: N/A (no specific piece of written work)
70 comprising 4 by 15 credit modules of learning

71 of which 2 x 15 credit modules are distance learning
13
Master of Research (MRes)
Background
It is a College commitment that as a research-intensive university the development of an
understanding of research methodology, design and practice should lie at the core of all masters’
programmes. In order to instigate greater clarity whilst ensuring probity and rigour across the
College the following models are adopted and programmes must provide students with details of
the specific model(s) that they intend to apply.
In accordance with the QAA Masters Characteristics all Masters programmes must include an
element of research as a core component of the programme as described by the following models.
Word count limits would normally include footnotes and endnotes. It does not include
bibliography, references, or appendices unless otherwise specified in student handbooks.
MRes Model 1 - Original/Empirical Research Dissertation
This model applies to those research projects undertaken in a laboratory as well as in clinical
settings or elsewhere in the field and involves the collection and analysis of original data. This
model may also apply to the theoretical analysis of a mathematical problem involving original
mathematical investigations. Ethical approval may be required for certain topics

MRes Model 2 - Information/Library-based Research Dissertation
This model applies to those research projects that are library-based and will involve the systematic
review and/or meta-analysis of a specific topic. This model may also include the analysis of case
law demonstrating advanced legal skills or a review of the state of the art in theoretical physics or
mathematics. A candidate may be required to include text that describes the method used for the
evaluation and/or analysis of the knowledge base.

MRes Model 3 - Retrospective/Secondary Data Research Dissertation
This model applies to those research projects that make use of publically available electronic
datasets or an existing dataset from previously undertaken local research. This model may also
include the collection and analysis of retrospective clinical material or the theoretical analysis of a
mathematical problem following the collection and analysis of data applied to existing
mathematical models that are relevant for the problem itself. Ethical approval may be required for
certain topics.

13
MRes Model 4 - Laboratory Rotation Dissertation
This model applies to multiple research projects undertaken in different laboratories to acquire
contemporary practical and theoretical knowledge and skills in distinct areas of relevance to the
field of study, which cumulatively contribute the required proportion of credits to the whole
programme. Projects may involve the collection and analysis of original data or review of a specific
topic. Ethical approval may be required for certain topics.

It is expected that student complete 2 or 3 such projects

It is expected that students complete 2 such projects
MRes Model 5 - MRes embedded within a MRes-PhD programme
This model applies to multiple research projects undertaken in different laboratories to acquire
contemporary practical and theoretical knowledge and skills in distinct areas of relevance to the
field of study, which cumulatively contribute the required proportion of credits to the whole
programme. Projects will involve the collection and/or analysis of original data. Ethical approval
may be required for certain topics.

It is expected that students complete 3 such projects
13
Appendix 2: What might be included in programme/module handbooks?
Section 1: A guide for Post Graduate Taught Programmes Research Supervision
1. Selection of project
The research project is a core requirement for a Master’s degree at King’s and is the key element
distinguishing the Master’s degree from a professional certificate or postgraduate diploma
programme.
The process for selection of a research project should be outlined in the handbook and in all cases it
is strongly recommended that supervisors ask students to attempt to develop a project outline, once
the topic of study has been agreed, so that both parties are clear about what is being undertaken
from the outset.
2. Approval of research topic
If there is an internal process of project suitability the student should be made aware of this and the
consequences should a project be deemed unsuitable.
3. Research Integrity
It should be noted that it is a mandatory requirement of the College that ‘all research involving
human participants undertaken by staff and students of all levels must be ethically approved by an
appropriate body’.
Further details on the circumstances where ethical approval is required and the application process
for ethical approval at King’s can be found on the Research Ethics Office website (see Appendix
4).
All students who wish to undertake studies that will require ethical approval should be encouraged
to try and make their research ethics applications as early as possible to allow time to obtain ethical
approval. It should be noted that research must not commence in any form until full ethical
approval has been granted, so supervisors must ensure that ethical approval is sought early on in the
process of preparing for their research.
The supervisor is responsible for ensuring that ethical approval has been sought
4. The research process – what is expected of students
The research project provides the opportunity for a student to demonstrate specialised
understanding of a particular literature, engagement with associated scholarly debates and the
exercise of independent critical judgment.
The process of learning about research will also build other skills, notably extensive personal
qualities of self-motivation, independence and creativity. The student should be made aware of the
requirements of the module and be provided with written or electronic information to this end.
Students should also be given contact details for their supervisor, some indication of their role and
the time commitment given to the supervision process.
13
5. Assessment criteria and marking policy
The criteria for the assessment of the research dissertation should be made available and clearly
explained to the student at the onset of the module.
A copy of the marking policy should be clearly documented in the handbook
6. Feedback
There are many ways in which a supervisor can give feedback to a student during the research
process. This may happen naturally through general discourse in a tutorial or a group meeting.
Feedback can also take place more formally through the provision of formative feedback on draft
chapters. It is important that a student is aware of the different ways in which feedback will be given
and that some consistency is apparent across the programme /department/School.
13
Appendix 3: Roles and responsibilities

The following aims to provide an outline of the key roles and responsibilities for all those involved
with postgraduate taught research projects. It should be noted that these are not exhaustive and must
be read in conjunction with the main body of the College Core Code of Practice for PGT research
governance and dissertations framework (Core Code).
These may be added to from time to time and the most up-to-date version will be made available at:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/pgt-core-code-of-practice
Section A
Responsibilities of the Faculty (Institute/School) PGT Committee
To familiarise themselves with the Core Code of Practice and other College documentation,
including the Academic regulations, T Regulations concerning PGT students
To ensure Faculty (Institute/School) postgraduate taught handbooks pertinent to the dissertation

are reviewed annually and kept up to date.
To devise mechanisms to enable open and constructive feedback to be provided by both students
and supervisors on the dissertation experience and support infrastructure
To advise students and supervisors of their responsibilities in relation to the Health and Safety at
Work Act, ethical approval procedures, intellectual property rights, plagiarism regulations and
occupation health clearance where appropriate.
Responsibilities of the Department and the Programme Team
To ensure that research topics appropriate for master’s level study have been agreed for each
student and that an appropriate supervisor is appointed, where appropriate, within the time
specified.
In the case of breakdown of relations between a supervisor and the student and in other
circumstances where a change of supervisor is desirable, to give advice in strict confidence, to
assist in resolving any difficulties and, where necessary, to arrange the appointment of a
replacement supervisor.
Where a supervisor leaves the College’s employment, ensure suitable arrangements are in place so
that the student receives appropriate support and supervision.
In cases of absence or the departure of the supervisor, ensure that adequate arrangements are made
for the student’s continuing supervision.
Heads of Department/Programme Leader/Convenors should also be aware of the reporting

responsibilities the College has in respect of overseas students on Tier 4 student visas. Guidance is
provided at: https://self-service.kcl.ac.uk/category/?id=CAT-01006.
13
Section B
Responsibilities of the Head of Department/Division/Programme Team
To exercise overall responsibility for the welfare and academic progress of the postgraduate taught
students in the Department/Division.
To exercise responsibility for safety and provide appropriate training and information through the
nominated safety officer (if appropriate).
To ensure that the requirements set out in the Core Code of Practice are followed and in particular to
ensure that the procedures for effective supervision are adhered to.
To delegate, where appropriate, responsibility for the organisation of postgraduate taught research
dissertation/projects study in the Department/Division to a nominated person and/or
Department/Divisional committee.
To familiarise themselves with College documentation pertinent to PGT students including the
Academic regulations, T Regulations concerning students, General regulations, and Faculty
(Institutes/School) postgraduate taught handbooks.
To deal with issues which arise when students have problems and help to solve these problems.
This may include requesting suspensions of regulations, authorising extension of submission
deadlines, interruption of studies, changing supervisors or withdrawing the student’s registration
To deal with the first stage of complaints raised by students or supervisors, working with the
Faculty (Institute/School) PGT lead if necessary, who will pass unresolved complaints to the
office of the Director of Students and Education.
13
Section C
Responsibilities of the Faculty, School, Institute PGT Lead
These PGT leads have delegated responsibility from the Executive Dean of the Faculty
(Institute/School) to represent and further the interests of postgraduate taught students within
their Faculty (Institute/School) and oversee matters relating to educational experience.
Quality assurance and enhancement
These leads advise the Faculty (Institute/School) Education Committee on enhancements to the
Core Code, who in turn report to College Education Committee
These leads will ensure that supervisors, module convenors and Heads of Department/Division in
the Faculty (Institute/School) are made aware of the policies of the Faculty (Institute/School) and
College, as represented by the College Regulations, Core Code of practice and specific
Faculty/School/Institute provision/handbooks.
These leads will ensure that Heads of Department/Division and individual supervisors conform to
College and Faculty (Institute/School) requirements and recommendations.
These leads will help to disseminate good practice identified with regard to PGT research within
and outside the College.
Problem solving and complaints
Normally issues which arise when students have problems will be dealt with at programme and/or
departmental level. The PGT lead will be expected to help when issues are unsolved. This may
include requesting suspensions of regulations, authorising extension of submission deadlines,
interruption of studies, changing supervisors or withdrawing the student’s registration.
Faculty (Institute/School) PGT leads or a delegated named representative deal with unresolved
first stage of complaints raised by students, passing unsettled complaints to the office of the
Director of Students and Education.
13
Section D
Responsibilities of the supervisor/module convenors
Each student will be allocated a research supervisor at an appropriate point in the programme.
Module convenors will assume this role for Programmes that operate a practice-based research
project model in place of a dissertation.
A suitable dissertation topic will be agreed. There are several mechanisms in place to achieve this
goal in Faculties (Institutes/School). Some programmes produce lists and award projects on a first-
come, first-served basis, others allocate the supervisor first and then the student and supervisor
arrive at the dissertation project. The process should be made clear to the student in the
programme handbook and particularly for online for distance-learners.
Supervisors / module convenors are required to assess the feasibility of the project (if necessary) to
ensure that it can be completed within the prescribed time frame.
It is the supervisor’s / module convenors responsibility to make available advice on a project which
can be completed successfully and on time.
Supervisors / module convenors should notify students of their obligation to obtain ethical
approval.
Supervisors / module convenors should also confirm that all equipment, facilities and technical
support, where appropriate, needed for the timely completion of the dissertation will be in place
when the student needs them.
Early guidance on project
At the start of a student’s research dissertation, supervisors / module convenors should where
appropriate give guidance about the nature and planning of the project and the standard expected,
about literature and sources, about requisite techniques (and access to training where appropriate)
and about the legal, ethical and professional norms of research (including requirements for formal
approach such as ethical review of research with human participants).
Contact with students
Supervisors should be available for students throughout the dissertation period or nominate an
academic colleague who is responsible and contactable when absent.
Ideally contact should be maintained by the supervisor (or academic nominee) through regular,
individual, or group meetings to be scheduled after discussion with the student(s) concerned.
Details of contact information should be shared where possible at the start of the dissertation
process. This is particularly important if the student or the supervisor is based off-site.
Where physical presence at the College is not necessarily appropriate, contact may be maintained
via telephone, email contact, Skype or other appropriate medium.
Supervisors have the right to require a student’s presence on campus (in London) in line with
programme regulations
13
Supervisors need to ensure that regular contact is maintained with students who are undertaking a
period of “off-campus” study and that a named individual is in place “off- campus” for support as
needed.
Distance Learners and students “off-campus” and conducting research in another organisation
(overseas, in industrial settings or in clinical settings etc.) should know who to contact in an
emergency
Supervisors should be contactable during the summer months and should notify students of
intended holiday periods when contact would not be possible.
Supervisors are reminded to take particular care with regard to overseas students who, in the early
stages, may need very frequent contact and advice.
Supervisors should provide guidance as to where to get help with language problems and advice
about language training where necessary.
King’s Foundation can provide additional support for students with academic writing as well as
language skills. Details can be found at: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/international-foundation
13
Section E
Responsibilities of the student
Understanding of regulations
Students are required to familiarise themselves with the Core Code and other College
documentation including the Regulations for taught programmes, T Regulations concerning students
and General regulations and any Faculty (Institutes/School) postgraduate handbooks.
Students should be aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Health and Safety at Work Act,
ethical approval procedures, intellectual property rights, plagiarism regulations and occupation
health clearance where appropriate.
Contact with supervisor
Students should discuss with their supervisors the type of guidance required and must maintain
regular contact with their supervisor throughout the dissertation.
Normally contact should be maintained through regular meetings to be scheduled after discussion
with the supervisor. However, where physical presence at the College is not necessary or
appropriate, contact may be maintained via telephone, email, Skype or other appropriate medium.
Students should notify their supervisors of intended holiday periods when contact would not be
possible.
A timetable of meetings should may be arranged at the start of the dissertation period.
Students may be asked to keep a record of when supervisory meetings take place and the agreed
action points for the student and supervisor that arose from the meeting.
Students must ensure that contact is maintained with their supervisor. This is particularly
important for distance-learners and during any periods of “off-campus” study.
It is the responsibility of the student to keep the supervisor informed of any changes in personal or
other circumstances that might affect the progress of work.
Students should take the initiative in raising problems which have arisen in the work.
Change of circumstances
Students are required to inform supervisors and the Programme Team/ Department/Division, as
well as the appropriate administrative unit of any change of address, email and other contact
details.
Any changes to circumstance that may affect a student’s progress must also be reported as early as
possible.
14
Appendix 4: Research Ethics

All research carried out within the College should be conducted with integrity and in line with
generally accepted ethical principles. This applies to research conducted by all staff and students. It
is a mandatory requirement of the College that all research involving human participants, and in
some cases their data or tissue, is subject to an appropriate ethical review. This is to protect the
participants and the researchers. For further advice on good research conduct and research
integrity visit: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/research/research-environment/rgei/research-ethics.
Additionally, there is a widening body of professional, regulatory and legal requirements which
touch upon the ethical conduct of research with human participants. The ethics application process
is designed to assist staff and students in identifying what these issues might be and how best they
might be addressed.
College Review
All research which involves human participants, and in some cases their data or tissue, but does not
fall under the remit of the HRA should be submitted via one of the approval processes accountable
to the College Research Ethics Committee. For further information on the procedure that you
should follow please visit
https://internal.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/governance-ethics-integrity/research-ethics/applications/index
HRA Review
If the research falls under the review requirements of the HRA then ethical review will be required
from one of the Research Ethics Committees that falls within it, namely NHS REC, Ministry of
Defence REC (MoDREC) or Social Care REC. To find out more about the HRA and its
associated RECs visit https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/committees-and-services/harp/
If you apply to any of the above mentioned RECs you do not need to apply for College approval as
well although you may be asked to provide evidence of your ethical approval.
Review by other Institutions
All research which is sponsored and led by the College will be expected to have been subjected to
one of the above review processes.
It is possible that in cases where research is conducted in collaboration with another institution, in
the UK or overseas, this Institution may request that local ethical approval is sought. The College
will endeavour, where possible, to accept the approvals of other Institutions without further review
by the College. Acceptance of external approvals will be at the discretion of the College Research
Ethics Committee and advice in such cases should be sought directly from the Research Ethics
Office rec@kcl.ac.uk
Advice, guidance and training available

It is expected that the induction and training provided for research students will include the legal
and ethical contexts of the research. It is also important that any students who may choose to
conduct research with human participants are aware of the need to get ethical approval and are
provided with the information and training they need should they decide to do so.
Training on research ethics, governance and integrity is outlined in the Graduate School training
programme and will be provided on a faculty specific basis, upon request. For further details on
training for your faculty please contact your faculty of office or the Research Ethics Office
rec@kcl.ac.uk. More information can be found in the Training & Advice section of the Research
Ethics web pages: https://internal.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/governance-ethics-integrity/research-
ethics/training/index. Training is available for students, supervisors, staff researchers, research
administrators.
Responsibilities
Under the College ethical review system the student is the named ‘Researcher’ and the Supervisor
must then authorise any application form. Under the HRA system, doctoral students are the ‘Chief
14
Investigator’, whereas for all other students the Supervisor takes this role. Regardless of this, it is
expected that the Supervisor retains oversight of the student’s plans and does not authorise the
application for submission until he/she is satisfied that it meets the standards required by the
review body.
Other reasons why ethical review might be needed

There are some instances where research is not carried out directly with human participants but
may still have social or environmental implications which warrant ethical review. An example of
this would be the excavation of a burial site. If it is likely that planned research may present other
ethical issues the student and supervisor should contact the Research Ethics Office (rec@kcl.ac.uk)
to discuss this.
Marice Lunny
Head of Policy and Ethics
14
Appendix 5: Key resources and contacts
Students may seek help from Library Services at any time, including when they are preparing to
conduct a literature review.
Help is available in every Library at the Enquiry Desks, See https://www.kcl.ac.uk/library/contact or

email libraryservices@kcl.ac.uk
Specialist training sessions are run throughout the year, including literature searching, key resources
in your subject, reference management (including Endnote and Refworks), systematic reviews and
critical appraisal. Check the Library Services webpages for details of upcoming training:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/researchsupport
There is a detailed guide for every subject that highlights key resources, training opportunities and
contacts for support:
http://libguides.kcl.ac.uk/
Other specific study skills can be sought from here: https://keats.kcl.ac.uk/enrol/index.php?id=62576
14
Section H
Assessment and External
Examiners
14
14
Assessment and External Examiners
1. Introduction to assessment
1.1 The following information sets out the regulatory, quality assurance and procedural
framework for the examination process.
1.2 The College awards degrees and other awards within the statutory framework of King’s
College London and the quality assurance framework of the Quality Assurance Agency
(QAA).
1.3 The College’s framework is determined by the Academic regulations available from here:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/academicregulations.
1.4 The QAA has set out its expectations regarding the management of academic quality and
standards in its UK Quality Code for Higher Education. Of particular relevance to the
examination process is the Advice and Guidance: Assessment and Advice and Guidance:
External expertise.
1.5 A programme of study leading to an award will be examined within the College’s three-tier
framework (a two-tier framework for single department Faculties (Institutes/School) or
single-award Assessment Boards):
• Academic Standards Sub-committee - ASSC has delegated responsibility from the

College Education Committee, for quality assurance matters concerning the
examining of the College’s taught programmes (research assessment is the
responsibility of the Postgraduate Research Students Sub-committee)
• Assessment Boards - there are two Boards per Faculty; one for undergraduate taught
programmes and one for postgraduate taught programmes
• Assessment Sub-boards - each programme of study leading to an award must be
assigned to an Assessment Sub-board
1.6 The main locus of responsibility for the determination and ratification of candidates’ results
is at the level of the Assessment Sub-board, with the Assessment Boards taking a strategic
review of all matters pertaining to assessment in the Faculty. Assessment Boards have an
overarching responsibility for ensuring that each programme taught within the Faculty has
an Assessment Sub-board appointed to examine its students and for ensuring that the
examinations within the Faculty are conducted according to regulation and in a fair and
impartial manner. The Assessment Boards also approve marking schemes within guidance
set by ASSC.
146
2. Setting of assessment
2.1 Assessment Sub-boards are responsible for the setting, scrutiny and approval of examination
papers and other assessment. In setting assessment Examiners will need to consider the
specified learning outcomes of the module and programme as set out in the programme and
module specifications and the equal opportunities implications on the form of assessment
chosen.
2.2 Assessment Sub-boards will select the most appropriate marking model for each assessment
type in accordance with the College’s Marking framework and Assessment Boards will be
responsible for ensuring that the Assessment Sub-boards have conducted their marking
processes in accordance with the marking framework and the adopted marking models.
2.3 All assessments must be approved in advance of the examination by the external examiner(s)
and a record kept of their approval.
2.4 Assessment Sub-boards should not set formal, face-to-face written examinations
whose durations incorporate a quarter hour combination eg 1 hour 30 minutes rather than 1
hour 15 minutes. This will reduce disruption to candidates in the examination halls. Where
possible, examinations should either be of two or three hours in duration.
2.5 Three times a year the Examinations Office will require, from the designated examination
organiser in each department, details of the formal written examinations that are required to
be scheduled during Exam Periods One (January), Two (May/June) and Three (August).
Examination organisers will be able to find documents to assist them on the Examinations
Office web pages.
2.8 The College expects high standards of professionalism in the examining process. Assessment
Sub-boards are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the proof and that appropriate
measures are taken to protect the security of the written examination papers.
3. Marking, plagiarism and feedback
3.1 Regulations provide guidance on marking covering the protection of the identity of
candidates and the distribution of scripts for marking.
3.2 Students who are absent from an examination without having been granted authorisation or
who fail to submit material for assessment or who submit after the deadline without
authorisation should receive a mark of zero. Examiners are not required to mark illegible
answers.
3.3 Generic marking criteria for written work are available (see College Marking Framework).
Assessment Boards are encouraged to offer programme/subject specific criteria for
assessment that map on to the generic criteria and these should be presented to the
Assessment Board as part of the Board’s assessment scheme.
3.4 Assessment Boards assessment schemes should detail the local policies and variations
permitted under the regulations covering:
• penalties/guidelines for exceeding word limits

• progression rules
147
• scheme(s) for the transfer of marks from another institution (see Translation of
credits/marks attained through study away from the College)
• use of the various models in the Marking framework
• discipline specific marking criteria
3.5 The Regulations state that “the identity of students shall be withheld to examiners where
possible”. Candidate numbers are issued to students by the Examination Office on an annual
basis at the start of the academic year. Wherever practicable, summative assessment should
be submitted using candidate numbers rather than names. Acceptable exceptions to this
policy include practical examinations and assessment conducted for small cohorts where
handwriting style or subject matter can easily be matched to a candidate.
3.6 It is important that candidates see anonymous marking as only one of the methods by which
the integrity and fairness of the examination process are protected; other methods include
double marking, moderation, the requirement that oral examinations be conducted by no
less than two examiners acting together, the application of common marking criteria and the
role of external examiners.
3.7 Where a student has been permitted personalised assessment provision, for most
programmes, a note is attached to the completed examination script explaining to the
examiner that the student has a specific learning disability and asking for this to be taken
into account when marking for sentence structures and spelling. However some professional
programmes do not permit the note to go with the examination script (for further
information on personalised assessment arrangements see https://self-
service.kcl.ac.uk/category/?id=CAT-01058).
3.8 Prior to the start of the examination period the candidate number key will be emailed to the
Chairs of the Assessment Sub-boards.
3.9 Departments/Faculties will need to ensure that marks arising from each examination period
are recorded on the SITS database by the agreed deadline.
3.10 Any marks or comments on an examination script constitute ‘personal data’ which the
candidate is entitled to see by submitting a subject access request (for which there is a
special examination script pro-forma). Examiners should be judicious in their choice of
language when writing on a script, in the knowledge that the student may gain sight of the
script at a future date. Further information in respect of data protection can be found at:
https://internal.kcl.ac.uk/about/secretariat/business-assurance/compliance/data-
protection/index
3.11 All members of the academic community at King’s are expected to uphold academic
honesty and integrity. The Academic Misconduct Policy outlines how the College will act
upon concern relating to academic misconduct, including possible outcomes. Students will
be required to sign and attach a statement to each piece of work submitted for assessment
indicating that they have read and understood the Academic Misconduct Policy and that
the assessment they are submitting is their own work.
3.12 Where an Examiner identifies a case of suspected plagiarism in assessed work or suspects
any other form of cheating, s/he should refer the matter to the Chair of the relevant
Assessment Sub-board. Staff guidance can be found here.
148
3.13 The College has agreed the following policy document on feedback:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/feedback-policy. Departments/Faculties should ensure
students are familiar with the guidelines for receipt of feedback, and that feedback is
provided to students in a timely manner, normally no longer than 4 weeks from the date of
submission of coursework.
4. External examiners
4.1 Each Assessment Sub-board should ensure that they have an external examiner appointed.
If an Assessment Sub-board wishes to have more than three external examiners appointed
then a request must be made to the Chair of Academic Standards Sub-Committee (ASSC).
4.2 The nominated external examiner will be asked to complete the nomination form, and
submit, along with their CV, the completed form to the Assessment Sub-board Chair
(further information can be found at:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/academicregulations/external). Once the form has been
returned and finalised by the Assessment Sub-board Chair then the nomination is approved
by both the Chair of the Assessment Board and the Chair of ASSC.
4.3 On approval of appointment, the external examiner will be sent an appointment letter,
accompanied by relevant information relating to academic regulations, marking framework
and marking criteria. In addition, the external examiner will be advised on local information
to be provided by the Faculty, which includes:
• programme specifications
• marking schemes
• discipline specific marking criteria
• programme/module materials
• draft examination papers
• list of coursework title or coursework subject areas
4.4 The College will write to all external examiners annually, providing them with any updates
to the regulations and procedures for that academic session.
4.5 All new external examiners should receive some form of orientation to the programme72.
This would normally be a session when the examiner is invited to meet the Assessment Sub-
board chair and key members of staff involved with the delivery of the programme; such a
meeting might also involve students (further information can be found at:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/external-examiners-guidance)
4.5 The main duties of the external examiner are provided in the regulations and are available
at: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/academicregulations/kings-academic-manual
4.6 External examiners are required to electronically submit a written report at the conclusion of
each final examiners board on the appropriate form, which can be found at:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/academicregulations/external. The report should be
submitted within one calendar month of the meeting held to determine the results of
candidates and examiners are required to sign the report to acknowledge that their report
will be made available to students. It is only on receipt of the appropriate form will the
external examiner get paid their annual fee.
72
This can be via Teams
149
4.7 If an external examiner fails to submit a report within two calendar months of the meeting
held to determine the results of candidates or respond to the three reminders sent by the
ARQS team, and there are no extenuating circumstances for this non submission, then a
recommendation will be made to terminate the external examiner’s appointment.
4.8 Officers within the ARQS Office will send the external examiner’s report to Executive
Deans of Faculties, Assessment Board Chairs, Assessment Sub-board Chairs, Directors of
Administration and Heads of Department.
4.9 External examiner reports will be made available to students via an internal webpage:
https://internal.kcl.ac.uk/student/external-examiner-reports. Faculties will ensure that student
representatives have an overview of external examiner reports, via notification of this web
page, Staff/Student Liaison Committees and/or Departmental Teaching Committees.
4.10 On receipt of the external examiner’s report, College officers, Assessment Board Chairs and
Assessment Sub-board Chairs are required to submit a formal response, on the report that
the external examiner has submitted. A diagram showing the full procedure for the
consideration of External Examiners’ reports is overleaf.
4.11 For those reports that have identified an issue with academic standards or raised an issue for
College attention, the reports must be returned to the external examiner within one month
of receiving the report. Consultation must be held with the Chair of ASSC prior to the
report being returned.
4.12 All reports are responded to and returned to the external examiner by the Academic
Regulations, Quality and Standards team. Responded reports are uploaded to the College’s
SharePoint site for internal consideration prior to sending onto the External Examiner.
4.13 Assessment Board Chairs and Quality Assurance Managers will be required to assist with
the writing of Faculty annual reports, and adhere to the annual reporting process, as advised
by College Education Committee.
4.14 Faculties will produce an overview report of external examiner reports received,
summarising comments raised by external examiners that have been identified as impacting
academic standards, or requiring attention at College or Faculty level, and any areas of good
practice identified.
4.15 Staff in ARQS produces an overarching summary report, one for UG and one for PGT, for
consideration by CEC and Academic Board on matters raised by External Examiners during
that academic year.
5. Chief External examiners
5.1 The Assessment Standards Sub Committee will appoint a College Chief External examiner.
The College’s Chief External examiner has a broad remit and provides a strategic
oversight of the soundness and robustness of the College’s assessment framework.
5.2 Each Faculty Assessment Board should appoint a Chief External examiner, the same person
may serve both UG & PGT Faculty Assessment Board if they are suitably qualified.
150
5.3 The College and Faculty Chief External examiners will normally have completed a four-
year tenure as an External Examiner at King’s before being appointed. The full eligibility
criteria are outlined here.
5.4 The duties and responsibilities of the Chief and Faculty Chief Examiner roles are
outlined here.
5.5 Faculty Chief External examiners are required to attend an annual meeting, which will be
chaired by the College Chief External examiner.
5.6 Faculty Chief External examiners will be required to submit an annual report on the
appropriate form. Officers within the ARQS Office will send these reports to Assessment
Board Chairs for them to reply to, they are then sent to the Chair of ASSC and the College
Chief External Examiner.
5.7 ARQS will produce an overarching summary report of the annual reports received for
consideration by CEC and Academic Board on matters raised by Faculty Chief External
Examiners during that academic year.
5.8 The College Chief External examiner will be required to submit an annual report to the
Assessment Standards Sub-Committee following the annual meeting.
5.9 These roles play no part in the verification of academic standards or in the award of degree
qualifications by Assessment Sub-Boards and will not normally include:
• Oversight and commenting of student assessment

• Reviewing or commenting on student results or award decisions
• Scrutinising the activities of individual External Examiners
• Commenting on the judgements of individual External Examiners
• Meeting with individual students
151
6. Diagram of the procedure for the consideration of external examiners’ reports
ARQS chases up any The External Examiners’ (EE) reports are received by the Academic Regulations,
reports not received Quality and Standards (ARQS) Section and the payment is sanctioned.
Reports are uploaded to the SharePoint site which triggers an email to be sent to
Non-academic issues are
the Executive Dean of Faculty (Institute/School), the Director of Administration,
referred to the appropriate
the Assessment Sub-Board Chair, the Faculty (Institute/School) Assessment
officers for
Board Chair and the Head of Department for scrutiny.
comment/response.
Assessment Sub-board Chair reviews the reports

and responds on SharePoint to issues raised. Once
If Executive Dean of Faculty the response is complete the Assessment Sub-board External Examiner
(or nominee) perceives a Chair emails the Faulty (Institute/School) reports, are considered
report to be a concern, they Assessment Board Chair. as part of Faculty QA
will liaise with Head of processes, by; Faculty
Department and Assessment (Institute/School)
Board Chair. Assessment Boards;
Faculty
(Institute/School)
ARQS notifies Education
Faculty the Chair of Committees (or their
(Institute/School) ASSC (on equivalent) and
Board Chair reviews behalf of Vice- Departmental
For those reports with the reports plus Principal Teaching Committees.
issues that impact on responses to issues (Education) of Student
Academic Standards, raised. Once reports with representatives attend
the report should be approved via issues that Faculty
completed and SharePoint, the impact on (Institute/School)
uploaded to the Assessment Board Academic Education
External Examiner Chair emails the Standards or Committees and
SharePoint page within Assessment Sub- matters raised Departmental
one month of receipt board Chair, for College Teaching Committees.
copying in the Dean attention for Relevant issues may
of Faculty and be referred to Staff
ARQS. Student Liaison
Committees for
Any serious discussion.
Faculties complete an concerns and how
overview report on they were addressed
those reports received is reported to
and forwards the Academic Board
report onto the via the overview
Associate Director, ARQS uploads the report
Academic completed report to
Regulations, Quality External Examiner
and Standards SharePoint page that Completed reports are redacted and
triggers an email to be sent uploaded to the internal webpages for
to the External Examiner’s student view.
KCL email account.
ARQS prepare the overview reports (for undergraduate, taught postgraduate and specialist doctorates) for submission to
15 2
Diagram of the procedure for the consideration of Chief External examiners’ reports
Attend Assessment boards and contribute to

strategic decisions around assessment practice Submit a report within one-month of the Faculty
Assessment Board
ARQS share report with Faculty Assessment Board

Chairs
FAB responds to the comments raised
by the Chief External Examiner
ARQS uploads the completed report

to External Examiner SharePoint page
that triggers an email to be sent to the
Chief External Examiner’s KCL email
account and Chair of ASSC
ARQS prepare an overview report for submission to Academic Board.
153
Short Courses Policy
Section I
154
155
1.0 Short Course Policy
Policy Category: Academic/Governance

Subject: Approval and review of short courses
Approving Authority: College Council via College Education Committee
Responsible Officer: Vice President/Vice-Principal Education and Student Success
Responsible Office: Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards, Students and
Education Directorate
Related Procedures: Academic Regulations
Related College Policies: n/a
Effective Date: July 2023
Supersedes: July 2020
Next Review: July 2026
I. Purpose & Scope

The purpose of this policy is to support the development of short course activities, by providing clear
guidelines and a transparent regulatory framework that governs academic, quality assurance,
financial and legal aspects on behalf of the institution.
It is expected that all credit bearing short courses will follow the College’s Academic Regulations.
For non-credit bearing short courses, there is an expectation that summative assessment will not
take place and therefore Academic Regulations do not apply. However, if a student has a complaint
about a non-credit bearing short course, they may follow the College’s Complaints Policy.
King’s Professional & Executive Development (KPED) is the business unit that specialises in enabling
and enhancing the College’s short course activity.
II. Definitions
All short courses are characterised as:
Short course A combination of lectures, seminars, workshops and/ or online

content, with articulated learning outcomes, completion of which
leads to a certificate of attendance. A short course may comprise a
maximum of 300 learning hours, which includes contact hours,
assessment (if applicable) and self-directed learning.
Short courses fall into two categories:
Credit bearing A certification of research-led, assessed learning (5-30 credits).

short course Students will receive a transcript detailing the credit awarded
alongside a certificate of attendance. Credit bearing short courses are
also known as freestanding modules or microcredentials.
Non-credit bearing A combination of lectures, seminars, workshops and/ or online
short course content (including MOOCs), with articulated learning outcomes,
completion of which lead to a certificate of attendance.
156
Types of short course (referenced in this policy) include:
Continuing Short courses designed for the maintenance and development of

professional knowledge and skills needed to perform in a professional context.
development
Executive Short courses designed for management development so that
education participants (mid-level management and C-suite executives) become
more effective at meeting organisation goals.
Massive Open A fully online, self-paced, non-credit bearing short course, usually with
Online Course no fee, characterised by unlimited participation and open access, with
(MOOC) no entry requirements.
III. Policy
1. General – applicable to all short courses
1.1 All students participating in non-credit bearing short courses will receive a certificate of
attendance signalling satisfactory participation in the course. These certificates do not
necessarily indicate successful completion. It is for faculties to determine when a
satisfactory level of attendance or participation is achieved. Students participating in credit
bearing short courses who successfully complete will receive a transcript detailing the credit
awarded alongside a certificate of attendance.
1.2 For both credit bearing and non-credit bearing short courses, that are delivered and
assessed within faculties, the approval mechanism resides with that faculty. Further details
on how to propose your short course and seek approval are available via the King’s
Professional & Executive Development (KPED) intranet pages. The Programme Development
& Approval Sub-Committee (PDASC) shall receive a listing of all approved short courses.
Where a short course is jointly delivered all faculties involved must approve the short
course. Approval of the business case shall reside within the home faculty.
1.3 For short courses delivered by units outside of the faculty structure, academic approval for
the delivery of the short course will be the responsibility of PDASC, while approval for any
business case will be the responsibility of KPED.
1.4 For credit bearing short courses delivered by King’s Health Partners (KHP), KHP shall seek
sponsorship from a named faculty. Approval of the short course will reside with the
sponsoring faculty. PDASC shall receive a listing of approved credit bearing short courses
delivered by KHP. For non-credit bearing short courses delivered by KHP, these are
approved by KHP with no formal reporting mechanism required to PDASC.
1.5 Proposals for the delivery of short courses for external clients shall require KPED approval.
Proposals for short courses produced for external clients must have a legal contractual basis
and contracts must be negotiated and signed by the appropriate authorised King’s
personnel. KPED will lead on client and contractual negotiations and ensure financial and
legal compliance on behalf of the institution.
1.6 Short courses delivered under the aegis of a body other than King’s College London, such as
157
NHS Hospital Trusts, will only be subject to this policy if they require credit awarded by the
College. Where approval for these short courses has been given, they shall be reported to
PDASC.
1.7 Approval for a short course may be denied for a range of reasons, including a lack of financial
viability, staff workload, failure to meeting appropriate academic standards and/ or failure to
comply with the King’s regulatory and quality assurance framework.
1.8 The short course catalogue is managed by KPED. Information on how to add a short course
to the catalogue can be found at marketing your short course. Compulsory fields include
start and end dates, tuition fee, apply link, course overview, aims and objectives, and entry
requirements.
1.9 Each short course should submit an evaluation report annually to the College Education
Committee or confirm that annual monitoring of the short courses fell under the remit of
Continuous Enhancement Review or Periodic Programme Review.
1.10 Short courses will be required to provide data as requested for reporting purposes to KPED.
2. Credit Bearing Short Courses

2.1 Credit bearing short courses offered by King’s will consist of 5, 10, 15 or 30 academic credits.
Credit values of 5 or 10 are applicable only at postgraduate level for Continuing Professional
Development (CPD) or Executive Education purposes. Five and 10 credit modules at
undergraduate level are only applicable to KHP. Exceptionally, College Education Committee
may approve modules of a non-standard credit value.
2.2 In addition to the process detailed in section 1, approval of credit bearing short courses shall
apply the process set out in the section on the design and approval of individual modules as
part of, or outside, the programme approval process contained within the ‘procedures for
programme and module approval and modification’ in the Quality Assurance Handbook.
2.3 The faculty or PDASC (in accordance with 1.2) shall consider whether the learning outcomes,
assessment methodology and credit value proposed are appropriate according to the
College credit framework. Each credit bearing short course shall adhere to the College’s
Academic Regulations, including enrolment requirements, mitigating circumstances and
deferrals, academic appeals and complaints. The role of PDASC is to approve the short
course based on academic merit alone. Consequently, any staffing requests alongside the
short course proposal is not in PDASC’s remit to approve.
2.4 Each credit bearing short course must be assigned to an appropriate Assessment Sub-Board.
Existing external examiners must be notified of any addition to their duties in such
circumstances, otherwise the normal process for appointing external examiners should be
undertaken.
2.5 Credit bearing short courses at level 7 may be considered for inclusion in the College’s
stackable framework for CPD. The multidisciplinary postgraduate awards in Professional
Development are managed by KPED, as part of the School of Professional & Continuing
Education, and are governed by the Professional Education Portfolio Sub-Committee. Credit
bearing short courses must be approved in accordance with section 12 of the Quality
Assurance Handbook prior to being considered for inclusion in the stackable framework.
158
3. Finance
3.1 Short courses should provide a positive financial return for King’s, with a target gross margin
(income less direct costs) of 50%. Exceptions to this will require the approval of the faculty’s
Director of Operations.
3.2 The business case must include the cost of delivery including academic time, professional
services staff and other non-staff costs. Marketing costs should also be included with a
minimum budget set at 10% of projected income. Short course expenditure may be run
through departmental reserves or recorded directly in faculty accounts that are reported to
Executive Deans and KPED by Management Accountants.
3.3 Faculties, divisions and departments shall bear any losses resulting from short course activity
previously authorised by their Director of Operations.
3.4 Short courses delivered online may be subject to goods and services tax. Please refer to the
King’s website or the Finance & Planning Directorate for further details.
3.5 Staff may receive personal benefit from undertaking teaching on short courses as additional
salary, subject to approval by the Director of Operations.
3.6 Executive Deans will be required to incorporate an annual account of income generated
from short courses into their strategic and financial planning, including the amount and
percentage of faculty/ division overhead on that income, and the amount and percentage of
income disbursed to named individuals, research groups and/ or departments.
3.7 Fees for credit bearing short courses shall be raised in SITS and the applications will be
processed through Admissions via King’s Apply. Full payment should be secured prior to the
start date of the course.
3.8 Fee income for non-credit bearing short courses must be charged through finance-approved
College pathways and coded to account 1179 (non-credit bearing short course fee income).
Where the fees are raised to the customer on a sales invoice in the College’s finance system
(Business World), the income should be coded to the relevant sales product code. If the
faculty does not have a product code for the course, they should request a new trade sales
product.
159
Intercollegiate Policy
Section J
160
161
1. Introduction
University of London Colleges and Institutes share a history, ethos and commitment to standards
that is similar to King’s College London. King’s recognises the unique arrangement with other
member Colleges/Institutes of the University of London that provides students with the opportunity
to access a wide range of teaching opportunities, facilities and services across the University of
London as a whole and enhance the student experience.
This policy details the principles which apply to the approval and management of intercollegiate
module arrangements.
King’s has a formal Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) with the following participating colleges:
• Birkbeck
• Goldsmiths
• Queen Mary
• Royal Holloway
• School of Oriental and African Studies
• University College London
The MoA facilitates the general sharing of intercollegiate modules on a reciprocal basis. Where a
department wishes to enter into an arrangement that is not reciprocal in nature or includes specific
arrangements an annex to the formal MoA will be required setting out the additional arrangements.
The College also has individual agreements or mutual understandings in place with the following
partners:
• London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (MSc Global Mental Health Joint
Award)
• Royal Veterinary College (BSc programmes in School of Bioscience Education)
• Royal Academy of Music (BMus and MMus programmes).
2. Definitions
• Intercollegiate Module: the term used to describe a credit bearing module offered by
another Member College/Institute covered by the ordinances of the University of
London.
• Intercollegiate programme: Students registered on a named programme at King’s or

the Partner Institution are able to take optional modules or may be required to take
compulsory modules from another Partner. Students are not able to complete their
programme unless they have taken at least one module from the Partner. Only the
home institution awards the final degree. The arrangement is expected to be
reciprocal in in nature. Where the programme leads to a joint/double/multiple or dual
award the provisions set out in the College’s Procedures for the approval and
monitoring of collaborative provision will apply.
• Module provision: Students registered on a King’s programme are offered the

opportunity to take specific modules from another Partner as part of their programme.
The arrangements must be advertised to students as part of the programme in
advance, but students will be advised that they will be able to complete their
programme without the need to take any modules from another Partner. The
162
difference to intercollegiate programmes is that the arrangement does not need to be

reciprocal in nature.
• Elective module sharing: Students registered on a King’s programme can opt to take
optional modules (up to the maximum number of credits permitted by the programme
specification) at a Partner Institution. The arrangements are not advertised to students
in advance and are subject to approval from the relevant Programme convenor.
Students will be able to complete their programme regardless of whether they choose
to register for a module at the Partner Institution.
3. The following general principles apply to all intercollegiate arrangements:
• Arrangements are only offered with another member College/Institute that is covered
by the ordinances of the University of London;
• Arrangements are compliant with the College’s policy and procedures to meet the
requirements of the Academic Regulations;
• The department is responsible for ensuring they are fully aware of the regulations and
policies relating to academic and financial considerations in place at the Partner, and
that these are made known to students;
• The Partner is declared and approved as a King’s teaching partnership by the UK Visas
& Immigration73 Home Office for the purposes of student visas and that monitoring
requirements for students can be evidenced;
• The programme specification document should include information on the
intercollegiate arrangements (approved by the relevant Faculty Education Committee
or equivalent);
• The marks gained in modules taught and assessed by the Partner will count towards the
final award;
• The modules offered must be deemed appropriate for the programme of study by the
relevant programme convenor or faculty committees/officers;
• Safeguards are in place to prevent a student taking a module from a Partner that
significantly overlaps with a module that a student has already taken or could
potentially take at King’s for their programme of study;
• An academic rationale is specified for mapping the credit level and value of the Partners
provision where this does not fit naturally with the King’s programme of study;
• The total credit volume awarded does not exceed the period of study that can be
completed elsewhere in accordance with the relevant College regulations e.g. for an
undergraduate degree (the maximum credit granted shall not exceed 120 credits in
value;
• Resit and reassessment opportunities are made clear to students where they differ from
what is offered at King’s;
• Student conduct, complaints and appeals procedures are made clear to students and are
fairly applied.
73This is to ensure we are compliant with the Border Agency/UKVI Tier 4 sponsorship requirements to meet
the College’s statutory obligations for provision of listing sites and teaching partnerships on our Tier 4 licence
and monitoring arrangements.
163
4. The following principles apply to all intercollegiate programme and module provision
arrangements:
• Partnerships are established and approved by the relevant Faculty Education

Committee or its equivalent74;
• The arrangements are:
o implemented securely and monitored by a steering committee or equivalent;
o managed effectively through the relevant departmental and faculty committee
governance structure to safeguard the student interests, including arrangements for
students with special needs, equality of opportunity, health and safety;
o equivalent to or enhance the academic standards of modules delivered by King’s,
including compatibility with any relevant benchmarking information;
o supported through quality assurance mechanisms ensuring compliance with the
QAA’s UK Quality Code for Higher Education;
o at an appropriate level to achieve the intended learning outcomes for that
component of the overall programme;
o considered by the departmental Assessment Sub-board for the validation of student
marks and to confirm credit value;
o compliant with external agency policies such as the Competition and Markets
Authority (CMA), the International Ombudsman Association (IOA), UK Statutory
Bodies, Professional Statutory or Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs) or non UK Quality
Assurance Agencies;
• The department
o ensures that formal documentation is in place with the Partner setting out the
operational arrangements agreed between the relevant Parties75 where this is not
covered by the College’s formal MoA with approved Intercollegiate Partners.
Where these include financial arrangements a legally binding MoA must be in place
or an annex drawn up to add financial arrangements to the existing MoA with
approved Intercollegiate Partners;
o ensures that arrangements are in place for periodic review of the agreement;
o ensures that if the arrangement is terminated, the provisions set out in the College
Guidance on the operation of collaborative teaching activity are applied.
5. The following principles apply to all elective module sharing arrangements:
• Students are advised that they may be permitted to take modules from other University
of London member Colleges/Institutions, subject to availability and approval from the
appropriate authorities;
• Safeguards are put in place to prevent a student taking an intercollegiate module which
significantly overlaps with a module already studied at King’s or which will be taken
subsequently or simultaneously;
• Departments ensure that students are fully aware of the implications of undertaking
study outside of King’s;
• A formal agreement is not required as arrangements for elective module sharing are
agreed on an ad hoc basis or are likely to be with a Partner for which there is an
intercollegiate module sharing agreement in place. However, the department should
ensure that the students complete the processes for registering with Kings and the
74 The FEC should consider any existing/long-standing arrangements against the policy and confirm that they
are in line with the College’s approved policy.
75 The College has templates in place for documenting operational arrangements for intercollegiate module
arrangements. Please consult with the QAS Office for information on the template to use.
164
Partner for the approved module. Incoming students will be expected to complete the
College’s Intercollegiate Registration Form (IRF1) for this purpose;
• Departments should ensure that they are aware of any fees76 being charged by the
receiving institution and consult with Registry Services to ensure appropriate
arrangements are in place between King’s and the Partner for the purposes of receiving
or submitting invoices.
76The College reserves the right to charge incoming students a pro-rata fee equivalent to the normal fee for the
programme that the module in question forms part of where that institution would charge King’s in return.
The department will be invoiced for any fees billed by another University of London member
College/Institution for outgoing students.
165
Policy on closing or suspending a programme
Section K
Policy on closing or suspending
a programme
166
167
Introduction
This policy sets out theKing's procedures for closing or suspending all taught and research
programmes. Programme closure77 and suspension requests must be submitted on a Programme
Modification Form (PMF) via the OPAMA system, following the established process for
programme modifications.
The policy aligns with the QAA’s UK Quality Code for Higher Education and takes account of
Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) advice78. It also aligns with the King’s Student
Protection Plan. The principle underpinning the policy is that in all cases the experience of
students on the programme should be assured and monitored.
Programme closure/suspension is a five-stage process, unless action is taken within the

admissions cycle in which case an additional stage is required (Stage 0)
1. Scope of the Policy

1.1 The policy is applicable to:
• on campus provision i.e. programmes which are delivered and supported entirely by King’s
College London staff and which lead to an award from King’s College London;
• offsite delivery (including online) i.e. programmes which are delivered and supported
entirely by King’s College London staff irrespective of the location of delivery and which
lead to an award from King’s College London. Where the programme also exists in an on
campus delivery mode and only one of the versions is closing, this should nonetheless be put
through the programme closure process in order to safeguard the experience of students on
that particular iteration of the programme;
• programmes delivered under a collaborative provision arrangement. Where, for a
programme delivered under a collaborative provision arrangement, the intention is also to
close the partnership, the collaborative provision procedures should also be followed.
1.2 The policy is not applicable to:

• the removal of programme variants (such as part-time versions of programmes). The request
to remove a variant must follow the standard programme modification process.
• the removal of a pathway within an over-arching programme. The request to remove a
pathway should have due regard to CMA advice and be undertaken in discussion with any
other Faculties involved in the delivery or which depend on modules which will cease to run
as a result of the closure. The request must follow the standard programme modification
process.
• Short courses
2. Definitions
2.1 Closure79 A programme is closed when there are no students enrolled on the programme,
including those who have interrupted. There are therefore two stages to a programme
closure.
2.1.1 The programme is closed to applicants and therefore also to new entrants on to
77
Those programmes that have been identified to close via Portfolio Simplification process will follow a
different set of processes
78 CMA advice on consumer protection law applies to the relationship between HE providers and prospective
and current students. Universities that fail to meet their obligations may be in breach of consumer protection
law.
79 Only the term ‘Closure’ should be used when referring to the deletion, permanent withdrawal, discontinuing
of programmes.
168
the programme
2.1.2 The programme is fully closed when all enrolled students have left the
programme.
2.2 Suspension A programme is suspended when a decision is taken not to recruit to the
programme or to deliver the programme for a defined period80.
3. Principles
3.1 A Faculty’s decision to close a programme must take full account of the needs of existing
students, applicants to the programme and offer holders, including deferred applicants and
offer holders. It should support students through to the completion of their intended study
wherever possible or put in place appropriate alternative arrangements. In either case
arrangements must be made to guarantee the quality of experience for such students during
the period of any teach-out. These arrangements should also ensure that the programme
continues to address the requirements of any PSRB or government agency which accredits
the programme.
3.2 Before commencing the formal procedures to close or suspend a programme, the Faculty
must ensure that arrangements are in place for interrupted and deferred students so that they
can complete their studies. Provisions must also be made for students who require the
opportunity to re-sit or to repeat a year of their studies. Any other Faculties relying on
modules from the programme in question (e.g. a joint honours programme taught across
more than one Faculty) must also be consulted. In the case of a collaborative provision
arrangement, the Faculty must contact ARQS to take advice on the termination clauses in
the memorandum of agreement prior to communicating with the partner institution, students
or other stakeholders. In the case of joint programmes, all Faculties must agree to the closure
before procedures commence. The external examiner(s) must also be invited to comment.
3.3 Once applicants have placed King’s as their firm choice it is not possible to close or suspend
a programme unless it can be documented that all potential alternative arrangements have
been exhausted. Admissions must be consulted in such cases. Where applications have been
received but offers not yet made, a decision to close or suspend a programme must be made
early enough in the cycle so as not to disadvantage applicants.
3.4 Where staff terms and conditions or service are affected or there are potential redundancies,
Human Resources must be consulted at the earliest opportunity.
3.5 If a programme is suspended and a decision is taken at a later date to close it, a Programme
Modification Form noting the revised decision should be submitted to the Faculty Education
Committee (FEC)81 for initial approval, and then forwarded to ARQS who will seek final
sign-off from the Chair of the Programme Development & Approval Sub-Committee
(PDASC).
3.6 All decisions to close or suspend programmes must be taken in good time, with due regard for
the need to address the position of existing students and potential applicants. It should be
80 If the defined period reaches it end but further suspension is required, the suspension process must be
repeated.
81 For the purpose, the term ‘Faculty Education Committees’ (FECs) will be used as a catch-all term to
describe the panel that approves programme modifications at Faculty, Institute or School level.
169
remembered that undergraduate applicants may apply for entry to a programme up to two
years before taking up their place. It should be noted that if a decision to close or suspend a
programme is taken late in the admissions cycle, the availability of suitable alternatives at the
College or at other institutions may be limited and the applicant might be able to claim
financial compensation from the university, thereby causing potential reputational damage.
3.7 The programme must continue to be actively managed and subject to the university’s
requirements of module evaluation, annual monitoring and external examining and must
therefore retain a Programme Leader for the duration of the programme.
3.8 Ongoing monitoring must ensure that the equity of experience for students on the
programme is maintained. If the programme is due for review during the teach-out phase the
Faculty should contact ARQS for guidance.
4. Rationale for closure or suspension

4.1 Programmes may be closed or suspended for a number of reasons, including, but not
limited to:
• declining student applications and/or enrolments;
• key staff leaving the university/being on sabbatical;
• creation of a new programme that merges a number of existing programmes;
• changing strategic priorities at Department, Faculty or university level;
• concerns about the quality and academic standards on the programme;
• termination of a memorandum of agreement, termination for another reason of a
collaborative provision arrangement which also results in the closure of a programme.
4.2 Recommending programme closure is also an option available to Programme Review Panels.
4.3 In addition, a programme which has no students enrolled in its first year, or projected to
enrol, and for which there are no Firm offer holders should normally be closed. Programmes
that fall into this category will be identified as part of the annual planning process. Faculties
will be required to demonstrate why a programme should remain open if they disagree.
5. Authority to make decisions about closure or suspension

5.1 The decision is made by the relevant FEC and approved by PDASC82 for taught
programmes or PRSS for postgraduate research programmes.
6. Stage 0: Proposal to close or suspend a programme during, or just prior to, a recruitment
cycle
6.1 Faculties, Admissions and Marketing may agree during, or just prior to, an admissions cycle
that it would be desirable to close or suspend a programme. In these circumstances it may be
appropriate to stop additional applicants applying to the programme. In this case, the
Faculty Education Manager must send an email to the Director of Admissions & Registry
Services and the Director of Brand & Marketing requesting that a temporary hold be put in
place, whilst the rest of the programme closure/suspension process is followed.
6.2 Marketing will remove the programme temporarily from the Online Prospectus.
6.3 Admissions will remove the programme temporarily from the Admissions Portal (and UCAS
82
Approval of programmes closures and suspensions is delegated from the Academic Board to PDASC
170
where appropriate).
6.4 It is essential that remaining stages of the programme closure/suspension process are
completed.
6.5 If the programme closure/suspension does not go ahead the Faculty Education Manger must
send an email to the Director of Admissions & Registry Services and the Director of Brand
& Marketing requesting that this temporary hold be removed and the actions above
reversed.
7. Stage 1: Faculty Consideration

7.1 Stage 1 involves consideration and approval by the relevant FEC of the rationale and an
assessment of the impact of the proposed closure/suspension. A PMF must be submitted to
the FEC which includes the number of students enrolled on the programme and
confirmation that there are not any applicants, offer holders or deferred offer holders who
would be affected by the proposal. Where there are, applicants, offer holders (including
deferred offer holders), and Admissions must be consulted. Students on the programme
must be consulted on the proposals and any alternatives at a formative stage of
deliberations. In the rare event that teach out is not possible, affected students should be
offered the opportunity to transfer to suitable alternative programmes at King’s or at
another institution. The Faculty should identify these alternative as part of stage 1 of the
programme closure process.
Joint Degrees
7.2 For joint degree programmes the template should be considered by the lead Faculty’s FEC
but onlyafter discussions have taken place with the other relevant Faculties and students
consulted.
Collaborative Provision
7.3 For collaborative provision arrangements, the Faculty must contact ARQS to take advice
on the termination clauses in the memorandum of agreement before communicating with
the partner institution, students and other stakeholders. This is to ensure that the
programme closure is conducted in accordance with the memorandum of agreement and to
identify whether the agreement will need to be renegotiated, varied or terminated.
Renewal of Suspensions
7.4 ARQS will contact the Faculty Education Manager when the requested suspension period
of a programme is due to expire, to prompt the renewal of the suspension, re-introduction of
the programme or permanent closure of the programme.
8. Stage 2: Approval
8.1 Initial approval is by the Lead Faculty’s FEC (following approval by the FECs of other
relevant Faculties for joint honours taught across more than one Faculty) and can only be
given if arrangements are in place to support any deferred, interrupted or repeating
students.
8.2 For taught programmes, the programme closure/suspension documentation is then

forwarded via OPAMA (with Faculty approval attached) to ARQS for final approval by
171
PDASC83. For PGR programmes, the documentation is forwarded to the Centre for
Doctoral Studies for final approval by PRSS.
8.3 PDASC/PRSS approval is conditional on any Firm offer holders being agreeable to be
transferred to other programmes either at King’s or elsewhere.
9. Stage 3: Internal Communications

Once the approval to close or suspend a taught programme has been processed, automated
emails are generated in OPAMA to relevant staff to alert them to the decision. For
postgraduate research programmes, the Centre for Doctoral Studies notifies the relevant
staff.
Recipient of automated Action to be taken upon receipt of notification
notification84
Marketing Remove programme from online prospectus

Admissions Remove programme from UCAS and application
portal
Registry Services Update SITS, close the programme on MCF
Academic Regulations, Quality Update spreadsheets for PDASC reporting
and Standards
9.1 The Faculty’s School Quality Administrator (SQA – or equivalent) must ensure that
relevant teams within the Faculty are notified, along with any other Faculties which
have been involved with the delivery of the programme.
9.2 The Lead Faculty’s SQA should notify relevant PSRBs(where applicable).
9.3 For collaborative provision arrangements, ARQS (for UK arrangements) and/or the
Global Mobility Office (for study abroad arrangements) should be consulted to
confirm the appropriate person that the Faculty must notify.
9.4 A list of programme closures and suspensions will be reported annually to PDASC.
9.5 If there are no students active on a programme, all associated SITS records85 can be
taken out of use immediately on both CRS and MCR. If students are still active on the
programme or if it is suspended, only the applicant/admissions SITS records are taken
out of use on MCR86.
10. Stage 4: Applicant and Student Communications

10.1 Where there are Firm Offer Holders, individual conversations, which must be documented,
must be held between the applicant and the faculty to offer these individuals a place on
other programmes at King’s or elsewhere. If this is not successful, then the programme may
83
By delegation from the Academic Board
84
The ‘Proposer’ of closure/suspension, Faculty SQA, Programme Leader, Timetabling, Planning, Library
Services will also receive the automated email.
85
Currently, these are MCR, IPP and IPO (applicant/admissions related records) and CRS and CBO (student
related records)
86
An audit will be carried out every year by the Student Data Quality Team to check if all students have
completed the programme(s) scheduled for closure, after which the programme(s) closure will be finalized
172
need to be continued and not suspended or closed. For specialist programmes reliant upon
one academic, Faculties must contact ARQS guidance.
10.2 Admissions will then inform any applicants that the programme is being closed or suspended
and provide them with information about alternative programmes of study available (where
possible) through the Admissions Portal. If the applicant subsequently wishes to withdraw
theirapplication this should be permitted and any application fee, or deposit fee paid should
be refunded in full. If the student has applied through UCAS, the Admissions Team must
advise UCAS in order to let the applicant make a substitute choice.
10.3 Once the decision has been made to close or suspend a programme, Admissions should
consult the UCAS Admissions Guide for specific information relating to UCAS applicants.
They should identify any applicants who will be affected by the decision and notify them.
If the applicant does not reply within the timescale requested in the initial letter,
Admissions should issue a reminder letter advising the applicant that their application will
be withdrawn if no response is received within a specified timescale.
10.4 For taught postgraduate programmes, in some specialist areas (e.g. teaching,), there might be
additional procedures dictated by the relevant application scheme or PSRB and the Faculties
concerned should ensure that they adhere to these as well as to the internal procedure.
10.5 The Faculty must inform students enrolled on the programme (and any linked programmes)
and discuss the implications with them at the earliest opportunity. Students should be
informed of any plans for teaching-out the programme and provided with details of how the
Faculty intends to maintain the quality of the student learning experience during the teach
out phase. In addition, appropriate student representatives should also be included in this
process. If teaching out the programme is not possible, affected students should be offered
the opportunity to transfer to suitable alternative programmes at King’s or at another
institution. Care should be taken not to forget the need for arrangements for students who
have suspended their studies or need to refer or those who have deferred entry.
11. Stage 5: Final Closure of programme
11.1 A yearly process will be run in SITS to determine if there are still students on the
programme(s) due for closure. Once all students have completed, the programme(s) will
be closed with all associated SITS records taken out of use on CRS and future CBO
screens.
11.2 The Student Data Quality Team will send an email to the relevant SQA(s) to notify
them that the final closure of the programme has been processed.
173
Sunset Clause for New Taught Programmes Policy
Section L
Sunset Clause for New Taught
Programmes Policy
174
175
Policy 1.0: Sunset Clause for New Taught Programmes Policy
Policy Category: Academic

Subject: Reviewing programmes after initial set-up
Approving Authority: College Council, via Programme Development and Approval Sub-
Committee
Responsible Officer: Vice-President and Vice-Principal Education
Responsible Office: Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards, Students and
Education Directorate
Related Procedures: Procedures for Programme and Module Approval and Modification
Related College Policies: [new] Policy on Programme and Module Specifications
Effective Date: 1 September 2020
Supersedes: n/a
Next Review: 2023/24
I. Purpose & Scope

The purpose of this policy is to continue the practices that have been established by Portfolio
Simplification exercise in 2019/20 and review all new taught programmes after a fixed period of time
to ensure the proposed student numbers agreed at the proposal stage have been met.
This policy will ensure the Office for Students (OfS) ongoing conditions of registration are being
adhered to, specifically those conditions relating to Condition B: Quality, reliable standards and
positive outcomes for all students, and Condition C: Protecting the interests of students.
II. Definitions
New Taught programme: a new taught programme (UG or PGT) that has been approved by
Faculty Education Committees
Programme proposal: outline proposal for new taught programme that has been approved
by the Programme Development and Approval Sub-Committee. The
Programme Proposal Form includes proposed student numbers.
Sunset Clause: a provision for new taught programmes that these will be reviewed
after a 3-year recruitment period (from the first student
registration) to determine if the programme should continue to
recruit students.
III. Policy
1. General
1.01 All new taught programmes (undergraduate and postgraduate taught) will be reviewed after
a 3-year recruitment period (from the first year the programme runs). The review will
provide assurance to the College that:
met
176

• The programme remains consistent with College and Faculty strategies
2. Sunset Clause Process

2.01 The Programme Development and Approval Sub-Committee is authorised to approve new
taught programmes on behalf of Academic Board.
2.02 Three-years after the new programme has commenced recruitment, the Programme
Development and Approval Sub-Committee is authorised by Academic Board to review the
programme against a set of agreed criteria, and make a decision as to whether the
programme should continue to be marketed or be formally closed to new applicants.
2.03 The agreed criteria for review are:

• Actual student enrolments over the three-year period against the predicted student
numbers at the time of the programme proposal.
• Comparison of programme marketability against the rest of the sector i.e. has the
market in that subject area grown, changed.
• Any further academic context that the department/faculty deems to be relevant.
2.04 When considering formal closure of the programme, the Programme Development and
Approval Sub-Committee shall take into consideration the College’s Student Protection Plan,
and any implications relating to Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) regulations.
2.05 Considerations will also be required on the impact of closing a programme where a
programme has collaborative activity attached, or where a programme involves a
Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Body (PSRB).
2.06 Responsible Officers shall be responsible for the communication of outcomes from the
review undertaken by the Programme Development and Approval Sub-Committee to
Academic Board, via the College Education Committee.
3. Review
3.01 This policy shall be reviewed at least every three years.
4. Reporting
4.01 The Responsible Officer will provide updates of the review of new taught programmes to
College Education Committee, who has delegated authority from Academic Board for this
work.
177
Section N
Policy and Module and
Teaching Evaluation
178
Page 179 of 306
Policy Category: Governance
Subject: Module and Teaching Evaluation
Approving Authority: Academic Board, on behalf of College Council

Responsible Officer: President & Principal/designate – Vice-Principal and Vice-President
Education
Responsible Office: Students and Education/Academic
Regulations, Quality and Standards
Related Procedures: n/a
Related College Policies: n/a
Effective Date:
Supersedes: (Previous effective date)

Next Review: 2025 – normally every three years
I. Purpose & Scope

This policy sets out how King’s will undertake evaluation of modules and teaching. It is designed to
facilitate existing good practice. It locates responsibility for the evaluation process in departments
and faculties whilst establishing baseline requirements with which all faculties must comply.
II. Definitions
Modules Programmes of study at King’s are normally made up of discrete blocks of learning,
consisting of a defined number of credits. These blocks are known as modules. Where
programmes do not consist of discrete credit-rated modules, module evaluation baseline
requirements can be applied to any coherent block of learning that exists within the
programme. Each module must include the opportunity for formal evaluation by students
enrolled on that module each year.
Teaching Within the context of this policy, teaching staff are defined as a member of staff who is
substantially responsible for delivering the teaching on a module. It is at the Faculty’s
discretion to determine which staff meet this criterion.
III. Policy
1. Scope of the Policy
The policy is applicable to:
1.1. All modules taught within the classroom
1.2. All modules taught online
1.3. Modules in which a project or dissertation constitutes the majority of the assessment
1.4. Modules that are either 100% placement based or incorporate both teaching and
placement(s).
Page 180 of 307

2. Purposes of Module Evaluation
The primary purpose of module evaluation is the enhancement of teaching quality and
students’ learning experience. Within that overarching heading there are a number of specific
current and prospective roles and purposes it fulfils for undergraduate and postgraduate
provision:
Management of individual modules and programmes

2.1. To provide the module lead/coordinator with feedback on the quality of the teaching,
supervision and assessment on their module(s).
2.2. To provide the module lead/coordinator with information to support education
enhancements.
2.3. To provide individual teachers with timely student feedback to support immediate and
responsive improvements.
Management of education provision within faculties and across the university

2.4. To provide useful indicators of teaching quality and student satisfaction that are subject
to less lag time relative to end-of-study surveys like the NSS.
2.5. To enable the quality of individual modules at department, faculty and university level
to be reviewed on a consistent basis.
2.6. To enable good practice to be identified, so that it can be promulgated to other areas.
2.7. To provide a systematic and transparent means through which students can contribute
to the design and development of modules, in keeping with our commitment in Goal 6
of the Education Strategy to work with students as co-creators.
3. Module Evaluation Baseline Requirements

3.1. Module Evaluations must be anonymous87 and be undertaken online using EvaSys, the
university’s standard module evaluation software
3.2. Module Leaders are accountable for the initial analysis of responses.
3.3. Each Departmental Education Committee (or equivalent) must outline a process for
consideration of module evaluation for each module. This must include a systematic
process for identifying actions to be taken as a result of module evaluation for each
module. This process must be approved by the appropriate Faculty Education
Committee.
3.4. Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards (ARQS) will ensure that the results of
module evaluations will be distributed to Heads of Department (or their equivalent for
Single-Faculties), Executive Deans, Deans/Vice-Deans Education and Associate Directors
Education, Quality Assurance Managers and Student Experience Managers (for their
faculties), Senior Vice-Principal Academic, and the Vice-Principal Education. If a staff
member requires access to the full data, their Executive Dean, Director (or equivalent)
can request access from the Vice-Principal Education. Faculties are responsible for
ensuring that ARQS have the correct faculty-based role-holder information by 30th
September. After this date, Faculties remain responsible for notifying ARQS of any
changes to the roles.
3.5. The quantitative scores from module evaluation along with Module Convenor feedback
(a reflection on the student feedback) must be released to students through the
Instructor Portal (the EvaSys+ system) within four weeks of the closure of the relevant
survey. Outcomes must also be discussed at Staff-Student Liaison Committees88.
Qualitative data, i.e. free text comments – are not released to students.
87 Placement based modules are not required to retain student anonymity

88 Faculties should also consider publishing outcomes on the virtual learning environment
Page 181 of 307
3.6. Module evaluation leaders are expected to consider module evaluation as part of their
own PDR and append their module evaluation reports to their PDR paperwork. Module
leaders are accountable for the educational experience of students on their module(s).
In the case of group taught modules, they achieve this through their leadership of the
module team.
3.7. Colleagues who contribute to group-taught modules are expected to reflect on the
student module evaluations for the modules that they teach on as part of their PDR.
4. Module Evaluation Design and Delivery

4.1. Module evaluation is carried out via an online questionnaire. Most questions are “scale”
questions, asking students to rate their level of satisfaction in each area on a scale of 5
(“strongly agree”) to 1 (“strongly disagree”).
4.2. All module evaluation questionnaires must include the standard sets of questions. An
updated list of standardised questions were agreed by the College Education
Committee in 2021/22 (see Appendices).
Teaching evaluation
5. The purpose of teaching evaluation

5.1. To provide information that can support discussions in Performance Development
Reviews for teaching staff, academic promotion applications, and probation decisions,
and for identifying training/development requirements.
5.2. To improve our ability to recognise and reward individuals with a consistent track
record of delivering high quality education.
5.3. To improve our ability to identify trends and patterns in student feedback on modules
which require further exploration.
6. Individual Teaching Evaluation Baseline Requirements

6.1. Individual Teaching Evaluations must be anonymous89 and be undertaken online using
EvaSys, the university’s standard module evaluation software
6.2. Module Leaders are accountable for the initial analyzing of feedback regarding
themselves and those of the other teachers on the module. Module leaders are
expected to review the individual feedback with the teachers on their modules.
6.3. Results regarding individual teachers are collected to support individual developmental
and therefore not released to students.
6.4. Student evaluation of individual teaching should be considered alongside other relevant
and contextual information as part of individuals’ PDRs to support development, and
not taken in isolation as an indicator of teaching quality.
7. Evaluation of Individual Teaching Design and Delivery

7.1. Evaluation of individual teaching is carried out via EvaSys as part of the module
evaluation surveys.
7.2. Evaluation of individual teaching is undertaken for teaching staff on all classroom and
lab-based taught modules (see definition above).
7.3. All evaluation of individual teaching must include the standard set of questions that
were agreed by the College Education Committee in 2021/22 (see Appendices).
89 Placement based modules are not required to retain student anonymity

Page 182 of 307
Appendices
The following questions/statements are mandatory for inclusion on all surveys issued for classroom
taught modules.
1. This module was intellectually stimulating
2. The criteria used in assessment for this module have been made clear in advance
3. The written/verbal feedback I have received has been helpful
4. This module has been well organised
5. Learning materials (e.g. handbooks, study guides, teaching materials and online content) for
this module have effectively supported my learning
6. I have received helpful study advice and support when I have asked for it
7. I have felt included in this module through having been encouraged to ask questions and/or
participate in discussions
8. Staff value my views and perspectives in this module
9. This module has helped to broaden my knowledge and/or skillset
10. I feel part of a community on this module
11. The design and approach of the module made me feel included
12. Overall, I am satisfied with this module
13. What has been the most positive aspect of this module for you, and if you could recommend
one improvement to the Module Organiser what would it be? (Free text answer, limited to
500 characters)
The following questions/statements are mandatory for inclusion on all surveys issued for modules
delivered online:
5. Learning materials for this module have effectively supported my learning
9. This module has helped to broaden my knowledge and/or skillset
Page 183 of 307
12. The online elements of this programme are easy to use
13. Overall, I am satisfied with this module
500 characters)
The following questions/statements are mandatory for inclusion on all surveys issued for Dissertation
and/or Project Based Modules:
1. I was given sufficient guidance on how to select my dissertation/project topic
2. I received sufficient guidance for planning my dissertation/project
3. The criteria used in assessment for this module has been made clear in advance
4. My supervisor provided me with sufficient support to progress with my project/dissertation
5. I was able to meet/communicate with my supervisor at pre-arranged times
6. I was able to access subject-specific resources necessary to complete my dissertation/project
7. I was clear about who to contact in my department if problems arose with my

dissertation/project
8. I found purpose and meaning in my dissertation/project
9. My dissertation/project has helped me develop knowledge and skills
The following questions/statements are mandatory for inclusion on all surveys issued for Placement
Based Modules:
1. My placement was based at (drop down/free text answer)
2. Prior to my placement I received all the information I needed
3. The placement setting was welcoming and prepared for my arrival
4. The placement was well organized (free text box for further details)
5. I felt supported in obtaining my placement/elective
6. I felt supported during my placement
7. Key contact points took place as intended (e.g. mid-point interview, visit, sign-off)
8. I knew who to contact if I needed help or support during my placement
9. The quality of the facilities for students in this placement was good
10. My placement teachers/instructors provided appropriate teaching and supervision
11. Prior learning on my course prepared me well for the placement
12. The placement provided me with opportunities to explore ideas or concepts in practice
13. The placement provided me with positive professional experience
14. I understand how the placement learning is linked to assessment
15. During my placement I received useful feedback on my progress
16. The placement was intellectually stimulating
17. The placement has helped me develop knowledge and skills
18. Overall, I was satisfied with my placement
19. I would recommend this placement to other students
20. Please feel free to comment on any aspect of your placement (free text answer, limited to
500 characters)
Page 184 of 307
The following questions/statements are mandatory for inclusion on all surveys issued for Lab Based
Taught Modules:
10. Learning materials (e.g. handbooks, laboratory manuals, teaching materials and online
content) for this module have effectively supported my learning
11. This module has helped me develop my knowledge and laboratory skills
12. I have received clear instructions about what I need to do during laboratory practicals
13. Time allocated for each laboratory practical was sufficient and I did not feel rushed
14. I received useful help from demonstrators when I asked for it
15. The equipment was sufficient to complete the expected tasks
16. Laboratory practicals helped me better understand the material, and therefore learn more
17. Overall, I am satisfied this module
500 characters)
The following questions/statements are mandatory for the purpose of Teaching Evaluations:
1. The lecturer has been good at explaining the subject
2. The lecturer has made the subject interesting
3. The lecturer has been well prepared for their classes
4. The pace of the lectures/seminars was too slow/too fast/about right
5. The lecturer cares about my learning experience
Page 185 of 307

Section M
Notes of guidance
Page 186 of 307

Page 187 of 307
Guidance on risk and ethics assessment in the design of modules
1. Introduction
1.1 This guidance is produced jointly by the College Research Ethics Committee (CREC) and
the College Education Committee (CEC).
1.2 This document summarise the process for the registration of taught modules. Those that are
of low risk should be registered on OPAMA. For high-risk modules, an application for
ethical approval should be submitted through REMAS. Guidance is provided below for
defining a taught module and determining risk.
2. Definition of taught module component

2.1 A taught module component in this context is any type of activity which involves some kind
of physical procedure or administering of questionnaires, conducting and/or taking part in
interviews and making video or audio recordings for educational use. Taught module
components are usually routine components of undergraduate and taught postgraduate
modules which students undertake as part of their programme of study. The procedure
applies to activities where the subjects are humans. It should be noted that:
• the scope of this procedure does apply to activities conducted in a clinical setting
primarily for the purpose of gathering data for the purposes of an assignment (eg taping a
clinical consultation for subsequent analysis) where the data is derived from other
people, including non-participant observation;
• the scope of this procedure does apply to activities undertaken off campus for the
purposes of gathering information, including non-participant observation;
• the scope of this procedure does not encompass clinical training in a clinical environment
(including clinical practice on home visits as part of a placement) where frameworks
derived from professional bodies apply and practice is supervised by competent
practitioners;
• the scope of this procedure does not apply to work placements where other arrangements
for risk assessment apply.
2.2 A list of activities which would fall under the definition of a taught module component is
given below. This list covers the most commonly occurring activities. It is possible that there
are some activities not included in this list which might fall within the scope of a taught
module:
• videotaping classroom activities for later analysis (where individuals are recorded)
• taking samples such as blood, urine and saliva
• administering products such as food, alcohol or a medicinal product
• taking measurements of heart rate, blood pressure etc
• testing reaction times
• studying the effects of exercise
• examining perception and responses to external stimuli such as sound, temperature
changes
• the effects of altering the composition of inhaled gases
• the effects of acceleration and deceleration on the body
• the use of equipment such as ultrasound, breathing devices, mobility aids
• taking non-invasive bodily samples, eg fingerprints
• interviewing and taking histories of patients
• designing and administering questionnaires to fellow students and/or health volunteers
• performing intimate examinations on paid volunteers
• observation studies
• food intake diaries
• interviewing (including taking a diet history)
188
• questionnaires
• focus groups
There are occasions when taught module components can have an impact on the
environment or society without directly involving human participants; in such cases
applicants are encouraged to seek advice from the Research Ethics Office. They are
contactable at rec@kcl.ac.uk
3. General principles
3.1 The general principles are as follows:
(a) The trigger point for consideration of components is the module approval process.
(b) It is not necessary or appropriate for the CREC (or a subsidiary body) to scrutinise
all taught module components.
(c) The degree of scrutiny and consideration given should be proportionate to the
ethical issues raised and the level of risk foreseen.
(d) The scrutiny procedures operate in tandem with health and safety risk assessment.
(e) Review of taught module components falling under this procedure operate in
tandem with broad codes of conduct and good practice guidelines including an
ethical framework for students relating to informed consent (by students and others
participating in the activity), confidentiality, health and safety, action to take if
things go wrong and student conduct (including requirements for students to adhere
to approved protocols). These should be embedded within programmes of study.
3.2 Review procedures are expected to build upon existing structures for the ethical review of
research. This guidance recognises that it is difficult to determine the boundaries between
“research” and the types of activities covered herein and is produced in recognition of the
ethical issues (and particularly risks to the individual) arising out of particular teaching
activities (even when they are not deemed to be research).
4. When is approval required?

4.1 Any component associated with a particular module should be identified on the relevant
module approval documentation and a preliminary checklist90 completed to identify the
appropriate level of scrutiny. Scrutiny of the component is dependent upon the risk
involved in the activity and way in which it is deployed in the module. For example, the
level of scrutiny required for students practising interviews within a classroom will be
different to that needed for students using self-designed interviews as part of a research
project of their own.
4.2 Taught module components will fall broadly into one of three types:
(a) Activities which are conducted within a class (or equivalent) for the purposes of
practising a skill or procedure or for demonstration purposes (taught module
activity).
(b) Activities that involve all students on a module in the collection of fixed and pre-
specified information for subsequent analysis by students which does not vary
between students or from year to year (taught module assignment).
(c) Activities in which students undertake the collection of information for projects
which may be developed by the student or a staff member (taught module project).
90
The Taught Course Practical Checklist should be completed
189
4.3 Scrutiny and approval will be at one of two levels:
Within the context of a particular module activity or assignment may then be carried
out within the module. These activities will
require approval using the taught module
procedure.
For a specific occurrence/project project approval. These activities require
individual approval which cannot therefore
be sought at the point of module approval.
The relevant submission procedure for
research applications should be followed
when this is the case.
4.4 The following guidance has been produced to assist taught module leaders in ascertaining
when a project would not be considered to be research:
• when the students are practicing a skill rather than generating new knowledge;
• where the ability to test the methodology being taught is what is being tested;
• where the topics to be covered are prescribed;
• when every student is doing the same thing;
• when the purpose of the activity is to confirm previous knowledge rather than to
generate new knowledge.
The stated learning outcomes of the taught module should be consulted to assist with this.
5. Levels of risk presented

5.1 The activities encompassed in the taught component procedure can be categorised as
follows:
Low risk: Non-invasive, non-intimate examination/procedure questioning (including taking

of biological samples) conducted by students on each other or on paid subjects or volunteers
where all parties are aware of their participation. Examples: Blood pressure measurement,
auscultation, interviews (depending upon topic), observation (depending on topic and method of
observation), questionnaires (depending upon topic), ingestion of food, fingerprints, external
swabs or swabs from oral mucosa, physical assistance.
Potentially risky: Invasive/intimate examination/procedure/questioning (including taking

of biological samples) conducted by students on each other or on paid subjects or volunteers
where all parties are aware of their participation or covert observation.
Examples: Taking blood, vaginal examination, ingestion of licensed medicinal product,
interviews (depending upon topic), questionnaires (depending upon topic).
5.2 The Taught Course Practice Checklist has screening questions (to assess the level of
scrutiny required.
6. Approval mechanism/location
6.1 Completion of the Taught Course Practical Checklist will determine the approval
mechanism to follow i.e. either FEC or submit an application for Taught Practical ethical
clearance through REMAS.
6.2 If the module leader, having completed the Taught Course Practical Checklist, determines
that the module is low risk, it should be registerd on OPAMA:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/academicregulations/approvalandmod
6.3 If the module leader, having completed the Taught Course Practical Checklist, determines
the module is of high risk, an application for ethical clearance should be submitted through
190
REMAS. There is a dedicated form for taught modules:
https://internal.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/research/ethics/do-i-require/ethical-clearance
7. Evaluation and monitoring

7.1 Evaluation of the practice, consistency and standards of review will be undertaken by the
CREC using the same mechanisms as those for evaluating the review of research activities.
191
Guidance on the production of programme specifications and the
completion of programme and module approval and modification forms
Programme specifications for current programmes are available here. Please note that the following
information may not be in the order of the online system. This is due to how the information is
transferred to the SITS systems (the online form is available at https://mykcl.kcl.ac.uk/). Once
inputted and approved, SITS will be automatically updated with the details of the programme.
To ensure all students have an excellent learning experience and to meet its legal obligations under
the Equality Act 2010, the university must ensure that when modules and programmes are designed,
they do not include features that might disadvantage students with a particular protected
characteristic1 and that they reflect and advance the learning and access needs of a diverse range of
students. This should not equate to the lowering of academic standards. Instead it should allow an
area of knowledge or expertise to be conveyed as effectively as possible, in order to assist a diverse
range of students to attain agreed academic standards.
Where possible inclusive practice should be built in at the point of delivery, so that all students can
benefit, rather than at the point of need, although where a new practice is introduced for one student
because of their specific needs and is simple to implement, it will often be desirable to extend it more
widely.
Where appropriate, guidance on good inclusive practice has been inserted at relevant stages so that
it can be considered with respect to programme design at the relevant stage of completing the form.
Completion of programme specifications and module specifications should ideally be completed

prior to the Employability-led Workshop. At the time of putting in the proposal conversations
should be held with Careers and Employability to arrange a date for the workshop.
Programme approval form (the template form is available via the online system: OPAMA:
https://mykcl.kcl.ac.uk/)
The programme specification

This section of the documentation contains the programme specification. The requirement upon
institutions to produce programme specifications arose from the Report of the National Committee
of Inquiry into Higher Education (the Dearing Report). The QAA initially produced Guidelines for
preparing programme specifications (July 2006) which described in more detail the nature and
purpose of the programme specification. In November 2018, these guidance notes were updated
with the introduction of the QAA Quality Code for Higher Education
(https://www.qaa.ac.uk/quality-code/qualifications-and-credit-frameworks ). The Guidelines
describe the programme specification as “a concise description of the intended learning outcomes of
an HE programme, and the means by which the outcomes are achieved and demonstrated.”
1 The nine protected characteristics covered by the Equality Act 2010 include: age, disability, gender
reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual
orientation
192
Programme specifications are required for each programme of study, but in cases where there are
particular pathways23 within a generic programme or where there are nested qualifications4 with
different exit points, then it is possible to produce one specification which can illustrate the variety of
options. So, for example, a MSc in Business Studies and a PgDip in Business Studies could be
shown on one specification with the PgDip as a nested award within the overall degree. Where
programme specifications are produced for pathways or nested awards, the statements of programme
outcomes should be made clear for each of the awards. Additionally, in cases where there are exit
awards, the statement outcomes should make clear the expected outcomes for each of the available
awards. Where those outcomes follow the agreed standard learning outcomes, the following
statement should be noted “the following learning outcomes are applicable to all awards”.
The intended audience for a programme specification is primarily the student and therefore this
should be reflected in the language used in describing the aims and objectives of the programme.
The programme specification should provide a general overview of the programme, specific details
of the components of a programme should be given in module specifications.
P1.1 Programme title and designation

An undergraduate degree programme should be designated as either single honours, joint
honours or major/minor. If the programme specification is being written for a generic
programme with a number of pathways then the title of all the pathways should be listed.
P1.2 Final award

The final award is one of the following and should be entered in the “Award” box in the
format given below, for example Graduate Diploma, MSc:
Undergraduate level awards

level 4 Undergraduate Certificate (UGCert)
level 5 Undergraduate Diploma (DipHE), Foundation Degree (FdA), (FdSc)
level 6 BA(Hons), BSc(Hons), BEng, BSc(Eng), BMus, LLB, Professional
Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE Professional), Graduate
Certificate (GradCert), Graduate Diploma (GradDip)
Postgraduate level awards
level 7 Postgraduate Certificate (PGCert), Postgraduate Diploma (PGDip), BDS,
MB BS, MEng, MSci, MPharm, MNurs, Postgraduate Certificate in
Education (PGCE), MA, MBA, LLM, MClinDent, MSc, MMus, MPH,
MRes, MTL
Level 8 Professional doctorates – DClinPsy, DClinDent, EdD, DHC, DThM,
DrPS
The title of the programme should then be entered in the “Title” box.
2
Definition of a pathway: an overarching programme that has defined modules and learning aims and
outcomes, with optional modules (which may be core/compulsory to that pathway) forming a pathway.
Students enrol directly onto the overarching programme, determining at some defined point during the
programme of study the pathway they wish to follow2. A student can’t start on a programme and exit with
either a BA or a BSc (i.e. it can’t be an either/or option depending on pathways). The final award title will
reflect the overarching programme and pathway undertaken, unless a professional programme of study
requires something different. For those programmes that have an extended year of study this becomes a new
programme, not a pathway. The programme specification should include a learning aim and outcome related
to that additional year of study. Pathways on PGT programmes should be made up of between 90 and 120
credits from taught modules that are designated as part of the pathway and should include the dissertation.
3
Pathways should only be used in exceptional circumstances, and with a strong rationale for why a pathway is
required. PDASC will consider pathways.
4
Nested awards should only be available in exceptional circumstances, and with a strong rationale for why a
nested award is required. Nested awards will be considered by PDASC
193
All taught programmes should be allocated an overall credit value and an ECTS equivalent.
For most programmes this will accord with the standard UK tariffs and the College’s credit
framework where 1 credit equals 10 hours of notional learning (which includes teaching,
private study, revision and assessment) as follows:
UK credit ECTS credit

Undergraduate certificate 120 60
Undergraduate diploma 240 120
Foundation degree (2 years) 240 120
Honours degree (3 years) 360 180
Integrated masters 480 240
Graduate certificate 60 30
Graduate diploma 120 60
Postgraduate certificate 60 30
Postgraduate diploma 120 60
Masters 180 90
Masters (2 years full-time) 240 120
It is possible for programmes at the same level to require differing amounts of credit (eg 4
and 5 year honours level degrees require more than 360 credits), but programmes may not
fall below the minimum amount of credit designated for the award. For further information
see the table in the Academic Regulations.
It is important to note that the notional hours of learning in UK credit systems is a proxy
measure of the volume of the learner effort required by the average learner at that time to
achieve the required learning outcomes of the programme. It is difficult to state rigidly the
time it takes any individual student to learn, therefore it is important to emphasise that the
learning ‘time’ is regarded as a broad estimate. In this way notional hours of learning must,
only, be employed as a rough guide. This is particularly relevant when equating UK credit
to ECTS credits.
The European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) aims to make study
programmes in Europe easier to read and compare. The Framework for Qualifications of
the European Higher Education includes typical credit allocations for each cycle:
• 1st cycle qualifications (equivalent to UK H level): typically include 180-240 ECTS

credits
• 2nd cycle qualifications (equivalent to UK M level): typically include 90-120 ECTS
credits, with a minimum of 60 credits at the level of the 2nd cycle
In Europe the workload of a full-time student during one academic year is calculated to be
60 ECTS credits. Therefore, a calculation of 1 ECTS credit = 2 UK credits at programme
level provides an easy translation so that a standard BA/BSc is worth 180 and a standard
MA/MSc is worth 90 ECTS credits.
For further information on the relationship between UK and ECTS credits see the
following:
ECTS Users Guide

https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-levels/higher-education/inclusive-and-
connected-higher-education/european-credit-transfer-and-accumulation-system
QAA general guidance on the use of credit
194
https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/higher-education-credit-framework-for-
england.pdf?sfvrsn=527fd781_8
P1.3 Nested awards

A nested award is a lower volume award which shares some of the learning outcomes of a
larger volume award. For example a Masters degree may have a nested postgraduate
diploma and/or postgraduate certificate within it which would allow participants to exit
after completing the PGDip/PGCert or continue to take further modules to lead to the
award of the MA (same level of study, lower volume of credit), and a MSci degree may
have a BSc nested within it (lower level, lower volume).
In all such cases nested awards are regarded as separate programmes onto which
students can be directly recruited. Students register for nested awards (unlike exit awards)
and may progress from a nested award on to the ‘higher’ award (but do not then receive
both awards). Nested awards should only be used in exceptional circumstances and
require PDASC approval.
Nested awards onto which students can be directly recruited will be set up as separate
programmes on SITS, whereas exit awards will not (see P1.4 below).
Only a single programme specification is required for the highest level of award, for example
Master’s. Indication should then be given in the “any specific criteria” box and box 18 of
the nested points for the programme, for example Postgraduate Diploma, and the
components of the curriculum required to be passed to achieve that particular award.
Statement outcomes making clear what the expected outcomes are for the awards must be
noted for each award.
As with box P1.2, all parts of the section must be completed ie Title, Credit value and
ECTS equivalent.
P1.4 Exit awards

Exit awards are only available to a student unable to meet the credit volume and/or
credit level requirements for the award on which they are registered but who
nevertheless, has completed a meaningful period of study and has satisfied the examiners
that they have met identifiable learning outcomes. Eligibility criteria and exit award titles
must be indicated in box 4.
Classified exit awards are only available for Level 6 and Level 7 awards; Level 5 and below
awards are unclassified. If a programme does not want to offer an exit award then
permission must be sought from the College Education Committee, via the Academic
Standards Sub-Committee.
Only a single programme specification is required for the highest level of award, for example
Master’s. Indication should be given programme information section of the exit points for
the programme, for example Postgraduate Diploma, and the components of the curriculum
required to be passed to achieve that particular award.
Titles of exit awards should relate to Faculty and subject area e.g. UG Certificate in
Biosciences Education (Nutrition) and will follow the agreed standard learning outcomes.
The following statement should be noted on the programme “the following learning
outcomes are applicable to all awards”. Where programmes wish to have programme
specific exit awards then programme defined learning outcomes will need to be recorded on
the programme specification.
195
P1.5 Level in the qualifications framework
This refers to the Framework for higher education qualifications published by the QAA,
where each qualification is assigned to one particular level in the Framework. The levels
with their associated qualifications are set out paragraph P1.2 above. Institutions are
expected to be able to demonstrate that the intended learning outcomes of each programme
award match the qualification descriptors for the level of that particular award. These are
built on using the generic level descriptors (see box M1.11 below).
P1.6 Attendance
Information should be provided on whether the programme is offered in full- or part-time
mode or both or whether it is offered by distance learning. The minimum and maximum
lengths of the programme should be provided, which must accord with the lengths of
programmes as stipulated in the regulations. The maximum period of study as stated
includes any periods of interruption.
Although it is recognised that there are resource implications for introducing greater
flexibility into the attendance structure of programmes, it is recommended that flexibility is
considered wherever possible. Issues such as attendance requirements, availability of the
programme of study as either part- or full-time, the scope for transfer to alternative
programmes and the scope for choice of modules or elements within the programme, will all
have an impact on the accessibility of the programme and where possible should be
considered at the design stage.
Those programmes offered as distance learning, are normally considered as part-time

programmes. Consideration should be given on the number of hours a week a student
would be expected to cover to ensure students are not overburdened with work and
distance learning.
P1.7 Awarding institution/body

The awarding institution is King’s College London. If a programme has been agreed by the
Programme Development and Approval Sub-Committee, as a joint award (see section 7
Procedures for programme and module approval and modification) then the name of the other
institution should also be given.
P1.8 Teaching institution

The teaching institution is King’s College, although reference should be made to other
bodies who contribute a substantial amount to the teaching of the programme, for example
when another body delivers a complete module or more.
P1.9 Proposing department

All programmes should have an academic “home” in a designated department. Where
programmes are taught by more than one department, the lead department should be given
here.
P1.10 Programme organiser and contact details

This should be the academic organiser and contact details should include telephone number
and email address.
P1.11 Relevant QAA subject benchmark/ PSRB guidelines

Subject benchmark statements are based around broad subject groupings which are
designed to represent the conceptual framework of a discipline and to provide information
about the understanding and skills acquired through the study of that discipline. Subject
benchmark statements need to be considered in the design of a new programme, although it
should be noted that for some programmes more than one benchmark statement may be
196
relevant and for others there may not be any statements of direct relevance. Further
information and the benchmark statements themselves can be found on the QAA web site at
https://www.qaa.ac.uk/quality-code/subject-benchmark-statements
Where a programme is being accredited by a Professional Statutory and Regulatory Body

then reference to the PSRB must be noted.
P1.12 Date of programme (periodic) review

Programmes are currently approved for a period of up to six years and re-approval is given
by the process of periodic review which operates on a six-year cycle. Therefore, the date of
periodic review is normally six years from the date of approval i.e. the first session in which a
programme runs is year 1 of the cycle and it is reviewed in year 6. However, some Faculties
operate periodic review on a departmental basis and review all the programmes in a
department at one go. In this case, the date of periodic review will be the next date on
which the department’s programmes are due to be reviewed (if falling before the six-year
cycle ends) and it should be noted that the review will fall in line with the departmental
review.
P1.13 Educational aims of the programme

The educational aims set out the purpose of the programme and are general statements about
the learning that takes place over the duration of the programme, including the
employability skills students are expected to achieve. Examples of aims for some College
programmes are given below.
When defining the educational aims of the programme it is recommended that the core
elements which are essential to the programme are justifiable and clearly articulated, so that
students who may not be able to fulfil certain aspects due to illness/disability reasons,
family/work commitments or religious practices for example can make informed decisions
about whether to apply and are aware of the importance of communicating any relevant
circumstances as early as possible.
It is also recommended that issues such as the degree to which the curriculum should and
does reflect the needs, views and interests of a modern, diverse society (including
employability) and takes account of scholarship within the discipline that covers the 9
protected characteristics5 as themes or topics should be taken into account.
the aims of the BA/BSc in Geography are to:

• provide a thorough training in the subject matter and techniques of Geography
• develop in students a range of intellectual, practical and transferable skills, embedding their
practice and assessment within the process of learning about Geography
• encourage a spirit of enquiry among our students
• develop an ethical awareness of their place within a changing world
• develop detailed academic, practical and methodological knowledge based on students’ chosen
degree pathway
the aims of the Pharmacy MPharm are to:

• deliver a pharmacy programme in an innovative, integrated and patient-focused manner
• provide education and training that is accredited by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great
Britain
• provide students with the ability to integrate and critically evaluate multidisciplinary information
leading to the application of pharmaceutical knowledge
5 The nine protected characteristics covered by the Equality Act 2010 include: age, disability, gender
reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion and belief, sec and sexual
orientation
197
• ensure the students’ understanding of the professional role of the pharmacist in society and how
they contribute to the healthcare of the patients
• provide students with a thorough understanding of law and ethics relating to pharmacy
• develop students’ ability to provide advice on the use of medicines and the promotion of good
health
• provide the student with opportunities for shared inter-professional education with other health
science students including medicine, dentistry, midwifery, nutrition and nursing
• provide the students with the knowledge and skills to equip them for a career in pharmacy and
pharmaceutical sciences
the aims of the MA in Ancient History are to:

• introduce students to skills essential for research in all major fields of Ancient History, and
provide practical training to enable them to achieve technical competence as necessary
• provide a systematic study of specialized topics within Ancient History
• foster the ability to learn independently, either for further research or for individual intellectual
development.
P1.14 Educational objectives of the programme/programme outcomes

The educational objectives and outcomes of the programme provide a concise summary of
the main features of the programme and the learning outcomes that a typical student might
reasonably be expected to achieve and demonstrate if s/he takes full advantage of the
learning opportunities that are provided. The language used to describe learning outcomes
should express them in terms that are measurable; typically, this will include phrases such as
“to analyse”, “to demonstrate”, “to understand”. The learning and teaching methods
deployed, and the type of assessment should allow students to achieve and demonstrate the
learning outcomes, including those related to employability.
This section of the form should cover the intended outcomes for the programme in the four
areas below and detail the associated teaching, learning and assessment methods. The
outcomes should take account of external reference points such as benchmark statements
and/or professional, statutory and regulatory body requirements. It is important that these
outcomes relate closely to the overall educational aims and take account of the generic level
descriptors.
For each award that a programme specification covers the descriptions should make clear
where there are differences in outcomes associated with the different awards. Masters’ level
programmes should clearly demonstrate a level of knowledge, understanding and skills
above that expected from an undergraduate programme.
Knowledge and understanding

This is what the student should know and/or understand on completion of the programme.
This will include the subject content, paradigms, conceptual basis, limitations and
boundaries, and the contexts in which the subject is used.
Intellectual skills
These are cognitive skills such as an understanding of methodologies or ability in critical
analysis. This will include skills such as thinking creatively or critically, analysis, synthesis
and evaluation.
Practical skills
Practical skills incorporate professional skills and will include the ability to conduct
laboratory work, research a topic or problem, observe, describe or report accurately or being
able to undertake context/textual analysis. These will be developed through the student’s
opportunity to practice in an appropriate learning context.
198
Generic/transferable skills
These skills are personal and social; they are key skills that are not discipline specific and are
readily transferable to employment and other contexts. This includes communication,
numeracy and the use of IT. For example, there may be an expectation that a programme
involves team working, managing and evaluating one’s own learning and/or making an
effective use of IT.
Further guidance on how to write learning outcomes can be accessed via the Embedding
Employability Toolkit and guidance can be sought from King’s Academy.
P1.15 Statement of how the programme has been informed by the relevant subject benchmark
statement(s)/professional, statutory or regulatory body guidelines
Subject benchmark statements provide a helpful starting point when designing a new
programme or reviewing an existing programme. However, they are not the sole point of
reference and should not be simply transposed into the outcomes of the programme
specification. It is possible to put more emphasis on some aspects of the benchmark
statement than others or to disagree with certain aspects provided this can be justified. For
some programmes more than one benchmark statement may be relevant and for others there
may not be any statements of direct relevance. Mention should also be made, if relevant, of
how professional, statutory or regulatory body guidelines have been used. An example of a
programme that utilises more than one benchmark statement is the BA in War Studies
which provides the following statement for this section:
“The subject matter of War Studies has been informed by the Politics and International Relations
benchmark statement, although much that would be relevant to a Politics and International Relations
programme is not relevant to a subject-driven and multidisciplinary programme such as War Studies.
Indeed War Studies is one of those endeavours described in the benchmark statement as cutting
‘across conventional knowledge based categories’ and whose ‘distinctive approaches to understanding
and skills may need to draw on a wider range of materials and resources, including other benchmarks
standards to capture fully the specific character of their particular degree programmes.’ The War
Studies programme has been designed in this spirit. For example the History benchmark statement’s
emphasis on increasing conceptual sophistication and increasing interpretative skills in terms of
knowledge and progression is reflected in the differing expectations placed on War Studies students
over their three years on the programme, viz:
Year 1: basic knowledge typically understood within the context of a single concept, theory or
method.
Year 2: a broadening knowledge and deepening understanding, derived from a critical engagement
with the subject, as well as awareness that this knowledge and understanding is constructed in the
context of multiple concepts, theories and methods.
Year 3: specialised knowledge often located at or informed by a critical engagement with leading-
edge developments in a particular area of War Studies, as well as broader knowledge understood
within the context of a synthesis of concepts, theories or methods.”
P1.16 Rationale for joint honours programmes

All joint honours programmes should be underpinned by a clear intellectual rationale either
educational or academic defined as follows:
an educational rationale applies to instances whereby the components of a joint honours

degree, without necessarily overlapping at subject level, nonetheless provide the student
with a greater breadth of complementary learning outcomes and thereby a more rounded
education than afforded by a single honours degree.
an academic rationale applies to combinations where there is a significant overlap between

the two subject areas in terms of knowledge and expertise and where studies in one
component thereby shed light on studies in the other to enhance the student’s understanding
of both.
199
A lead department and/or Faculty should be identified for all joint honours degrees
programmes.
P1.17 Programme structure and award requirements
This section requires a map of the programme structure and the associated award
requirements for both full-time and part-time modes of study. This information should also
be provided for any variants of the programme such as joint honours and major/minor
combinations or nested/exit awards. Programme designers should ensure that the learning
outcomes of the various permutations of modules that can be taken will allow achievement
of the stated learning outcomes for the programme overall.
A programme cannot have more than 25% additional modules ‘on the books’ than those
which are offered in any given year.
A programme which is flexible in structure will almost by definition be more accessible,

although the scope for flexibility will clearly vary from programme to programme. There are
several ways in which a programme can be made to incorporate a greater degree of
flexibility, although it is recognised that there may be sound arguments against flexible
provision as the norm. In order to make use of these suggestions it is important to clarify the
core elements or aspects of a programme (including any off-site provision such as placements
or a year abroad), in order to make an assessment of where adjustments to teaching practices
can occur. Suggestions for flexibility include:
• Clearly identifying which aspects of the curriculum are essential to a prescribed learning
outcome and progression and which are more flexible;
• Clearly identifying whether flexibility exists over the pace of delivery for the whole
programme of study, allowing students to choose to study part-time or full-time, or a
mixture of both, at different times of their programme;
• Clearly indicating whether flexibility exists over the pace of delivery of individual
modules, allowing students to either complete all aspects of a module as it is scheduled,
or perhaps postpone some elements of it, such as parts of the assessment or a placement,
for completion at a later date. This will allow students to take breaks without losing
continuity for periods of illness or pregnancy etc;
• Providing a choice of modules within programmes of study, and east of movement
between such elements;
• Enabling flexibility over methods of delivery, for example learning packages, use of e-
mail.
Where two subjects studied in a programme have approximately equal importance “and” is
used in the title (each subject will be expected to have modules with a minimum value of
120 credits).
Going forward, greater flexibility is to be introduced into a programme as part of the

Education Strategy 2017 – 2022. Further details on this will follow once finalised.
Information that appears in the regulations should not be repeated here as this applies
universally to all programmes. If progression and award requirements are different from
those specified in the Regulations then these need to be noted in the relevant box as do
the maximum number of credits permitted with a condoned fail (core modules excluded
as they cannot be condoned) and whether a programme allows substitute modules
(where a student has failed a non-core6 module). Any particular features of the
6
A non-core module may be a compulsory module, optional module, introductory module etc.
200
programme such as a year abroad or a year spent in industry should be briefly described as
should any additional non-credit requirements necessary to meet the requirements for award
and whether students are permitted to take modules and acquire credit in addition to that
required by their programme.
It is recognised that the availability of optional modules may vary slightly from year to year.
The component parts of the programme should be detailed in the programme structure table
as follows:
Code and title of the module
Credit level and credit value - a module can only be assigned to one credit level and have one
credit value. Units of credit are limited to multiples of 15 e.g. 15, 30, 45 or 60 and, for
taught postgraduate programmes only, additional units of 5, 10 are also available, plus a 120
credit module for the project on MRes programmes. Requests to use larger or smaller units
of credit should be referred to the College Education Committee for approval. For Masters’
programmes, the dissertation/research project element should follow the College Core Code
of Practice for PGT research governance and dissertation framework.
Status of the module ie whether it is introductory, core, compulsory, core/compulsory (one

or more modules that must be taken and/or passed and that are selected from a group of
modules), optional or a professional practice module for each type of programme.
An introductory module is one whose designated level falls below that designated for the
level of the programme. It may be a pre-requisite for another module. It is not included in
the credit tariff for a programme nor included in the classification calculation.
A core module is one that must be both taken and passed. A non-core module (i.e. all other
module status) is one that must be taken.
A professional practice module does not have a level nor is it included in the credit tariff for
a programme nor in the award classification but may need to be passed to meet the
requirements for progression and/or for award.
Pre-requisite/co-requisite requirements - please give the module code for any modules that
are pre-requisite for another module or co-requisite. A module designated as a pre-requisite
is one which a student must both take and pass in order to progress to another specified
module.
Assessment – a brief outline of the assessment of each module should be provided e.g. written
examinations, coursework. More specific details of the assessment for each component of
the programme will be provided on the online Module Approval Form.
When designing assessment procedures it is important to utilise a range and variety of

assessment methods, in order to enable students with a range of learning style and
experience to demonstrate their aptitude. Assessment procedures should also be scrutinised
to ensure that they are balanced and do not unfairly discriminate against any individual or
group of students and that they give the students the opportunity to meet the modules
learning aims and outcomes.
Where certain assessment procedures are justifiably core to the programme, this should be
clearly articulated, and where they are not, alternate modes of assessment should be
considered.
P1.18 Marking criteria
201
The College has generic marking criteria which apply to the assessment of essays and
dissertation/project reports. In addition, Faculties have produced discipline specific criteria
which map onto the generic College criteria and reflect the principles embodied in the
generic scheme. Neither of these criteria need to be reproduced but details/link to the
scheme should be noted. Any marking criteria additional to the above, for example if a
PSRB has any particular requirements should also be recorded.
All assessment schemes have to be approved by the relevant Assessment Board before final
approval by the Academic Standards Sub-Committee which includes approval for the
assessment of students undertaking study elsewhere, for example on an exchange agreement,
and the approval of arrangements for the translation of marks obtained at another institution.
P1.19 Assessment Sub-board

Please indicate here whether the programme will report to an existing Assessment Sub-
board, and if so which one, or whether a new Board will be set up, in which case please give
the name of the new Board.
P1.20 External examiners

Please indicate whether the process for the nomination of external examiner(s) has
commenced and provide the names of the external(s) if known.
P1.21 Measures to help ensure that the programme is inclusive to all students
An inclusive approach has its foundation in a commitment to promoting equality and
diversity by embedding the following principles in the design process7:
Anticipatory: it is proactive in considering the entitlements of all students in the design and
delivery of all activity. Adopting an anticipatory approach reduces the need for reactive
and individualised responses that can arise when inclusive issues have not been considered
at the design phase.
Flexible: it is open, versatile and responsive to an evolving student population, and to

changes in circumstances that may require adaptations to the timetable or delivery format to
accommodate student availability, for instance blended learning.
Collaborative: it builds on partnership between students, colleagues and other stakeholders to

enrich the curriculum content and relevance. Staff must be receptive to feedback and
recognise that developing inclusive provision is an ongoing process that benefits from the
active involvement of all participants.
Transparent: it makes clear the reason for design decisions by increasing general awareness
of the benefits for all and reduces the possibility of misunderstandings based on perceived
preferential treatment.
Equitable: it ensures the processes and procedures used for students are the same and
decisions are made in a fair, open and transparent way.
Please explain the measures that you have in place to ensure that the following aspects of the
programme reflect the principles above: the aims, objectives/learning outcomes, structure,
teaching methods, learning activities, assessment, feedback, teaching and learning materials
and course handbook/publicity8.
7 This approach draws on work previously produced by the Higher Education Academy, Inclusive
Curriculum Design
8 Which should clearly articulate where there are elements of the programme which are justified as being core,
including any aspects of assessment, learning and teaching

202
Entry qualifications section
Entry profile
In line with the recommendations of the Schwartz report on Fair admissions to higher
education, that an admissions system should be fair and transparent, the College has agreed
that entry profiles will be produced for each programme of study which will clarify the
academic and non-academic entrance criteria required. Any skills, attributes or knowledge
which are essential for the successful completion of the programme should be identified in
the entry profile and conveyed to students in information about the programme. The entry
profile is divided into three sections as follows:
P2.1 Academic criteria

This should list which subjects are required at which particular level. All stated academic
criteria should be objectively justified and relevant to the student’s ability to complete the
programme. Compulsory subjects should be included where appropriate as should subjects
which are not considered. Other qualifications and international equivalences can be
determined and advertised with the advice of the Admissions Office.
P2.2 Any additional criteria

All stated non-academic criteria should be objectively justified and relevant to the student’s
ability to complete the programme. If the programmes does not have any non-academic
criteria then it should read “Not applicable”.
Non-academic criteria should be framed in such a way, as to be achievable by students from

differing backgrounds and who have access to differing levels of opportunity.
P2.3. Interviewing policy

This should include information about whether applicants are interviewed and if so the
format of the interview. The interviewing policy should be applied consistently for all
applicants. See the College-wide interviewing policy and guidelines for more information
(https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/admissions-interview-policy).
The information on entry requirements published by UCAS and in College prospectuses is

generally a year ahead of the programme specification. It is therefore worth noting that the
entry profile that is given on the programme specification relates to the year of the
programme specification; therefore a 2019/20 programme specification will have a 2019/20
entry profile, rather than a 2020/21 or 2021/22 profile. The most up to date entry
information should be available in the College on-line prospectus.
Further advice on entry profiles can be sought from the Directorate of Admissions and
Registry Services in the Directorate of Students and Education.
P2.4 Any additional information

This should note whether there are any legal eligibility checks that need to be undertaken.
Further advice can be sought from the Directorate of Admissions and Registry Services in
the Directorate of Students and Education.
Collaborative provision section

This section of the documentation collects information on various types of collaborative activity
such as joint awards, programmes that operate in collaboration with another body or where the
students spend time outside the College, and programmes that require validation or accreditation by
a professional, statutory or regulatory body. Not all of the information in this section will be relevant
for all programmes and for some programmes this section will not be relevant at all.
P3.1 Collaborative provision
203
Please indicate which of the various types of collaborative activity the programme is
involved with, see Definitions of collaborative activity for more information.
P3.2 Joint award, double award, multiple award, dual award or validated provision
A joint award is one in which a single award is made jointly by two or more awarding
institutions. Approval from the Programme Development and Approval Sub-Committee is
required before a joint award with another institution can be offered. Further information
on the process to be followed is given in the Procedures for the approval and monitoring of
collaborative provision. Faculties should not approve joint programmes such as these until
approval has been given by the Programme Development and Approval Sub-Committee.
The approved copy of the Collaborative Provision Partner Profile and checklist form (for
new activity9) submitted to the Programme Development and Approval Sub-Committee
should be attached to the programme approval documentation. Where arrangements have
been put in place with an existing partner and the same activity, a summary statement
should be attached.
Likewise double, multiple or dual awards should also gain approval from the Programme
Development and Approval Sub-Committee before it can be offered.
See Guidance on jointly delivered taught programmes for further guidance.
It is not anticipated that the College will be entering into any validated provision in the near
future but if consideration was to be had then a clear academic rationale would need to be
presented to the Vice-Principal (Education) in the first instance.
P3.3 Partnership programme - delivery of programmes away from College campuses by

bodies external to the College
Information should be provided in this box on elements of a programme that are delivered
away from the main College campus by a body external to the College. It is expected that a
visit to any off-site location will be made before the programme is put forward for approval
to the Faculty Education Committee (or equivalent) and a report of the visit should be
attached to the documentation (template form available at:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/academicregulations/collaborative-provision).
When designing a placement or period of study abroad, it will be important to consider a

variety of issues at the design stage, in order to ensure the experience is inclusive for all
students and that the College is offering a parity of provision. The College’s legal
obligations, relevant to equalities legislation also apply to students on placement.
Furthermore, in relation to disabled students, the legislation stipulates that in cases where
the College arranges for a third party to provide education, training or other related services
for students on its behalf, this provision remains the responsibility of the College and so is
covered by the legislation.
Note should be taken of the Guidance on the operation of collaborative teaching activity.
P3.4 Recognition of study or award of credit through off-campus study or placement

Information should be provided on the type of activity that the student will be undertaking,
i.e. a year abroad, a year in employment, a placement in a professional or educational
environment, internships, the length of time this will take, the amount of credit and whether
this is a compulsory or optional part of the programme. Information is not needed on
placements that are a requirement of a professional, statutory or regulatory body.
P3.5 Rationale for time outside the College

9 This relates to either: new activity with an existing partner or new activity with a new partner
204
All the activity listed above should have a clear rationale and evidence of how this will
enhance the student experience (this information does not need to be provided for those
programmes where placements are a requirement of a professional, statutory or regulatory
body). Note should be taken of the Guidance on student placements.
P3.6 Validation/accreditation by a professional, regulatory or statutory body

Information should be provided on the relevant PSRB, commencement date of the
validation/accreditation and the dates of validation/accreditation events. Where the
professional, statutory or regulatory body has a policy on recruitment of disabled people, it
will be important to be conversant with the details, including information about the possible
“reasonable adjustments” that can be made whilst also maintaining academic standards.
Administrative information
The information collected in this section is to allow the programme to be set up on SITS. Much of
the information is also required for the purposes of the College’s statutory return to HESA.
P4.1 Programme name

As before.
P4.2 Programme code

The programme code will be available via OPAMA. Queries on programme coding should
be directed to Registry.
P4.3 JACS code (now known as The Higher Education Classification Subjects (HECoS)
Please select the most appropriate code from the list at the following web address, there may
be some programmes for which two HECoS codes are appropriate
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/support/documentation/hecos
P4.4 Estimated intake

The estimated intake of UK/EU and International students should reflect that in the Faculty
business plan.
P4.5 Campus
P4.6 Duration
Information should be provided on the start time of the programme and whether it runs
according to an academic year (September – June, or September to September) or a
calendar year (January to December) or any other duration. If there is more than one entry
point during a year this should also be given. If any years of the programme are longer than
the standard for that particular type of programme, information should be provided on the
length of the non-standard year. Details of the term dates should be provided if the
programme does not follow standard term dates. Any variations to the standard term dates
should first have been approved by the Academic Board.
P4.7 Finance
The major source of finance is usually Office for Students or the DoH but please list other
sources or indicate if the programme is self-financing. For advice on allocating programmes
to price groups please contact SPA or Faculty Operation Officers10.
P4.8 Contributing departments/divisions/Faculties

If the programme is not taught solely within the proposing department/division/
Faculty, information should be provided on the nature of the involvement of other
departments, for example delivery of a compulsory module. If it is possible to state the
10
Previously known as Directors of Administration
205
percentage that this contributes to the overall programme then this information should be
provided. In cases where a contributing department delivers an optional module it may not
be possible to state the percentage as this will vary depending on the number of modules
available; in this case please state as such.
The approval process

P5.2 Initial approval by Programme Development and Approval Sub-Committee
Initial approval by the Faculty Education Committee/Vice Dean Education, Dean of
Faculty and territorial Vice-Principal is required to ensure that the proposed programme is
consistent with the Faculties academic and business plan and that an appropriate business
plan and marketing plan have been produced. Additionally initial approval is required from
the Programme Development and Approval Sub-Committee to enable the College to take a
strategic overview of its new programme development.
The date the Programme Proposal Form was approved by the Programme Development
and Approval Sub-Committee should be noted to indicate that initial approval has been
given by both the Vice Dean Education, Executive Dean of Faculty, territorial Vice-
Principal and the College. The business, marketing and careers plan is then attached to the
Programme Approval Form.
P5.3 Consultation at the planning stage

Proposers of new programmes should liaise with a range of professional services staff to
ensure that the new programme can be supported in terms of learning resources. Similarly,
any additional requirements that the programme may make in terms of, for example, space
requirements, academic facilities or student services should be discussed with the relevant
senior officer. The Faculty Education Committee, or equivalent, in approving the
programme will ensure that such liaison has taken place and, where additional
services/support are required, that this has the approval of the relevant area.
New academic staffing should be considered and consulted at the Faculty Planning Round
meetings. All requests should be completed by December each year.
An indication should be given of which other departments/Faculties have been consulted

during the design of the new programme to ensure that all relevant parties have had a chance
to make an input.
P5.4 Approval by the Faculty Education Committee (or equivalent)

Following approval of the programme, the relevant email noting approvals from the Chair of
the Faculty Education Committee, the member of the CEC/FEC from another Faculty and
the external peer appointed to the Faculty for the purposes of programme approval and
review should be uploaded onto OPAMA.
If a programme is approved subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions, then these

approvals are only sought once these conditions have been met. Any submissions to
OPAMA that are missing any of these signatures will be deemed by the College not to have
been formally approved and will be returned to the Faculty for completion.
Some Faculties may opt to establish sub-committees of the Faculty Education Committee to
consider the detailed scrutiny of programme approval documentation. In such cases, it
remains the responsibility of the Faculty Education Committee to give the final formal
approval to the programme and for the Chair to sign it off.
P5.5 Approval for joint honours programmes/jointly taught programmes
206
Joint honours programmes and those jointly taught between Faculties, regardless of the
amount of teaching involved, should be approved by the Education Committees of both/all
Faculties and signed off by the Chairs of both/all.
P5.6 Final notification to Programme Development and Approval Sub-Committee/approval if

deemed complex
Following submission of Faculty approved forms to ARQS, officers in ARQS will check the
documentation submitted. If all agreed, then date of agreement will be noted, and the
approval noted at the next PDASC meeting.
Where complex programmes are put forward the documentation will be considered at the
next PDASC meeting. Once the formal approval has been given then officers in ARQS will
advise marketing and admissions department of this final approval.
Section 6 – external specialist advice

P6.1 Report of the external specialist
The external specialist can be either a peer in the same subject area from another institution,
a member of a professional, regulatory or statutory body, an employer with links to the
subject area or from business or industry. Former external examiners can be used in this
capacity as can current examiners, provided that the latter do not subsequently act as
external examiner for the programme in question for a period of three academic years. For
further information see Guidance for Faculties on the use of external specialist and external peers
for programme approval and review.
The external specialist is asked to provide a brief report on the programme to include:
• the nature of the interaction with the Department/Faculty ie attendance at programme

planning meetings, electronic communication, scrutiny of documentation;
• the extent to which the programme meets a defined market need;
• subject content;
• engagement with the various points of reference of the national quality assurance
framework such as the Framework for higher education qualifications and subject
benchmark statements, if applicable;
• engagement with the requirements of a professional, statutory or regulatory body, if
applicable.
An electronic signature from the external specialist will be acceptable.
For any proposed Foundation Degree programme, or distance learning programme, the
specialist should also have some knowledge of and involvement in the type of programme
being proposed to enable an appropriate input to the proposed programme.
P6.2 Response of the department

The department should indicate briefly how they have taken on board the comments of the
external specialist. This is in order to make clear that the paperwork reflects any
amendments recommended by the external specialist.
Module approval form (the online form is available at: https://mykcl.kcl.ac.uk/). Please note that
the following information may not be in the order of the online system. User guides for the system
are available at: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/academicregulations/approvalandmod
Once inputted and approved, SITS will be automatically updated with the details of the module.
Please note that currently this does not apply to Short Courses. For guidance on short courses
please review the Short Course Policy (see Section I).
M1.1 Module title

207
The module title should be no longer than 120 characters.
M1.2 Study Abroad

If the module, albeit sometimes with a different form of assessment, is also offered to Study
Abroad students, this should be indicated here.
M1.3 Module code

Faculty/Campus Offices should be consulted for advice on the local rules governing the
allocation of codes to modules. If the module is available for Study Abroad students with a
different form of assessment then the module should be allocated a separate code. If Study
Abroad students take the module and its assessment exactly the same as King’s students then
no separate code is required.
M1.4 Subject area

Please click on the following link and select the most appropriate code
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/support/documentation/hecos
M1.5 Credit level

Credit levels define the level of complexity, relative demand and autonomy expected of a
learner on completion of the unit of learning. A module can only be allocated to one credit
level.
M1.6 Credit value

The College’s credit framework utilises standard credit tariffs where 1 credit equals 10 hours
of notional learning (which includes teaching, private study, revision and assessment). It is
important to note, however, that the notional hours of learning in UK credit systems is a
proxy measure of the volume of the learner effort required by the average learner at that
time to achieve the required learning outcomes of the programme. It is difficult to state
rigidly the time it takes any individual student to learn, therefore it is important to emphasise
that the learning ‘time’ is regarded as a broad estimate. In this way notional hours of
learning must, only, be employed as a rough guide. This is particularly relevant when
equating UK credit to ECTS credits. As mentioned above in paragraph P1.2, the workload
of a full-time student during one academic year is calculated to be 60 ECTS credits which
equates to 120 UK credits. Further guidance is available at:
ECTS Users Guide

https://ec.europa.eu/education/resources-and-tools/european-credit-transfer-and-
accumulation-system-ects_en
QAA general guidance on the use of credit
https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/higher-education-credit-framework-for-
england.pdf?sfvrsn=527fd781_8
The units of credit available are multiples of 15 e.g. 15, 30, 45 and 60 for undergraduate and
taught postgraduate programmes. Postgraduate programmes may also have additional units
of 5, 10 and 90 and 120 credit modules for the project on MRes programmes. Approval to
use any other size unit of credit should be sought from the College Education Committee.
Smaller shorter units can be accommodated by “bundling” them together with other
small/short modules, however if there is a case to be made for having a module valued at less
than 15 credits (at UG level), again approval should be sought first from the College
Education Committee. For Masters’ programmes, the dissertation/research project element
should follow the College guidelines (see Guidance for taught postgraduate dissertations).
M1.7 Teaching institution (if not King’s College)

If an outside body is responsible for delivering the module please provide the full name of the
other body.
208
M1.8 Proposing department
All modules should have an academic “home” in a designated department. Where modules
are taught by more than one department, the lead department should be given here.
M1.9 Module organiser and contact details

This should be the academic organiser and contact details should include telephone number
and email address.
M1.10 Educational aims of the module

The educational aims of the module are brief general statements of the overall purpose of the
module, for example:
“to provide an understanding of recent conservation policy-making and its impact upon patterns of
land use in the UK.”
M1.11 Learning outcomes of the module

The learning outcomes specify what the student will be able to demonstrate upon successful
completion of the module, including any employability learning outcomes. They are usually
expressed in terms of knowledge, understanding and skills, for example:
“by the end of the module the student will be able to demonstrate a knowledge of the linguistic,
literary, cultural and socio-historical contexts in which Anglo-Saxon literature is written and read.”
“by the end of the module the student will be able to evaluate the scope and limitations of DNA-
based diagnostic tests.”
“by the end of the module the student will be able to work co-operatively with others in the design
and organisation of a laboratory-based experiment.”
The aims and outcomes for a particular module should be consistent with the overall aims
and outcomes for the programme to which it contributes and should take account of the
generic level descriptors available at http://www.seec.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2016/07/SEEC-descriptors-2016.pdf
A good practice to adopt in module approval is to view the module and its delivery from the
perspective of the student and the way in which information is imparted to them. It is
expected therefore that, as part of their approval processes, in addition to receiving
information on aims and learning outcomes, Faculties will give detailed consideration to
such matters as the proposed syllabus for a module, consideration of seminar topics and
bibliographies.
Further guidance on how to write learning outcomes can be accessed via the Embedding
Employability Toolkit.
M1.12 Prohibited combinations

The title and code of those modules that cannot be taken in combination with the proposed
module should be provided, together with the programme to which this prohibition relates.
M1.13 Pre-requisites
Please list the title and code for those modules for which the proposed module is a pre-
requisite and those modules which are a pre-requisite for the proposed module. A module
designated as a pre-requisite is one which a student must both take and pass in order to
progress to another specified module.
M1.14 Contact time/directed study

Please indicate here the approximate number of hours for each activity to give an overall
picture of the workload a student taking the module would be expected to undertake,
including placements and self-guided learning. Please also indicate whether any of the
209
activity is delivered via e-learning e.g. lectures, seminars, tutorials etc. Apart from
placements and self-guided learning it is expected that the other activities are all taught
sessions that involve contact between staff and students.
M1.15 Assessment pattern – for King’s students

The type of assessment used to assess the modules should be appropriate to the learning
outcomes and should therefore allow a judgement to be made as to whether the learning
outcomes have been achieved.
The pass mark is assigned to the credit level, not the programme level. For credits at levels
4, 5, and 6 a pass mark of 40 will normally be required, and for credits at level 7 a pass mark
of 50 is required. Some programmes leading to professional registration may require higher
pass marks than the College minimum.
“Mandatory to pass/qualifying mark” relates to those instances when an individual

component of the assessment must be passed in order to pass the module overall. Please
indicate whether the component has to be passed at the passmark or whether there is a
qualifying mark. In the case of the latter the mark is usually below the standard passmark
and relates to cases where students may not reach the pass mark standard in one component
but achieve very highly in another. A qualifying mark allows them to still pass the overall
module on the basis of their higher mark as long as the qualifying mark has been met.
For modules that are assessed by more than one element of assessment please indicate what
format the reassessment will take e.g. all elements are re-assessed, only those elements with a
qualifying mark are re-assessed, re-assessment is on a pass/fail basis only to determine
whether the student has achieved the learning outcomes of the module. Where an element
of assessment is defined as a core competency as part of a professional practice requirement,
please indicate how many attempts are permitted to allow a student to achieve the required
standard. For further information on re-assessment see the Regulations.
M1.16 Assessment pattern – Study Abroad students

Where Study Abroad students take a different form of assessment, details should be
provided in this table. The assessment, although of a different form, should still be
appropriate and sufficient to assess the learning outcomes of the module.
M1.17 Examples of recommended key texts

Please indicate here examples of recommended key texts for students.
M1.18 Useful websites

If relevant, please indicate any websites that might be of use for students.
Section 2 – supplementary information

This section will not be relevant for all modules.
M2.1 Delivery of modules away from College campuses by bodies external to the College
Information should be provided on elements of the module that are delivered away from the
main College campus by a body external to the College. Whilst primarily designed to apply
to programmes, the principals of the College Guidance on the operation of collaborative
teaching activity, may also be relevant here.
Section 3 – administrative information

M3.1 Module name
As before.
M3.2 Start date
210
This is the month and year in which the module is first available.
M3.3 Numbers
Some modules set maximum limits for the numbers of students that can take the module at
any one time and some set a minimum number, below which the module will not run.
Please enter either/both of these if applicable.
M3.4 Availability
Please indicate the dates that the module will be available and when the examination will
take place. If the module is being run more than once during the year indicate both sets of
dates that it will be available, along with the dates of the examination. Also indicate if the
module runs over more than one semester. Please indicate if the timing of examinations is
different for Study Abroad students.
M3.5 Superseded modules

Please list any modules that the proposed module supersedes and indicate whether such
modules have ever been taught or examined.
M3.6 Contributing departments/divisions/Faculties

If the module will not be taught exclusively within the proposing department please give
details of the other areas involved, the nature of their involvement, for example delivery of
10 lectures, joint running of the module, and the % of the total module that this comprises.
Section 4 – the approval process

M4.1 Module name
As before.
M4.2 Initial approval/consultation at the planning stage

Proposers of new modules should liaise with Library Services to ensure that the new module
can be supported in terms of learning resources. Similarly, any additional requirements that
the module may make in terms of, for example space requirements or other academic
facilities should be discussed with the relevant senior officer. The Faculty Education
Committee in approving the module will ensure that such liaison has taken place and, where
additional services/support are required, that this has the approval of the relevant areas. All
details of additional resources must be approved.
Any module involving activity where the subjects are human should be assessed to ascertain
whether it requires ethical approval. Examples of such types of activity are those which
involve some kind of physical procedure or administering of questionnaires, conducting
and/or taking part in interviews and making video or audio recordings for educational use.
If ethical approval is required this should be obtained before the module can be approved by
the Faculty Education Committee, see Guidance on risk and ethics assessment in the design of
modules.
M4.3 Approval by the Faculty Education Committee (or equivalent)

Approval from the Faculty Education Committee will be sought online, with the Chair of
FEC having final sign off. If a module is approved subject to the fulfilment of certain
conditions, then the module should only have final sign-off once these conditions have been
met.
M4.4 Approval for modules jointly taught by more than one Faculty
Modules jointly taught by more than one Faculty, regardless of the amount of teaching
involved, should be approved by the Education Committee of both/all Faculties and
electronically (online) signed off by the Chairs of both/all.
211
Modification form for programmes and modules (modifications to both programme and
modules must be made online at: https://mykcl.kcl.ac.uk/
Modifications to programmes and modules cannot be implemented in the same academic year in
which they are approved. When modifying programmes the following considerations need to be
held: what impact would these changes have on the information that is currently available? Would
this modification have an impact on student expectations who have registered interest in the
programme already? Would the modification have an impact on those students who had registered
to enrol onto the programme in the new academic year i.e. information provided by the Programme
Information sheets?
To aid Faculties/Departments in determining whether a modification requires PDASC approval or

not (and whether consultation is required with students) a Table of modifications is available online.
A rationale of the modification proposed should be provided in the appropriate section of the online
form, along with noting the line table from the Major and Minor modifications table. Where a
programme is being closed or suspended then confirmation should be provided that those remaining
students on the programme will be fully supported11 (see the Policy on closing or suspending a
programme of study).
If any modifications affect the content of the programme specification and/or programme regulations
then these should be updated on the online system.
At the end of each academic year a check of the information provided online to that provided by the
Programme Information Sheets will be undertaken. Where there are perceived to be conflicts then
Faculties will be approached to review and rectify the programme specification accordingly. These
will then become the definitive specification for the following academic year.
11
For those programmes identified to be closed via the Portfolio Simplification exercise, a separate process will
be following to close the programme
212
213
College descriptor for standard learning outcomes for exit awards
The College has approved the following standard learning outcomes for exit awards. Where
programmes are following these statements the following must be noted on the programme
specification “the following learning outcomes are applicable to all awards”. Where programmes
wish to have programme defined learning outcomes these are noted on the programme
specifications:
UG Certificate (Level 4): in order to be awarded a UG Cert HE students should be able to

demonstrate:
• some knowledge of the underlying concepts and principles associated with their field of study;
• an ability to evaluate and interpret concepts and principles within the context of their field;
• an ability to present, evaluate and interpret qualitative and quantitative data;
• an ability to develop lines of argument;
• an ability to make sound judgements in accordance with the basic theories and concepts of their
field.
These are the standard UG Cert HE learning outcomes; faculty may approve additional programme
specific learning outcomes for this exit award, if required, as long as the standard criteria are met.
UG Diploma (Level 5): in order to be awarded a UG Dip HE students should be able to

demonstrate:
• knowledge and critical understanding of the well-established principles of their field of study,
and of the way in which those principles have developed;
• an ability to apply underlying concepts and principles outside the context in which they were
first studied, including, where appropriate, the application of those principles in an employment
context;
• knowledge of the main methods of enquiry in the field of study;
• an ability to evaluate critically the appropriateness of different approaches to solving problems
in the field of study;
• an understanding of the limits of their knowledge, and how this influences analyses and
interpretations which might be based on that knowledge.
These are the standard UG Dip HE learning outcomes; faculty may approve additional programme
Ordinary degrees (Level 6): in order to be awarded an Ordinary Degree students should be able to
demonstrate:
• an understanding of some key aspects of their field of study, including the acquisition of coherent
and detailed knowledge, at least some of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of the field;
• an ability to deploy established techniques of analysis and enquiry within the field of study
• an ability to devise arguments, and/or to solve problems, using ideas and techniques, some of
which are at the forefront of the field of study;
• an ability to describe and comment upon particular aspects of current research or scholarship in
the field of study;
• some appreciation of the uncertainty, ambiguity and limits of knowledge;
• an ability to manage their own learning;
• some ability to make use of scholarly reviews and primary sources (for example, refereed research
articles and/or original materials appropriate to the field of study.
These are the standard Ordinary Degree learning outcomes; faculty may approve additional
programme specific learning outcomes for this exit award, if required, as long as the standard criteria
are met.
214
Postgraduate Certificate (Level 7): in order to be awarded a Postgraduate Certificate students
should be able to demonstrate:
• an understanding of knowledge, and an awareness of current problems and/or new insights, in
their field;
• an understanding of techniques applicable to their own research or scholarship
• some originality in the application of knowledge;
• a practical understanding of how established techniques of enquiry are used to create and
interpret knowledge in the field;
• a conceptual understanding that enables the student to evaluate current research and scholarship
in the field;
These are the standard PG Cert learning outcomes; faculty may approve additional programme
Postgraduate Diploma (Level 7): in order to be awarded a Postgraduate Diploma students should
be able to demonstrate:
• an understanding of knowledge, and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new
insights, in their field;
• an understanding of techniques applicable to their own research or scholarship
• some originality in the application of knowledge;
• a practical understanding of how established techniques of enquiry are used to create and
interpret knowledge in the field;
• a conceptual understanding that enables the student to evaluate current research and scholarship
in the field.
These are the standard PG Dip learning outcomes; faculty may approve additional programme
215
Guidance for Faculties on the use of external specialists and external peers for programme approval
and review
Guidance for Faculties on the use of external specialists and external peers
for programme approval and review
1. Introduction
1.1 The involvement of external specialist and peers in the process of programme, design,
approval and review compliments the external advice already provided via the external
examiner system and thus provides an enhancement of the College’s quality assurance
processes.
1.2 For programme approval there are two forms of external input expected: input from
externals at the subject level, external specialists, who provide comment on the content of a
new programme from a specialist viewpoint: and input from externals at the level to the
Faculty Education Committee (or its equivalent), external peers, who have a broader
understanding of the discipline, their main function to provide an external viewpoint on the
approval process. The same external peers are also used for programme review.
1.3 The following guidance is designed to make clear the responsibilities of departments,
Faculties and the College at the various stages of the process.
2. External specialist
2.1 At the development stage of a new programme, Departments identify a suitable external
specialist. The role of the external specialist is to provide expert subject advice at the design
stage of a new programme. The specialist can be an academic, a member of a professional or
statutory body, an employer with links to the subject area or from business or industry.
Former external examiners can act in this capacity, as can current external examiners,
provided that the latter do not subsequently act as external examiner for the programme in
question for a period of three academic years. Former members of staff of the College are
eligible to act as external specialists, provided that a period of three years has elapsed since
their employment with the College.
2.2 The Department should provide the external specialist with a copy of the Notes of Guidance
for external specialists and external peers which is available from the ARQS section or on the
web at https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/academicregulations/programme-review-and-monitoring
and direct the external specialist to the Procedures for programme and module approval and
modification which can also be found on the ARQS webpage
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/academicregulations/approvalandmod Departments should
also provide copies of any relevant department information.
2.3 The external specialist should be invited to comment on the content of the proposed
programme. This will include considerations such as the academic standard of the
programme, relationship with any subject benchmark statement and/or relevant
professional, regulatory or statutory body guidelines and the potential market for the
programme. The specialist is asked to complete a brief report of the nature of their
involvement in the process and their views of the programme. The department should then
indicate briefly how the comments have been taken on board to ensure that the final
documentation reflects the recommendations from external specialists. The report from the
external specialist and the department response forms part of the programme approval
process and should be submitted alongside the other approval documentation to the Faculty
Education Committee (or equivalent). The Faculty Education Committee (or its
equivalent) should not approve any programme that is missing this report.
216
and review
2.4 The external specialists are not formally appointed by the College as the anticipated pattern
will act in a “one-off” capacity. They will receive a payment of £200 for this engagement.
Faculties should ensure that the external specialist is provided with the appropriate payment
forms and these have been completed and approved by the Chair of the Faculty Education
Committee (or its equivalent). Once the programme has been approved by the Faculty the
paperwork, including the external specialist payment forms, are forwarded onto ARQS
section; they will arrange the payment of fees and expenses to the external specialist.
3. External peers
3.1 One or two external peers will be appointed to each Faculty Education Committee (or its
equivalent) for all quality assurance matters. Appointments will be made by the College
Education Committee on the recommendation of Faculties. External peers should meet
three or more of the following criteria:
• experience within their own institution of either the role of Head/Dean of

Department/Faculty or Programme Director and/or chairmanship of an institutional
level committee concerned with teaching and learning or other senior role. If the
nominated peer is a recent retiree i.e. retired in the last year, then the College will
appoint on a two year basis only, with no extension to tenure;
• wide experience as an external examiner;
• familiarity with research-led teaching;
• familiarity with national quality assurance policies;
• knowledge of and experience of using subject benchmark statements;
• previous experience as a QAA institutional auditor/reviewer.
3.2 Former external examiners to the College will be eligible to be nominated as external peers
but current external examiners are not eligible to serve in this capacity. External peers will
not be able to subsequently act as external examiner for any programmes they have been
involved in approving until a period of three years has elapsed. Former members of staff of
the College are eligible to act as external peers, provided that a period of three years has
elapsed since their employment with the College. An appointee shall not normally belong to
an institution in which a member of staff of King’s College London is appointed to act as an
external examiner in the same discipline in which the peer would be asked to review.
3.3 External peers will be appointed on a two-year contract in the first instance, with the
possibility of renewal for a maximum of one further two-year period. On completion of the
appointment an external peer will not normally be eligible for re-appointment until a period
of two years has elapsed. The ARQS section will organise the appointment process and will
provide external peers with copies of College policies relating to programme approval and
review and the Notes of Guidance for external specialists and external peers. Faculties should
provide external peers with any additional local guidance on programme approval and
review, together with terms of reference of the Faculty Education Committee (or its
equivalent) and dates of meeting of the Faculty Education Committee (or its equivalent).
External peers are expected to attend at least 50% Faculty Education Committee meetings
each year.
3.4 Programme approval

External peers will be expected to take an overview of the approval process and to ensure
that appropriate attention is given to the setting and maintenance of academic standards
during this process. Faculties should ensure that external peers receive copies of proposals
for all new programmes in advance of the meeting of the Faculty Education Committee (or
its equivalent). The external peer will be expected to attend in person all programme
approval panels, although in exceptional circumstances where this is not possible they should
217
and review
provide a written report for the panel. The external peer will be asked to sign-off the
programme approval documentation (though this can be done be via electronic signature).
3.6 At the end of their contract external peers will be asked to provide a report on their
experience and to suggest any areas for further improvement.
3.7 External peers will receive an annual payment of £1,000 which will be paid at the end of the
academic year. Reimbursement of expenses for travel and any other associated costs will be
made as they occur, on presentation of a claim supported by receipts. The ARQS section
will arrange the payment of fees and expenses to the external peers.
218
and review
219
The following guidance has been written to assist those developing flexible and distance learning
programmes (including e-learning). The QAA Quality Code, Advice and Guidance: Learning and
teaching advises institutions, in setting up such programmes, to take into consideration a number of
points.
In distance learning, learners are physically and/or temporally remote from each other and their
‘teachers’. In open learning, learners study in their own time and at their own pace. Open and
distance learning (ODL) is the term coined to cover the common ground between both types of
learner. It is up to the educator to decide the scales of openness and distance they want or expect
their learners to have.
It is generally considered that students enrolling onto a distance learning programme must have the
following to enable them to complete their studies without being disadvantaged for not attending
lectures on campus:
• extended access to a computer with Word, Excel, Internet Explorer, a media player software
and a CD Rom drive;
• regular access to the Internet for visiting web based discussion boards, email and some online
library research;
• need to be a confident user of the internet, although some places make themselves available to
coach students through to becoming familiar with the web-based discussion format and to
address other IT questions;
• time: this approach to learning requires students to read a lot and regularly check into the web-
based discussions.
Flexible learning describes approaches to teaching and learning which are learner-centred, free up
the place, time and methods for learning and teaching, and use appropriate technologies in a
networked environment (Moran 1998). The pedagogical philosophy behind flexible learning is
student centred and focuses on student learning. Effective learning presupposes active students who
are responsible for their own learning. The teacher’s role is not to transmit knowledge, as often is
the case in traditional university teaching, but to facilitate the student’s learning.
Further information
• HEFCE strategy for e-learning
https://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/HEFCE_UK/H050300E.pdf
220
221
1. Introduction
1.1 The College is responsible for the academic standards and quality of all learning
opportunities delivered in its name, ensuring that where this is delivered by a Partner the
arrangements are implemented securely and managed effectively meeting our obligations
for continuing registration with the Office for Students (OfS).
1.2 This guidance is designed to support the approval, monitoring and management of the
College’s partnership activity and provides advice on delivering the operational aspects of
the collaborative programme. The guidance does not cover validated provision which is
subject to a separate set of procedures.
1.3 The guidance is applicable to all collaborative provision activity where the achievement of
the leaning opportunity undertaken as part of a King’s module or programme of study that
is dependent on the arrangement made with a body/institution external to King’s.
2. Initial stages
2.1 Proposals may be initiated by the College or the Partner and will not be considered unless
it can be demonstrated that the partnership arrangement supports the delivery of the
College’s strategic vision, including its international strategy, and involve partners who are
compatible with King’s and likely to bring mutual benefits. It is also important that the
arrangement with the Partner does not compromise the reputation of King’s or the
academic standards and quality of King’s awards.
2.2 Effective communication with the Partner should be undertaken from the outset and
maintained throughout the partnership to ensure a mutual understanding of the learning
opportunity being delivered to support successful outcomes for students and enable a high-
quality student experience. Conversations should consider how the necessary oversight of
the partnership and programme activity can be maintained and the level of resourcing that
will be required. Consideration should also be given to the timescales for approving the
arrangement from both the Partner and College perspective and the lifecycle of the
student.
2.3 All arrangements that are entered into should, where possible, be compliant with King’s
policies and procedures and meet the requirements of the Academic Regulations and the
Core code of practice for postgraduate research degrees, ensuring students have an
equitable experience. The default position will be that home rules apply i.e. all College
policies, regulations and procedures will apply for all operational aspects of a programme
where the student is studying elements of the programme at King’s or where King’s is the
home institution for students on a programme leading to a Joint Award. Where it is
proposed to vary these arrangements then explicit permission must be granted as part of the
programme approval process e.g. a bespoke set of Academic Regulations for a programme
leading to a jointly delivered programme.
2.4 When designing a Taught degree programme, the structure of the programme should
consider how the learning delivered by the Partner will be aligned, e.g. equivalence of
notional learning hours, level descriptors, benchmark statements to ensure that students
will be able to demonstrate that they have acquired the level of knowledge, understanding
and skills expected to meet the overall learning aims and outcomes and academic standards
of the final award. The details of the Partner involvement should be included in the
relevant section of the Programme Approval Form and in the Activity Schedule attached
to the MoA. For Joint PhDs consideration should be given to how and when students will
reach key milestones.
222
2.5 All proposals are subject to a risk assessment and due diligence process prior to the
approval of the activity. The stages of risk management to consider are (1) identify the
risks, (2) analyse the risks, (3) prioritise the risks, (4) implement a plan to manage the risks
and (5) processes for monitoring and reviewing risks. The College’s ‘Definitions of
collaborative activity’ provide information on the risk impact of each type of activity
against the categories of risk identified by the College as posing a threat to the College’s
business operations.
2.6 When assessing ‘Partner-specific’ risks consideration should be given to the economical,
political, geographical, regulatory requirements, ethical and cultural environment of the
Partner Country to allow for student success, equality of opportunity and access to study,
especially where language barriers or a different learning experience may apply. An
assessment should be made as to whether the other site can support an inclusive education
for students in terms of relevant policies and infrastructure.
2.7 When assessing ‘Academic’ risks consideration should be given to how to evaluate the
learning opportunity being delivered by the Partner to ensure it can meet the academic
standards of a King’s award and will harmonise with King’s policies, procedures and
regulations. A mapping of Partner processes should be undertaken to identify any variances
in practice. The default position is to apply King’s practice in this respect, but where this is
not possible or practicable, approval must be sought from the relevant College Committee
at the outset. For jointly delivered programmes consideration should be given to whose set
of regulations will be followed in each aspect of the student lifecycle. It may therefore be
useful to establish a bespoke set of regulations to govern the programme, providing these
are compliant with the College’s policy and procedures to meet the requirements of the
Academic Regulations and the Core Code of Practice for Postgraduate Research Degrees.
Where home rules apply, consideration should be given to where the Partner regulations
may still impact on the student and how to make students aware of this and vice versa.
2.8 When assessing ‘Legal’ risks consideration should be given to ascertaining the national and
regional legislation and local frameworks of the Partner. The Partner must be willing to
recognise and support the College’s obligations under UK law, particularly in respect of
equalities law and data protection. Furthermore, in relation to students with a disability,
the legislation stipulates that in cases where the College arranges for a third party to
provide education, training or other related services for students on its behalf, then this
provision remains the responsibility of the College, including ensuring compliance with
CMA and OIAHE obligations. Where the activity is for a Joint Award, the College must
be satisfied that a Partner is legally empowered to contract with the College and has the
necessary legal and regulatory capacity to grant academic awards jointly with the College.
It should be noted that in some Partner Countries the decision to allow the Partner to
legally contract with King’s rests with their relevant local or national government agencies,
this is particularly the case for China, India and some European Countries.
2.9 The College has legal templates in place to support this process and further guidance is
available through the College’s Legal Services Resources webpage. When completing the
templates it is important to be aware that the duration and termination clauses set out in
the MoA will differ from that of the Activity Schedule. This is because the MoA relates to
the term of the overall relationship with the partner and is defined in calendar years
whereas the Activity Schedule is crafted in terms of cohorts of students and academic
years and scenario planning around those academic years. Therefore, both parties need to
plan the operational arrangements for the cohorts of students admitted under the currency
of the MoA until such times as all students have had the opportunity to complete the
programme, even if this falls after the expiry date set out in the MoA itself.
223
2.10 When assessing ‘Financial’ risks consideration should be given to ensuring that the
partnership activity is fully sustainable, with the appropriate insurance protection policies
in place to deliver the activity and ensure a positive student experience. It is also important
to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place to protect against financial impropriety or
conflicts of interest that may impact on the academic standards or the quality of learning
opportunities or the reputation of the College.
2.11 When assessing ‘Resource’ risks consideration should be given to how the learning and staff
resources delivered by the Partner will be assessed to ensure that the necessary oversight is
sustained and that the quality and standards are equivalent to comparable awards delivered
solely by the College. Where possible/practicable such assessment should include a visit to
the site by the department/area proposing the programme and confirm the following:
• Learning opportunities: the quality of the learning opportunities offered through a
collaborative provision arrangement must be of a sufficiently high quality and enable a
student to achieve the academic standards required for the award.
• Students: where a collaborative provision activity involves students, the status of the
student and their formal relationship with the College should be clearly defined.
Students should receive information about their status and its implications in respect
of their rights (e.g. access to learning support resources and to appeals and complaints
procedures).
• Staff: where appropriate, staff development should be provided by both/all partners to
ensure that staff will have the necessary underpinning knowledge to support the
activity. Where staff of the College are required to visit an overseas institution or
work overseas, attention will be given to their terms and conditions of employment.
2.12 As part of the overall process for risk management, it is useful to establish a risk register
setting out what the risks are, why risk could happen (i.e. the likelihood), the possible
consequences for the College (i.e. the impact) and an action plan on how identified risks
will be contained (agile response) or reduced (measures to mitigate). This should also
consider whether the potential benefits to the student or College outweigh the risks
identified. This process should enable collaborative activities to be approved, monitored,
and managed effectively.
2.13 KPIs should be established to measure the success of the partnership arrangement. It is
expected that as a minimum this should consider numbers of participating students and
student evaluation processes, and these will be reviewed as part of the monitoring and
review arrangements.
2.14 An appropriate mechanism should be established for continuous monitoring of the

arrangement, this should include a periodic review of risks associated with the arrangement
as well as considering information submitted as part of the College’s procedures for
monitoring and review. The expectation is that feedback from the Partner will be included
in the Continuous Enhancement Review for Programmes process and the fuller review of
activity that is undertaken prior to the renewal of the agreement, with any outcomes from
these processes shared with the Partner. The agreement should include reference to how
annual monitoring and periodic review processes will be managed between the parties, for
example where the arrangement is a joint award with another HEI it may make sense to
use the partner procedures if they are the admin lead for the arrangement and submit that
paperwork to the relevant Faculty Education Committee for consideration alongside the
Review of Activity form. The Review of Activity form should be completed alongside any
periodic review process and should be completed a minimum of six months prior to the
expiry of the agreement.
224
3. Duration of the Agreement

3.1 Agreements must be time-limited according to the level of risk attached to the activity and
reviewed for re-signing at a maximum time interval of normally every five calendar years
or as determined by the College’s sunset clause for new taught programmes policy or
where a six-year time limit is requested to fit in with the periodic review process. Where
an Activity Schedule is attached to an Agreement, this should reflect the cohorts of
students (in academic years) that would be admitted within the timeframe set out in the
Agreement. For example, where the MoA starts on the 1st September 2023 and ends on
the 31st August 2028, the first cohort of students that could be accepted on the programme
would be those expecting to start their degree programme in September 2023. The last
cohort of students would be those that have accepted a place prior to 31st August 2028 and
may be starting their programme in September 2028. The Activity Schedule should then
note the expected end date of the last cohort of students who are likely to be accepted onto
the programme, for example students starting on a three-year undergraduate programme in
September 2028 would be expected to complete in June 2031. New intakes of students
should not be offered a place on the programme beyond the expiry date of the MoA,
except in cases where this is covered under the terms of agreement for operational reasons
or where the agreement has been extended to cover the new intake prior to renewal of the
agreement. In such cases these arrangements should be clearly referenced in the
Agreement.
4. Operation of Collaborative Provision

4.1 When an activity is in the process of being established and prior to commencement a full
dialogue should take place to ensure that the contribution of each partner to the
development and content of the activity and its operation are fully agreed and articulated
in the Memorandum of Agreement and accompanying Activity Schedule. The operational
aspects should consider the student lifecycle and how the arrangement will be marketed to
students. It follows that the details will be proportionate to the nature of the activity and
risks identified.
4.2 To support this process a representative from King’s and the partner(s) should be
nominated to act as the key contact points for the shared activity, with one partner
designated as the lead administrator to act as the main liaison between the partner(s). The
role of each administrator is to oversee the implementation and ongoing delivery of the
collaboration ensuring that the quality and standards of any awards are maintained. The
role of the lead administrator is to ensure that any issues arising from the arrangement or
outcomes from joint committee meetings are reported to all parties concerned, including
acting as Chair (Academic Lead) or Secretary (Professional Services lead) for an
established joint academic or programme management committee.
5. Marketing and publicity

5.1 All activity entered into must be consistent with the policies and strategies developed by
King’s Marketing department. Consideration should be given to how the activity will be
marketed and publicised by all parties, ensuring that information provided does not
mislead on the nature of the partnership, provides accurate and clear information to
students on the programme arrangements (including nature of award, PSRB) and does not
damage the reputation of the College. Advice should be sought from the relevant faculty
marketing team on how the activity will be publicised and monitored for accuracy.
6. Recruitment and admissions

6.1 The delegation for responsibility of admissions normally rests with the lead (home)
institution, although responsibility may be shared for joint and dual award activity.
Admissions processes should take account of both partners’ criteria, regulations and policy
requirements including PSRB, recognition of prior learning and minimum entry
225
requirements. The minimum and maximum number of students that can be recruited for
the activity engaged in must be clearly stated including the arrangements for targeting and
recruitment of students and the application process. For articulation arrangements,
consideration should be given to how the Partner programme maps to the programme
offered by the College to ensure that admissions criteria is equivalent to that normally
expected for entry to the programme and the students have acquired the necessary skills to
successfully complete their programme of study. Advice should be sought from the
College’s Admissions Office on any special requirements or variations to the normal
College admissions process.
7. Enrolment and registration

7.1 Consideration should be given to student enrolment and registration issues at the College
and partner institution(s) noting the stages for student status and mode of attendance,
duration of a jointly delivered programme, entry points, and UKVI visa compliance
requirements. All students undertaking a programme at King’s are invited to enrol online
and would normally be expected to attend the College’s campus registration event in
person. Registered students are issued with a Kings email address and password and where
appropriate a College card to enable them to access College facilities. Advice should be
sought from the Admissions & Registry Services team and if appropriate the Visa
Compliance team for visa and immigration issues and expectations for monitoring student
attendance when off campus. It should be noted that where the arrangement is for a jointly
delivered programme, the student should be registered as a student at the College for the
full duration of their programme even if they have started the programme at the Partner
location before physically coming to the King’s campus.
8. Student records
8.1 Consideration should be given to how students’ progress through the programme,
including changes in registration status. Their formal relationship with the College should
be clearly defined, particularly where procedures differ amongst partners. Partnership
arrangements should incorporate explicit requirements for the timely capture and
communication of student activity from initial commencement to completion. Any
collaboration across modules should be quantified to reflect the proportion of the module
taught by each institution or where a shell module needs to be set up and attached to the
programme. Advice should be sought from the Planning and Student Analytics team to
ensure that data will be reflected appropriately in College returns and takes into account
any requirements from HESA or the Office for Students.
9. Student support
9.1 Appropriate support mechanisms (academic, administrative, and pastoral) must be in place
with the Partner and communicated to students to enable them to engage effectively with
their studies and seek address for any concerns. Students enrolled on a programme
delivered in collaboration with a partner should receive comparable support to those
students studying on College-delivered programmes including access to support facilities
including induction arrangements, integration into the programme, distribution of student
handbooks and programme/course material, accommodation, and funding issues.
10. Teaching or supervision arrangements

10.1 The teaching contribution of each partner should be specified in the schedule, with the
content and availability of modules agreed between the partners to ensure that the relevant
learning aims and outcomes of the programme are met, including opportunities for
transferable skills. This is particularly relevant for jointly delivered programmes where the
partner may be delivering and assessing 40-60% of the overall programme with the rest
delivered by the programme team at King’s. Appropriate support should be agreed at the
outset for arrangements involving the supervision of students on research projects or
226
placement opportunities to ensure that opportunities are safe, supported and enable
reasonable adjustments to be made. Consideration should also be given to the language of
instruction at the Partner where English is not the Partner’s language of choice.
Information of teaching and supervision arrangements should be included in the student
handbook and course material. It should be noted that as part of our ongoing conditions of
registration with the OfS that students are able to demonstrate technical proficiency in the
English Language in a manner which appropriately reflects the level and content of the
applicable higher education course.
11. Assessment arrangements

11.1 Assessment processes and procedures of partner organisations should be consistent with the
College’s Academic regulations, although each partner will be responsible for the assessment
regulations pertaining to their own modules, including transfer of marks or credit. It is
expected that the language of instruction and assessment will normally be in English at the
partner institution, except for language degrees (where appropriate).
11.2 Where marks assessed by a partner count towards the final classification of a King’s degree,
a mapping of the marking criteria will require approval from the College’s Academic
Standards Sub Committee (ASSC)1, unless there is no variation in practice between
King’s and the partner institution.
11.3 Consideration should also be given to any re-assessment opportunities and condonable
fails, particularly around timing of boards for ratifying marks where this may impact on
progression to the next stage of the programme or final award for either the Partner or
King’s programme of study.
11.4 In cases where staff from an ‘off-site’ provider are involved in the assessment of students,
such staff may be eligible to be members of the relevant assessment sub board, subject to
the prior approval of the Chair of the ASSC. In the case of jointly delivered or awarded
programmes all parties must be consulted when determining the final results for a student.
Joint decisions on assessment should then be reported to the relevant programme
assessment board and included in the minutes for that meeting.
12. External Examiner arrangements

12.1 The appointment, induction and role of external examiners should be consistent with the
College’s practice and UK standards. External examiners play an important role as they
can provide impartial and independent advice, as well as informative comment that King’s
is fulfilling its responsibilities for the academic standards of its awards and on student
achievement in relation to those standards. Their role is therefore to have oversight of all
elements of the programme irrespective of where or by whom this is being delivered. The
processes to follow are also dependent on the type of activity and level of risk with any
agreed process being proportionate to the level of risk, for example where a student will
receive an extra 30 academic credits over and above the minimum tariff for their award
this will be at the lower end of the risk scale compared to 50% of the award being
calculated from the learning undertaken at the Partner where a mark translation scheme
needs to be put in place which would be at the top end of the risk scale. As part of due
diligence checks, arrangements for external examiners and their role should be determined
and included in the MoA. As a rule of thumb enquiries should confirm that the Partner has
external examiner arrangements in place that are equivalent to UK HE expectations and
that the Partner understands what the UK expectations are. Where a Partner does not
have an external examiner process and/or it is not possible for them to put an equivalent
system in place, then the external examiner appointed to the Programme by King’s must
1See Guidance on ‘Translation of credits/marks attained through study away from the College’ on page 286 of the
Quality Assurance Handbook.
227
have oversight of the assessment being carried out by the Partner e.g, sampling of scripts,
information on mark distribution, how marks awarded by giving access to the relevant
mark schemes that can be compared to the King’s marking scheme. It is expected that the
external examiner will comment on the assessment delivered by a Partner in their final
report. The relevant Assessment Sub-Board Chair should ensure that as part of their role
an external examiner will be able to consider a comparison of cohorts across location and
provider ensuring consistency of practice and equitable treatment of students. In cases
where a mark translation scheme has been used for a programme, the external examiner
would be expected to review this as part of their role as it will be subject to review and
approval from ASSC every three years to ensure it remains fit for purpose. Advice should
be sought from the ARQS Office on external examiner arrangements and responsibilities.
13. Conferment of Award

13.1 The College’s classification scheme will apply for all programmes solely awarded by the
College. Where a collaborative provision activity involves a jointly delivered programme
leading to a Joint, Double, Dual or Multiple Award, agreement should be sought between
the partners on the regulations that apply for the conferment of the final award ensuring
that the student is able to meet the minimum award requirements of the College and
partner institution(s). This should consider the College’s and Partners policy and
regulations on exit awards and condonement. Where there is a variation in the standards
applied by King’s and the Partner to classify a student and confer the final award approval
for the award classification scheme will be required from ASSC.
14. Records of Study, Certificates and Graduation

14.1 Agreement should be sought between the partners for the routine issuing of marks,
including the content and distribution of records agreed results/transcripts/HEAR and the
final degree certificate for awards once results have been ratified, considering GDPR
legislation. The formal records of study (record of agreed results/transcripts/HEAR)
provided to students should make it clear at which higher education provider the different
parts of the programme were studied. The College’s preferred position is that each partner
will be responsible for producing a transcript of results for the student for any period of
learning they are directly responsible for.
14.2 Where permitted by local or national rules in the Partner Country, information stated on
the certificate or record of study should note any information necessary to providing a full
understanding of the student achievement, including where the language of instruction was
not English. Reference to the information that should be included on a certificate for a
specific activity is noted in the College’s ‘Definitions of collaborative activity’. In the case of
jointly delivered programmes the College has templates in place that can be shared with a
Partner. These are available on request from the Assessment Boards and Awards team.
14.3 Students will automatically be invited to the graduation ceremony from their degree
awarding body. For Joint award arrangements, students may also be given the option of
attending both or either of the graduation ceremonies to which they would normally be
automatically invited.
15. Student Conduct, Complaints and Appeals arrangements
15.1 It is expected that for local issues relating to student conduct, complaints and appeals these
will be governed by the regulations of the Party concerned where the student is in
attendance or where one Party is designated as the ‘home’ institution. Colleagues are
advised to refer to the relevant sections of the College’s Academic Regulations and the
OIA guidance document ‘Good Practice Framework: Delivering learning opportunities
with others’ when establishing programme activity with a Partner. It is important to
228
remember that students should be signposted to the relevant policies or regulations that will
apply throughout their programme, noting whether, when and how a student can take
forward a complaint or appeal. Outcomes of any student conduct, complaint or appeals
process must be communicated to all parties concerned to meet the expectations of the
OIA in respect of the ‘completion of procedures’ letter issued to students by the College.
Advice should be sought from the Student Conduct and Appeals Office on any issues
relating to student conduct and appeals.
16. Quality assurance and Management processes

16.1 The responsibility for the student learning experience and the academic standards for
King’s awarded degrees rests with the College, and the College’s quality assurance
procedures will apply with formal approval, monitoring and review through the College’s
programme and module approval, monitoring, and review processes. Consideration should
be given to how arrangements that are jointly managed will be able to meet the
expectations of both the College and the Partner, particularly where the programme is
jointly delivered leading to a joint award or more than one award.
16.2 All parties should identify and agree the relevant resources required to deliver the elements
of the programme for which they are responsible. Arrangements for all students
undertaking collaborative activity will be managed by the designated ‘home’ department,
with students being offered the same opportunity to provide feedback on the element of
their programme delivered off-site as for their locally taught modules.
16.3 Effective lines of communication should be established with the partner, including
opportunities for site visits, to enable the effective management of the arrangement. For
jointly delivered or jointly awarded programmes this includes establishing a Programme
Management Committee to oversee the operational arrangements for the activity.
17. Monitoring arrangements

17.1 Faculty Education Committees (or equivalent) should monitor the operation of
collaborative activity and report on such activity in their Continuous Enhancement
Review for Programmes report. An overview report referencing programmes with
collaborative activity is reported to the College Education Committee and noted to the
Collaborative Provision Sub-Committee as set out in the ‘Procedures for programme and
module monitoring and review’.
17.2 For activity involving jointly delivered degree programmes regular meetings should take
place in accordance with the additional monitoring requirements set out in stage four of the
‘Procedures for the approval and monitoring of collaborative provision’. Views from the
Partner should be represented in the College’s annual monitoring and review processes. In
cases where logistics might make attendance at meetings difficult there should be formally
recorded mechanisms for the exchange of information.
17.3 A review of activity must be undertaken as set out in stage four of the ‘Procedures for the
approval and monitoring of collaborative provision’ before the agreement can be renewed or
terminated, relevant programme documentation and an updated risk review should be
included as part of this process. It is expected that the review of activity and the draft
agreement will be considered as part of the periodic review process, particularly where the
arrangement is for a jointly delivered programme. This minimises the risk of agreeing the
renewal of an agreement with a Partner that may be then subject to change shortly
thereafter following the periodic programme review process.
229
17.4 A modification form should be submitted via OPAMA if a programme needs to be

modified, suspended, or terminated because of any changes to the partnership
arrangements.
18. Termination of the Agreement

18.1 A transition plan should be put in place by the obligated parties on the arrangements for
continuing students where both parties have agreed to terminate the agreement and
suspend or withdraw a programme of study before or at the stated expiry date. To
minimise any risks, the plan should adhere to any expectations set out in the College’s
Student Protection Plan and Student Terms and Conditions. Consideration should be
given to the timeframe for students having the opportunity to complete the programme,
arrangements for teaching out the programme with consideration given to student
expectations, financial arrangements, reporting requirements and the future relationship
with the Partner, legal obligations e.g. CMA compliance.
19. Financial arrangements

19.1 Fee income costs should be agreed between the partners, with tuition fees payable by the
student, and the Office for Students funding arrangements appropriately reflected.
Contact details and annual review processes for overseeing the financial arrangements
should be included, with a copy of the Business plan attached as a separate appendix to the
MoA. Where an invoice is payable under an agreement, it is expected that all valid
invoices will be settled within 30 days of submission. Advice should be sought from the
relevant Senior Finance Business Partner prior to final sign-off of the financial
arrangements.
230
1. Introduction
1.1 This guidance takes into account the chapter of the QAA UK Quality Code for Higher
Education and associated Advice and Guidance: Work-Based Learning. The guidance is
applicable for programmes where students undertake any College activity defined as
placement learning where the College retains some responsibility for the student. Such
activity may be a compulsory or voluntary part of a programme and may or may not be
assessed as part of the final award for the programme. These guidelines also cover those
circumstances where students have arranged their own placement with a placement provider
with the approval of the College as part of an academic programme.
2. Definition of placement
2.1 For the purposes of this guidance, a student placement is a partnership arrangement whereby
an external provider delivers a planned period of experience in a work based environment
external to King’s (including those in industry, teacher education, healthcare professions,
internships) enabling students to develop particular skills, knowledge and understanding
necessary to achieving the relevant learning outcomes and/or the award of credit for a
module or programme of study leading to a King’s award.
2.2 Types of Placement activity in operation at the College that are covered by this guidance
include the following:
• Practice Placement/ Clinical Placement: the opportunity provided contributes to the
learning leading to professional qualifications for which they have a statutory or
regulatory responsibility (includes clinical practice, clinical attachment, medical
elective);
• Professional Placement/ non-Clinical Placement: the opportunity provided
contributes to the learning leading to professional qualifications in a non-clinical
environment for which they have a statutory or regulatory responsibility (teacher
education, legal practice);
• Work-based Placement: the opportunity provided contributes to the learning
specifically designed to lead to accreditation to a professional body for which there is no
statutory or regulatory responsibility;
• Industrial Placement: a planned period of experience with an organisation whose
purpose is not primarily education enabling students the opportunity to contribute to
their learning by applying knowledge from their degree in a non-academic environment
(research undertaken in a laboratory);
• Internship Placement: a planned period of experience to help students develop
particular skills, knowledge and understanding (e.g. the accredited internship
programme)
3. Quality assurance
3.1 Placements are not restricted to, but most typically take place in locations other than
College premises, which would be the normal location of study for the student. Placement
involves the engagement, support and co-operation of a placement learning provider such as
a host organisation.
3.2 The College is responsible for adhering to any formal, legal and ethical considerations
concerning placements within the UK or abroad. Departments/divisions must make every
effort to evaluate individual placement opportunities and practices against a strict internal
and external quality assurance process checklist before making available to students. This
includes validating each placement closely against relevant government and College policy
to help ensure that any student placement is valuable, measurable, safe, non-exploitative,
231
and as closely aligned to a path of academic study and personal/professional career
development as possible.
3.3. The key principles of good practice underpinning placement provision are as follows:
➢ Placement Agreements;
➢ Programme design including arrangements for partner involvement;
➢ Delivery of provision including arrangements for selection and allocation of students to
the placement, link tutor support; peer observation, supportive learning and student
feedback and evaluation;
➢ Assessment;
➢ Responsibilities, roles and obligations of King’s, the partner and the student including
training and guidance given;
➢ Duty of Care relating to legal, moral and ethical obligations to ensure the safety and
well-being of students including mechanisms in place to ensure that opportunities are
inclusive, safe, supported and reasonable adjustments are made when required.
4. Placement Agreements
4.1 All placement activity should be underpinned by a written agreement setting out the
responsibilities, roles and obligations of each party in the arrangement, including any legal or
regulatory requirements.
4.2. Prior to signing the agreement an assessment of the health and safety aspects of the
placement provision should be undertaken in consultation with the College’s Health and
Safety Office and the placement provider. A guide to risk profiling and risk reducing actions
adapted from UCEA Health and Safety Guidance for the placement of Higher Education
Students should be used as a guide for factors that may affect a student undertaking a
placement activity. Appendix B of the King’s Host Agreement also contains a Health &
Safety Checklist which may be of use.
4.3 The agreement should be signed by the appropriate College authority for the type of activity
and agreement being entered into and by the placement provider. Staff should refer to the
College’s policy and procedures for negotiating, approving, and signing contracts and
agreements on behalf of King’s on the policy hub that includes a Signing Authority Register
that references details of the approval requirement and signing officers for different types of
activity in section 2. An annex to the agreement that underpins the student specific
arrangements should be signed by the student, the placement provider and the appropriate
College authority at the local level e.g. a Head of Department, Placement Academic Lead or
Placement co-ordinator. Where the placement is a central offering, this should be reviewed
and signed by the relevant team, e.g. Work-Based Learning University, part of King’s
Careers & Employability. Different types of agreement template may be used in the
following cases:
• Where the placement activity is with a partner organisation for a cohort of students
completing the programme or as part of a study abroad exchange programme, a
Memorandum of Agreement incorporating an activity schedule should be put in place in
the first instance, unless such matters are covered as part of a major contract for
placement provision e.g. NHS contracts. Please contact the ARQS Office for advice on
the procedures to follow.
• Where the placement activity is for individual students undertaking an internship

through the ‘Accredited Internships Programme’, supported by King’s Careers &
Employability, the College has the tripartite King’s Host Agreement for this purpose
232
which will be flagged to participants and signed by the student, host employer and
department Internship Convenor. Further information on the King’s Host Agreement
can found on Student Services Online or requested from King’s Careers &
Employability via internships@kcl.ac.uk and detailed guidance documentation is
available for staff.
• Where the placement activity is for individual students undertaking an industrial

placement (or similarly named undertaking) which is managed under the central Global
Placements provision via King’s Careers & Employability, the tripartite King’s Host
Agreement should be used and is available to enrolled students via KEATS. This is
signed by the student, the host employer and the relevant member of the Global
Placements team. Further information on the King’s Host Agreement can found on
Student Services Online or requested from King’s Careers & Employability via
internships@kcl.ac.uk and detailed guidance documentation is available for staff.
• Where students self-source their own opportunities entirely outside of any academic
studies but where the host organisation requires a King’s authority to confirm certain
criteria, the King’s Host Agreement should also be the documentation utilised across the
institution.
• Where the placement opportunity is offered as part of a student exchange global

mobility arrangement you should consult directly with the Global Mobility Office on
the process to follow.
4.4 Any external agreement not provided or developed exclusively by the College can only be
signed by a representative in possession of full legally-binding authority. Staff should not
sign individual employer documentation unless it forms part of a broader overarching
contract or MOU. Please contact the ARQS Office for advice on doing so. Further
information on the King’s Host Agreement can found on Student Services Online or
requested from King’s Careers & Employability via internships@kcl.ac.uk and detailed
guidance documentation is available for staff.
5. Programme design
5.1 The rationale for a placement should be clear and considered during programme design,
approval and monitoring as part of normal quality assurance procedures.
5.2 The aims, objectives and appropriate learning outcomes for the placement should be clearly
defined and agreed upon.
5.3 The department/division should consider the equity of opportunity for learning in the work/
practice arena.
5.4 The benefits of placements over and above those related directly to the discipline should be
identified.
5.5 The partner organisation should be involved at the outset in the arrangements for the
placement provision, particularly where the placement activity is with a partner organisation
for a cohort of students completing the programme or as part of a study abroad exchange
programme.
6. Delivery of provision
6.1 Any process of selection or allocation of students to placements should be clear and
transparent and notified to all students.
233
6.2 The college will offer clear support to both the organisation and the student during the life of
the opportunity where:
• the placement activity is with a partner organisation for a cohort of students completing
the programme or as part of a study abroad exchange programme. It is normally
expected that a link tutor or placement supervisor should be nominated by the student’s
department to liaise between the programme team, the student, and the mentor from
the placement organisation. Their role is to facilitate communication between all the
parties involved and aid the smooth running of the placement. Arrangements should be
in place to also allow for peer observation and supportive learning.
• the placement activity is for individual students undertaking an industrial placement (or
similarly named undertaking) which is managed under the central Global Placements
provision via King’s Careers & Employability, the Global Placements Team will liaise
between the College, the student, and the Host Supervisor from the placement
organisation.
• the placement activity is for individual students undertaking an internship through the
‘Accredited Internships Programme’, supported by King’s Careers & Employability, the
students’ academic school/faculty will liaise between the College, the student and the
Host Supervisor from the internship organisation.
6.3 The placement arrangement should provide students with the opportunities to gain, develop
or apply any key transferable and cognitive/ intellectual skills either through peer
observation, line manager reviews or learning through on the job experience.
6.4 Training should be provided for staff involved in placement learning so that staff are
qualified, resourced and competent in their understanding of student needs, and so they are
able to fulfil the relevant requirements of their roles and fully support the student learning.
6.5 As part of the monitoring and evaluation of internship or placement rationale, organisation
and practice, departments/divisions should use feedback from students and placement
providers to make appropriate changes and improvements to quality and best practice. The
information gathered should be included in Continuous Enhancement Review for
Programmes process for Taught programmes or the annual monitoring form for research
degree programmes.
7. Assessment of the placement

7.1 The appropriateness of the assessment for placement learning should be considered during
programme design, approval and monitoring as part of normal quality assurance procedures
and best practice. Assessment models must aim to measure a student’s use of critical
reflection and application of key learned concepts and theories to the experiential working
environment such as that of a placement.
7.2 Recognition of study or award of credit may count for credit only or as a numerical mark
towards the final award with the credit level and value reflecting the length of time of the
period of learning undertaken to achieve the relevant learning outcomes for the module or a
programme of study.
7.3 There should be a clear understanding of the assessment requirements and criteria between
students and academic representatives and students must be appropriately prepared for the
assessment.
234
7.4 Placement assessment in most circumstances is the responsibility of academic and/ or other
representatives of the College. In the case of placement providers being involved in
assessment, they must be fully prepared for their role by the department/ division.
7.5 Where placements are a compulsory/formal requirement or standard component of the

programme, ways to ensure the specified learning opportunities are available to all students
must be considered.
7.6 Where a shell module is being set up for the placement or internship opportunity, the
College’s standard templates should be used for this purpose. The central teams of Careers
and Employability, for Accredited Internships or Global Placements, or the Global Mobility
team where the arrangement is part of study abroad have designed the shell templates and
can provide guidance on their use. Departments or Faculties will put their own coded shell
module through their Faculty Education Committee or equivalent, reporting the approval of
the new module to PDASC.
8. Roles, responsibilities, and requirements of the department/division

8.1 There should be clear written information and guidelines on the placement in the form of a
written agreement for any form of work-based learning being undertaken by a student as
part of a programme of study, such as an accredited internship or industrial placement, a
formal written agreement must be completed to confirm the placement.
8.2 The department/division should use this agreement to clearly outline all terms and
conditions of the placement.
8.3 The academic and pastoral services that are provided to students whilst on placement must
also be clearly outlined and communicated and disseminated to providers and students.
8.4 The final agreement must be signed by both the placement provider/ host organisation and
the student and electronic copies kept by each party.
8.5 Any external agreement not provided or developed exclusively by the College can only be
signed by a representative in possession of full legally binding authority. Agreements from
other institutions must be verified for accuracy and all forms of legal, moral, and ethical
compliance by the department/division before they can be signed.
8.6 The department/division should always maintain effective channels of communication with
students and placement providers about the placement as part of effective monitoring and
evaluation.
8.7 There should be at least one identified point of contact at King’s to support the student and
the placement provider or host organisation for the duration of the opportunity. There
should also be at least one identified point of contact at the placement provider or host
organisation to support the student during the placement opportunity.
8.8 Records of adequate legal, financial and health and safety compliance should be
documented, and records kept of any applicable cover.
8.9 In some circumstances such matters may be covered as part of a major contract for clinical
placements, for example within the Faculties of Life Sciences and Medicine and Nursing
and Midwifery. This may include an exchange of confirmation via letter, email or
memorandum of understanding as appropriate to the nature of the placement.
9. Roles, responsibilities, and requirements of the placement provider
235
9.1 All information concerning roles, responsibilities and requirements of a placement provider
or host organisation should be explicit, clear, and available in written format.
9.2 Placement providers must provide the opportunity for the student to gain demonstrable
skills and knowledge which adequately match the learning outcomes of their programme of
academic study.
9.3 If the placement opportunity is for a cohort of students, including those on a study abroad
exchange programme where a formal written agreement is required, placement providers
must contribute to the completion of that agreement which should outline the full terms and
conditions of a placement, including mutual aims and objectives, student duties and
responsibilities and display acceptance/understanding of relevant College policy.
9.4 Unless the King’s Host Agreement is being used for the placement opportunity, placement
providers must be able to demonstrate possession of their own policy, procedures, and best
practice in support of all legal, moral, and ethical obligations relevant to a placement. This
includes being able to provide evidence of adequate and appropriate health and safety and
risk management procedures, insurance, and adherence to equality and diversity legislation
relevant to placements. Where requested, placement providers should provide evidence of
this to both students and the department/division before the placement opportunity is
started.
9.5 Providers are expected to engage and communicate with both the student and
department/division throughout the entire duration of the placement, providing and
receiving feedback. This is to allow for a positive experience for the student and for the
department/division to obtain information that may be helpful in assessing the student or
allowing for continuous improvement of the activity.
10. Roles, responsibilities, and requirements of the student

10.1 Students should ensure they have a full understanding of the learning opportunity being
delivered and expectations for completing the opportunity. In this respect, all information
concerning roles, responsibilities and requirements of a student should be explicit, clear and
available in written format.
10.2 Students should consult regularly with their department/division to prepare themselves
adequately for the placement and ensure that they are aware of ethical and health and safety
issues or other issues relevant to the placement.
10.3 As a representative of the College, students must take responsibility for meeting the norms
and expectations for professional conduct in the particular field of work that they are
undertaking.
10.4 Students should maintain consistent and effective communication about the placement with
their department and placement provider and provide feedback on any issues to their
department/division as requested.
11. Duty of Care

11.1 It is important to note that the College’s legal, moral and ethical obligations relevant to items
such as risk management, health and safety, insurance and equality and diversity legislation
apply to students on placement to ensure their safety and well-being under Duty of Care.
11.2 The duty of the College is to take such care as is required in all circumstances to see that
students do not meet foreseeable harm (i.e. to their health, safety and wellbeing) by making
reasonable efforts in a reasonably competent way to try and fulfil this duty.
236
11.3 Whilst the College has an obligation to exercise a level of care to all students under Duty of
Care, it is ultimately the responsibility of the student to verify the accuracy of information
and requirements regarding placements from the relevant destination country, prior to
undertaking a placement abroad. The College must show due diligence and full
consideration of the relevant regulations and policy of the host country in which a student is
completing a placement.
11.4 An assessment of the risks should be carried out prior to the student undertaking the
placement opportunity. It is the responsibility of the placement organisation to manage risks
in the workplace and ensure that the student is fully aware of these. To facilitate this process
the department/division should liaise with the Partner to identify and assess the risks relating
to the workplace environment. This process has already been factored into the King’s Host
Agreement, but for other agreement templates, where this has not already been factored in,
it is recommended that the College’s ‘General Risk Filter Assessment’ form (F071-01-
HSEPO) is used for this purpose. Staff should also refer to the College’s management
arrangements for risk assessment for guidance.
11.5 The department is responsible for ensuring that the organisation hosting the placement
provides confirmation that they have adequate insurance in place to cover the student prior
to approving the student participation in the placement opportunity. The Placement
provider is expected to provide confirmation that the student will be covered by their public
liability/ employers’ liability policy (or international equivalent). Corporate organisations
should have this up to a limit of at least £5M and that such policies are current. It is the
student’s responsibility to ensure they have adequate insurance cover in place to meet their
personal needs in addition to any cover provided as part of a placement activity taking place
in a Country outside the UK. The College has a standard travel insurance policy in place for
students travelling abroad in connection with their studies.
11.6 All students should be provided with an equal opportunity for completing the placement to
benefit from the learning it provides. This includes putting appropriate mechanisms in place
that ensure that opportunities provided are inclusive, safe, supported and reasonable
adjustments can be made when required.
11.7 Furthermore in relation to students with a disability, the legislation stipulates that in cases
where the College arranges for a third party to provide education, training or other related
services for students on its behalf, this provision remains the responsibility of the College and
so is covered by the legislation. This means ensuring that a placement provider has systems
in place to address and respond to specific need.
11.8 For any student completing a placement or participating in any form of work-based learning
outside of their home country there may be different visa restrictions that apply concerning
the number of weekly hours that students can participate in the placement, including the
length and timing of the placement, and the acceptance of paid employment. It is the
students responsibility to seek advice and ensure they have the correct visa in place to
undertake the placement.
11.9 The Global Mobility Office provides guidance on international partnership arrangements
and the Careers and Employability Office provide support and guidance to students who are
pursuing internship opportunities, both in the UK and abroad and for staff. Regularly
updated advice and guidance, particularly around visa issues, is also available through the
Student Advice and International Student Support team.
237
The following definitions are used to describe the provision of all collaborative activity in operation
at the College where the management of the educational opportunity for a programme of study or a
module that leads to or contributes to the award of King’s academic credit or a qualification are
delivered, assessed or supported through an arrangement with a Partner and where the achievement
of the relevant learning outcomes for the programme or module is dependent on the arrangement
made with the partner.
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU): a non-legally binding document setting out the

aspirations between the Partners for future academic co-operation that is signed prior to any
collaborative activity being agreed.
Memorandum of Agreement (MoA): a legally binding document setting out the agreed terms of
reference between the Partners for delivering any activity set out in the activity schedule that is
signed prior to any agreed collaborative activity being delivered.
Activity Schedule: sets out the operational aspects for delivering the programme activity around the
student lifecycle that is signed following programme approval. The activity schedule is not in itself
legally-binding unless the accompanying MoA is signed.
Institutional Collaboration Agreement: a legally binding document setting out the roles,
responsibilities and obligations of each Partner for delivering multi-institutional DTP/CDT activity.
Student Exchange Agreement (SEA): a legally binding document setting out the terms of reference
between the Partners for delivering student exchange activity undertaken as part of a King’s degree
programme.
Jointly delivered programme activity: defined by the QAA as ‘A programme delivered or provided
jointly by two or more organisations, irrespective of the award (whether single, joint, dual/double or
multiple). It refers to the education provided rather than the nature of the award’. Examples of types of
jointly delivered programme activity are given in table one.
Learning opportunity offered for a programme: defined by the QAA as ‘The provision made for
student’s learning, including planned study programmes, teaching, assessment, academic and personal
support, and resources (such as libraries and information systems, laboratories, studios or specialist
facilities)’. Examples of types of learning opportunities offered for a programme are given in table
two.
Serial Arrangements: defined by the QAA as ‘the delivery organisation (through an arrangement of
its own) offers whole programmes (franchised to it or validated by the degree awarding body) elsewhere or
assigns to another party powers delegated to it by the degree-awarding body’. Examples of types of Serial
Arrangements are given in table three.
Physically present overseas campus arrangements: a generic description of those types of

arrangement where the higher education provision of a UK degree-awarding body is delivered in a
Country outside of the UK and is a typical example of a Transnational Education (TNE)
collaborative arrangement. Examples of types of Physically present overseas campus arrangements
are given in table four.
238
Table One (Jointly delivered programme activity)103
Type Co-operative partnership Double or Multiple Dual Award Joint Award Split-site PhD
Awards
Definition An arrangement whereby A partnership arrangement A partnership arrangement A partnership arrangement An arrangement whereby
the College enters into a whereby the College and whereby the College and under which the College the College enters into a
partnership with another one or more partner(s) another Partner work and one or more partner(s) partnership with another
degree awarding body to provide a jointly delivered together to offer a jointly provide a programme institution for a ‘non-
design and jointly deliver a programme, normally for conceived programme with leading to a single award resident student’ to register
programme of study, but the same qualification, that overlapping elements, made jointly by King’s and for a King’s awarded PhD
with only one awarding leads to separate awards and leading to separate awards the Partner(s). A single programme and receive
institution. separate certification being (and separate certification) certificate or document joint supervision and access
granted by both King’s and being granted by both (signed by the competent to shared resources.
the Partner(s) King’s and the Partner. authorities) attests to the
successful completion of this
jointly delivered
programme, replacing the
separate institutional or
national qualifications.
Programme • A single jointly • Sharing of teaching and • Sharing of teaching and • A single programme • A single jointly
Design conceived programme learning resources in learning resources where with one set of learning conceived programme
with one distinct set of equal amounts a small proportion of the aims and outcomes with one distinct set of
learning aims and throughout the programme or leading to a single learning aims and
outcomes; programme or where a programmes delivered award; outcomes;
• Sharing of teaching and minimum of 40% of the by both King’s and the • Sharing of teaching and • The Partner is normally
learning resources with programme awarded by Partner overlap to share learning resources in a Public Research
the host institution King’s is delivered by learning aims and equal amounts Institution, Industrial
contributing a minimum the Partner. outcomes i.e. a module throughout the Research Laboratory or
of a quarter of the • Students cannot be taught by King’s counts programme or a ratio of a HEI without degree
teaching and assessment awarded one degree as credit towards the 60:40. awarding powers or
throughout the without the other. Partner programme and • The programme offers other government body
programme. • These arrangements are vice-versa. The students a unique that is prepared to host
• These arrangements are normally only proportion of the experience; the student and deliver
normally only considered with programme being • These arrangements will the training, resources
considered with a Partners who are unable delivered by a Partner only be considered were and/or supervision to
Partner where the to contract with the that leads to a King’s the Partner has the legal
103
King’s recognises that terminology may vary in Countries outside the UK and between partners, and terminology used to advertise a programme may therefore differ to reflect the
status of the learning offered rather than the end award.
239
Awards
College does not have College to offer the award and vice versa and regulatory authority the standard expected
the relevant expertise. programme as a joint should be no more than to make the joint award by the College;
award. 30% of the final award. and recognise this • The arrangement allows
• Students can be within their jurisdiction. for students to spend
awarded a degree from significant periods of
either Party without the time with the Partner,
need to pass the other where the prescribed
where the student is programme of study
able to successfully shall be carried out
complete the learning under the primary
aims and outcomes for supervision of an
that programme to external supervisor at
receive the intended the institution or
qualification. laboratory where the
• These arrangements student will be based;
tend to be offered with • The programme offers
Partners where the aim students the opportunity
is to offer a unique to acquire background
experience to students knowledge and
enabling them to transferable skills
achieve more than one relevant to their
award in a shorter research;
timeframe than would • Currently only offered
normally be the case. with Partners without
their own degree-
awarding powers.
Programme • There should be joint • A Joint Programme • A Joint Programme • A Joint Programme • There should be joint
Management representation on Committee should be Committee or JAC Committee or JAC representation on the
relevant programme established to oversee should be established to should be established to relevant JAC established
committees and and assure the academic oversee and assure the oversee and assure the to oversee and assure the
assessment sub-boards standards and content academic standards and academic standards and academic standards and
to assure the academic for the programme, content for the overall content for the joint supervision
standards and content reporting into the programme, reporting programme, reporting arrangements, reporting
for the programme, relevant governance into the relevant into the relevant into the King’s
reporting into the King’s structure at both/all governance structure at governance structure at governance structure;
governance structure; institutions; both/all institutions; both/all institutions; • The primary supervisor
should play a key role in
240
Awards
• Marks awarded under • There is a joint • Marks awarded under • Arrangements for the monitoring the progress
the Partner assessment assessment process the Partner assessment considering the final of the student in liaison
regulations should be reporting into the regulations should be results and qualification with the second
reported to the relevant relevant structure at reported to the relevant award of the student are supervisor based at
Assessment Sub-Board. both/all institutions to Assessment Sub-Board jointly undertaken and King’s to enable the
• A mark translation consider the marks with the totality of the reported into the student to meet the key
scheme must be and/or credit that combined programmes relevant structure at milestones for progress
approved by ASSC for counts towards the having external both/all institutions; throughout their PhD.
the marks awarded by King’s and Partner(s) examiner oversight; • A mark translation
the Partner(s) that count programme; • Assessment marks scheme must be
towards the King’s • Assessment marks and/or credit from each approved by ASSC for
award. and/or credit from each Partner may be used the marks awarded by
Partner is used towards towards the award from the Partner(s) that count
the award from the the other Partner; towards the final joint
other Partner; • Where marks are used award.
• A mark translation from the Partner
scheme must be towards the King’s
approved by ASSC for classification award, a
the marks awarded by mark translation scheme
the Partner(s) that count must be approved by
towards the King’s ASSC.
award.
Nature of Award Leads to a King’s award. Leads to separate awards Leads to separate awards Leads to a single award Leads to a King’s award.
being granted by King’s and being granted by King’s and made jointly by King’s and
the Partner(s). the Partner. the other Partner(s).
Certification King’s certificate, although • Separate certificates • Separate certificates • A single certificate is King’s certificate, although
students may receive a issued by King’s and the issued by King’s and the jointly issued by King’s the final certificate awarded
separate transcript of results Partner(s); Partner; and the Partner(s), should recognise the
from the partner institution, • The certificate should • The certificate should signed by the competent contribution of the partner
and the final certificate acknowledge (Partner acknowledge (Partner authorities, replacing the (Partner in-Country
awarded should recognise in-Country regulations in-Country regulations separate institutional or regulations permitting).
the contribution of the permitting) that the permitting) that the national qualifications;
partner (Partner in-Country programme has led to an programme has led to • The single certificate
regulations permitting) equivalent qualification the award of another may form two halves,
being awarded by the qualification from the but care should be taken
Partner as part of a to ensure that the
241
Awards
double degree Partner as part of a dual information provided
programme degree programme matches and provides a
clear indication of the
qualification awarded
and date of award. It
must also include a
statement that the
certificate is in two
halves and not valid
without the other half.
Student King’s normal student King’s and Partner normal King’s and Partner normal King’s and Partner normal King’s normal student
entitlements entitlements. Students will student entitlements for the student entitlements for the student entitlements for the entitlements. Students will
also be given normal access duration of the programme. duration of the respective duration of the programme, also be given normal access
programme of study
to the Partner facilities to be Students will be considered but with one of the Parties to the Partner facilities to be
delivered by each Party.
able to successfully complete ‘home’ students by both. acting as the designated lead able to successfully complete
Students will be considered
the elements of the ‘home’ students by both. ‘home’ institution for the elements of the
programme delivered there. administrative purposes. programme delivered there.
Responsibility for King’s where it owns the King’s and the Partner are King’s and the Partner are King’s and the Partner are King’s where it owns the
academic programme and is solely responsible for the content, responsible for the content, equally responsible for the programme and is solely
standards responsible for the final delivery, quality and delivery, quality and content, delivery, quality responsible for the final
award. standards of its own standards of its own and standards of the award award.
provision and making its provision and making its and make the award jointly.
own award. own award.
Quality • Subject to King’s • Subject to all awarding • Subject to both • Subject to all awarding • Subject to King’s
Assurance quality assurance institutions quality awarding institutions institutions quality quality assurance
processes processes, although assurance processes, quality assurance assurance processes, processes, although
arrangements for with all aspects of processes, although with all aspects of arrangements for
undertaking this may be programme design, there may be a programme design, undertaking this may be
jointly managed with development, delivery, pooling/sharing of development, delivery, jointly managed with
the Partner. Medium assessment, resources; assessment, the Partner. Medium
risk activity requires management and • External examiner management and risk activity requires
sign off from PDASC. decision-making on oversight for the totality decision-making on sign off from PDASC.
• External examiner student achievement of the programme. student achievement • Subject to the normal
oversight of marks being jointly being jointly process for appointment
undertaken; undertaken; of examiners and
242
Awards
obtained from modules • External examiner • External examiner conduct of the
taken at the Partner. oversight for the totality oversight for the totality examination.
of the programme. of the programme.
Regulations, Governed by relevant Governed by relevant Governed by relevant Governed by relevant Governed by relevant
policy and sections of the College’s sections of the College’s sections of the College’s sections of the College’s sections of the College’s
student related Academic Regulations, Academic Regulations, Academic Regulations, Academic Regulations, Academic Regulations,
procedures policies and procedures. policies and procedures and policies and procedures for policies and procedures and policies and procedures with
Partner(s) equivalent. the King’s award and by the Partner(s) equivalent. any limitations required by
Although there may be a Partner’s equivalent for Although there may be a the Partner in respect of the
separate set of programme their award. separate set of programme thesis being stated in the
regulations established. regulations established. agreement.
Guidance • Guidance on the • Guidance on the • Guidance on the • Guidance on the • Guidance on the
operation of operation of operation of operation of operation of
collaborative teaching collaborative teaching collaborative teaching collaborative teaching collaborative teaching
activity; activity; activity; activity; activity;
• Guidance on jointly • Guidance on jointly • Guidance on jointly • Guidance on jointly
delivered taught delivered taught delivered taught delivered taught
programmes. programmes. programmes. programmes;
• Guidance on key • Guidance on key
principles relating to the principles relating to the
management, management,
monitoring and monitoring and
assessment of joint PhD assessment of joint PhD
programmes; programmes;
• Core terms of reference • Core terms of reference
for a Joint Academic for a Joint Academic
Committee for joint Committee for joint
PhD programmes. PhD programmes.
Consult • ARQS Office • ARQS Office • ARQS Office • ARQS Office • Centre for Doctoral
• Global Engagement • Global Engagement • Global Engagement • Global Engagement Studies (PhD
Office (International Office (International Office (International Office (International programmes)
Partners) Partners) Partners) Partners) • Global Engagement
• Centre for Doctoral Office (International
Studies (PhD Partners)
programmes)
243
Awards
Type of Memorandum of Memorandum of Memorandum of Memorandum of Memorandum of
Agreement Agreement and Activity Agreement and Activity Agreement and Activity Agreement and Activity Agreement and Activity
Schedule Schedule Schedule Schedule Schedule
Risks Medium Medium to High Medium High Medium
• Impact on King’s • Impact on King’s • Impact on King’s • Impact on King’s • Impact on King’s
reputation through reputation through reputation through reputation through reputation through
association and association and association and association and association and
monitoring of partner monitoring of partner monitoring of partner monitoring of partner monitoring of partner
publicity and partner publicity; publicity; publicity and partner publicity;
withdrawal; • Impact on student • Impact on student withdrawal; • Impact on student
• Impact on student experience for experience for • Impact on student experience for
experience for integrating students integrating students experience for integrating students
integrating students when delivering when delivering integrating students when delivering
when delivering programme across more programme across more when delivering programme across more
programme across more than one campus, in than one campus, in programme across more than one campus, in
than one campus, in particular different particular different than one campus, in particular different
particular different geographical locations geographical locations particular different geographical locations
geographical locations and diverse cultures; and diverse cultures and geographical locations and diverse cultures and
and diverse cultures and • Impact if breakdown in quality of Partner and diverse cultures; quality of Partner
quality of Partner complex working provision; • Impact if breakdown in provision;
provision; relationship and • Impact of Partner complex working • Impact of Partner
• Impact of Partner programme withdrawn; withdrawal; relationship and withdrawal;
withdrawal; • Impact on complying • Impact on maintaining programme withdrawn; • Impact on maintaining
• Impact on maintaining with College compliance with King’s • Impact on King’s and compliance with King’s
compliance with King’s expectations where Quality Assurance Partner requirements Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance partner(s) Quality framework; within their respective framework;
framework; Assurance framework • Impact on maintaining Quality Assurance • Impact on maintaining
• Impact on maintaining differs; and safeguarding framework; and safeguarding
and safeguarding • Impact on maintaining academic standards of • Impact on maintaining academic standards of
academic standards of and safeguarding King’s awards, including and safeguarding King’s awards and the
King’s awards, including academic standards of double counting and academic standards of quality of the student
complexities around King’s awards, including complexities around King’s awards and the experience;
mark translation, and double counting and mark translation, and quality of the student • Impact on maintaining
the quality of the complexities around the quality of the experience; consistency between
student experience; mark translation, and student experience; • Impact on maintaining regulations and policy
• Impact on maintaining the quality of the • Impact on maintaining consistency between for shared ownership of
consistency between student experience; consistency between regulations and policy the Programme;
244
Awards
regulations and policy • Impact on maintaining regulations and policy for shared ownership of • Impact on King’s legal
for shared ownership of consistency between for shared elements of the Programme and compliance in respect of
the Programme regulations and policy the Programme; related IPR (Intellectual government
• Impact on King’s legal for shared ownership of • Impact on King’s legal Property Rights); requirements;
compliance in respect of the Programme and compliance in respect of • Impact on King’s legal • Impact on financial
government related IPR (Intellectual government compliance in respect of standing of Partner and
requirements; Property Rights); requirements; government King’s business
• Impact on financial • Impact on King’s legal • Impact on financial requirements and operations;
standing of Partner and compliance in respect of standing of Partner and impediments to the • Impact on ensuring
King’s business government King’s business recognition of a joint sufficient resources are
operations; requirements; operations; award requiring a in place to protect the
• Impact on ensuring • Impact on financial • Impact on ensuring pooling together of student experience.
sufficient resources are standing of Partner and sufficient resources are degree awarding
in place to protect the King’s business in place to protect the powers;
student experience. operations; student experience. • Impact on financial
• Impact on delivering standing of Partner and
appropriate and suitable King’s business
resources to deliver the operations;
overall programme and • Impact on delivering
protect the student appropriate and suitable
experience, resource resources to deliver the
heavy. overall programme and
protect the student
experience, resource
heavy.
245
Table Two (Learning opportunity offered for a programme)
Type Articulation/ Reverse Doctoral Training Off campus shared taught Placement provision Student Exchange
Articulation Partnerships/Centres for module
Doctoral Training
Definition A partnership arrangement A partnership arrangement A partnership arrangement A partnership arrangement A partnership arrangement
whereby cohorts of students whereby two or more whereby an external whereby an external whereby students are
studying on a programme at awarding bodies collaborate provider designs learning provider delivers a planned offered the opportunity to
a Partner Institution that is in the delivery of opportunities or provides period of experience in a experiencestudy overseas
linked to a King’s studentships, core and specialist teaching and/or work-based environment, and enhance their degree. In
programme will: advanced skills training, resources for a taught enabling students to develop return students from the
collaboration in PhD module offered by the particular skills, knowledge partner are accepted and
• EITHER (Articulation)
research, co supervision, College as part of a Taught and understanding enrolled onto King’s
gain access to a higher
and personal, professional Degree programme. The necessary to achieving the modules. The strength of
level programme at
and career development module is subject to the relevant learning outcomes the partnership is therefore
entry level or with
skills training for PhD College’s Academic of a programme of study expected to be both
advanced standing
students. Regulations and quality leading to a King’s award. sustainable and reciprocal in
where cohorts of
assurance mechanisms, and nature.
students will need to
is either entirely or partially
satisfy the academic
delivered, taught and/or
criteria to articulate
assessed by the partner at
between the two
the partner premises.
programmes
• OR (Reverse
Articulation) gain
automatic entry to a
programme offered at
the same level
In both cases Recognition of
Prior Learning (RPL) or
Experiential Learning (E
L104) may be considered
and will automatically be
recognised as part of the
entry or progression
requirements.
104
Please refer to the College Policy on recognition of prior learning
246
Doctoral Training
Programme • A flexible route that • These arrangements are • The programme is • The Placement provider • The arrangement fosters
Design promotes student normally funded by designed by King’s and may include other mobility and research
recruitment Research Council as enables students to awarding bodies, other training opportunities
opportunities enabling Doctoral Training spend part of their education providers, for students through a
students the opportunity programmes and programme at a Partner non-academic providers range of study abroad
to gain an overall studentships; enabling access to (or those whose purpose options, including the
learning experience and • The training may be specialist resources is not primarily Erasmus + scheme and
broaden their within a focused and/or supervision education) and inter-institutional
knowledge of a subject research area or in the arrangements and/or employers; exchanges;
area in a shorter context of a mutually specialist teaching to • Contributes to the • The opportunity offered
timeframe than if each beneficial research enhance the student learning leading to involves a planned
programme was collaboration between experience; professional period of study or
completed individually; academic or non- • The Partner is qualifications for which experience which
• The learning experience academic providers or a responsible for the they have a statutory or contributes towards a
for each programme combination of both; provision of specialist regulatory responsibility King’s programme of
offered is paired • The programme resources and/or (Practice Placement/ study either as credit or
together, either at the arrangements may supervision Clinical Placement e.g. mark transfer;
same level or at different involve the student arrangements and/or the medical electives and • The opportunity may be
levels to form two undertaking a planned design and delivery of Professional optional or compulsory
discrete awards, but is period of experience at the specialist teaching, Placement/non- to the student’s degree
not conceived as a joint the Partner or co- and may be responsible Clinical e.g. teacher programme.
enterprise as would be supervisory for assessing modules, education) or a non-
the case for a Dual arrangements. that is subject to academic environment
Award; approval by King’s to (Industrial Placements
• King’s recognises the ensure it will meet the e.g. research undertaken
provision offered by the needs of the student in a laboratory) or a
Partner as being suitable learning experience and planned period of
preparation for a student expectations. experience to help
to either transfer onto a students develop
programme at King’s at particular skills,
an advanced stage knowledge and
(Articulation) or access understanding through a
a programme of study at planned period of
King’s offered at the learning (Internships)
same level (Reverse or to specifically enable
Articulation); accreditation to a
247
Doctoral Training
• Both types of professional body that is
arrangement will require not statutory or
a formal commitment as regulatory (work-based
King’s will need to placement);
automatically admit the • Credit may be given as
student as a direct either credit transfer or
entrant with or without award of credit for the
recognition of credit. planned period of study
necessary to achieve the
relevant learning
outcomes for a module
or programme.
Programme • King’s and the Partner King’s is responsible for King’s is responsible for King’s is responsible for • King’s is responsible for
Management map the programme managing the relationship managing the relationship managing the relationship managing the
arrangement using the with the Partner to provide with the Partner to provide with the Partner to provide relationship with the
College’s mapping the necessary resources and the necessary resources and the necessary resources and Partner to provide the
template to identify any teaching to deliver the teaching to deliver the teaching to deliver the necessary resources and
specific requirements to learning opportunity for the learning opportunity for the learning opportunity for the teaching to deliver the
enable students to King’s programme of study. King’s programme of study. King’s programme of study. learning opportunity for
seamlessly transfer from the King’s programme
one programme to of study;
another or progress onto • Consideration should be
the next stage of their given to the level of
learning. academic,
• King’s and the Partner administrative and
own the curriculum for pastoral support offered
their own programme of by the Partner and the
study, although each strength of the
may have an input into relationship between
the curriculum content. participating academic
departments for
managing the activity.
Nature of Award • The student is awarded The student is awarded a The student is awarded a The student is awarded a The student is awarded a
a degree from King’s degree from King’s only. degree from King’s only. degree from King’s only. degree from King’s only.
and will also receive an
award from the Partner,
248
Doctoral Training
providing the student
has fully met all
programme
requirements.
• A higher-level award at
postgraduate taught
level cannot be given
until there is
confirmation that the
student has successfully
passed the lower-level
award at the
undergraduate level.
Certification King’s will only issue a King’s will only issue a King’s will only issue a King’s will only issue a King’s will only issue a
certificate for the certificate for the certificate for the certificate for the certificate for the
programme offered by programme offered by programme offered by programme offered by programme offered by
King’s and will not King’s and will not King’s and will not King’s and will not King’s and will not
acknowledge on the acknowledge on the acknowledge on the acknowledge on the acknowledge on the
certificate any association certificate any association certificate any association certificate the association certificate the association
with the Partner with the Partner with the Partner with the Partner with the Partner
Student Students have normal Students have normal Students have normal Students have normal Students have normal
entitlements entitlements whilst enrolled King’s entitlements and may King’s entitlements and may King’s entitlements and may King’s entitlements and may
on the King’s award-bearing be granted entitlements by be granted entitlements by be granted entitlements by be granted entitlements by
programme but would have the Partner to enable them the Partner to enable them the Partner to enable them the Partner to enable them
no student entitlements at to successfully complete the to successfully complete the to successfully complete the to successfully complete the
King’s whilst they are elements of the programme elements of the programme elements of the programme elements of the programme
enrolled on the programme delivered there. delivered there. delivered there. delivered there.
offered by the Partner.
Responsibility for King’s and the Partner are King’s has overall King’s has overall King’s has overall King’s has overall
academic responsible for the delivery responsibility for the responsibility for the responsibility for the responsibility for the
standards and quality of their own academic standards of academic standards of academic standards of academic standards of its
award, although the Partner award, although the Partner award, although the Partner award, although the Partner
programme of study and
is responsible for the is responsible for the is responsible for the is responsible for the
academic standards of provision and must provision and must provision and must provision it must
249
Doctoral Training
award. King’s is responsible demonstrate adherence to demonstrate adherence to demonstrate adherence to demonstrate adherence to
for ensuring that the the appropriate quality the appropriate quality the appropriate quality the appropriate quality
provision undertaken at the requirements and academic requirements and academic requirements and academic requirements and academic
standards required. standards required. standards required. standards required. King’s
partner institution is suitable
in turn commits to
for the recognition of delivering modules to the
specified admissions criteria Partner students to the
or recognition of credit for quality and standards they
prior learning (RPL). would require.
Quality Each Institution owns the For students registered at King’s is the awarding King’s is the awarding King’s is the awarding
Assurance curriculum and the award King’s, King’s is the institution and owns the institution and owns the institution and owns the
processes for their programme of awarding institution. For programme, King’s has programme, King’s has programme, King’s has
study and is responsible for King’s led DTP/CDT overall responsibility for overall responsibility for overall responsibility for
its delivery and quality partnerships King’s owns quality assurance through quality assurance through quality assurance through
assurance through its own the programme, King’s has the usual mechanisms. the usual mechanisms. the usual mechanisms, but
mechanisms, although there overall responsibility for the Partner will be
may be a sharing of quality assurance through responsible for the design
resources agreed between the usual mechanisms. and delivery of their own
the Parties. provision.
Regulations, Governed by the relevant Governed by the relevant Governed by the relevant Governed by the relevant Governed by the relevant
policy and sections of the Academic sections of the Academic sections of the Academic sections of the Academic sections of the Academic
student related Regulations and King’s Regulations and King’s Regulations and King’s Regulations and King’s Regulations and King’s
procedures policies and procedures; policies and procedures, as policies and procedures. policies and procedures. policies and procedures.
well as funder compliance
(e.g. UKRI – Terms and
Conditions for Doctoral
Training).
Core code of practice for

postgraduate research
degrees
Guidance Guidance on the operation Guidance on Doctoral • Guidance on the Guidance on student Guidance on the operation
of collaborative teaching Training operation of placements of collaborative teaching
activity. Partnerships/Centres for collaborative teaching activity.
activity;
250
Doctoral Training
Doctoral Training: approval, • Guidance on off-campus
monitoring and review study in research
degrees
Consult • ARQS Office Head of Doctoral • ARQS Office (taught • Careers and • Global Mobility Office
• Global Engagement Partnerships programme provision) Employability Office for • ARQS Office
Office (International • Centre for Doctoral Internship Host
Partners) Studies (research degree programme
provision) • Global Mobility Office
• Global Engagement for Languages and
Office (International Literatures (taught
Partners) programmes)
• ARQS Office (taught
programmes)
• Centre for Doctoral
Studies (research
degrees)
Type of Memorandum of Institutional Collaboration Memorandum of Internship Host Agreement Student Exchange
Agreement Agreement and Activity Agreement Agreement and Activity (can be adapted to suit the Agreement or Erasmus +
Schedule (contact ARQS Schedule purpose), may be supported Inter-Institutional
for a modified template with a Service Level Agreement or Activity
specific for these types of Agreement with the Partner Schedule (where a MoA
arrangement) already exists with the
Partner)
Risks Low Low Low Low Low
• Impact on King’s • Impact on King’s • Impact on King’s • Impact on King’s • Impact on King’s
reputation through reputation through reputation through reputation through reputation through
association and association with the association with the association with the association with the
monitoring of partner Partner; Partner; Partner; Partner;
publicity linking the • Impact on quality of • Impact on quality of • Impact on student • Impact on quality of
programmes; student experience and student experience and experience and student experience and
• Impact on student expectations for expectations for expectations for expectations for
expectations for elements delivered by elements delivered by elements delivered by elements delivered by
progression to King’s or the Partner; the Partner; the Partner; the Partner;
Partner’s programme; • Impact on maintaining • Impact on maintaining • Impact on maintaining • Impact on maintaining
compliance with King’s compliance with King’s compliance with King’s compliance with King’s
251
Doctoral Training
• Impact on monitoring Quality Assurance Quality Assurance Quality Assurance Quality Assurance
the quality of students framework, including framework, including framework, including framework, including
completing the Partner quality of supervision quality of teaching and quality of planned quality of teaching and
programme; and availability of availability of resources period of work-based availability of resources
• Impact on monitoring resources delivered by delivered by the learning; delivered by the
the Partner provision the Partner; Partner; • Impact on maintaining Partner;
and student • Impact on maintaining • Impact on maintaining and safeguarding • Impact on maintaining
achievement; and safeguarding and safeguarding academic standards of and safeguarding
• Impact on maintaining academic standards of academic standards of King’s awards; academic standards of
and safeguarding King’s awards; King’s awards; • Impact on King’s King’s awards,
academic standards of • Impact on King’s • Impact on King’s obligations in respect of including complexities
King’s awards. obligations in respect of obligations in respect of government around mark translation;
government government requirements for legal • Impact on King’s
requirements for legal requirements for legal compliance, including obligations in respect of
compliance, including compliance; health and safety around government
health and safety around • Impact on financial work-based learning; requirements for legal
work-based learning; standing of Partner and • Impact on financial compliance;
• Impact on financial King’s business standing of Partner and • Impact on financial
standing of Partner and operations, including King’s business standing of Partner and
King’s business adequate insurance operations; including King’s business
operations, including policies in place at the adequate insurance operations, including
adequate insurance Partner; policies in place at the adequate insurance
policies in place at the • Impact on ensuring Partner; policies in place at the
Partner; sufficient resources are • Impact on ensuring Partner;
• Impact on ensuring in place to protect the sufficient resources are • Impact on ensuring
sufficient resources are student experience; in place to protect the sufficient resources are
in place to protect the • Impact of Partner student experience; in place to protect the
student experience; withdrawal. • Impact of termination of student experience;
• Impact of Partner the placement. • Impact of Partner
withdrawal. withdrawal.
252
Table Three (Serial arrangements)
King’s currently has only two such arrangement in place, namely the validation of programmes offered by
RADA and the ICCA. King’s may enter into new validated provision arrangements with a UK Partner that
is similarly subject to the UK Quality Code.
The College is unlikely to enter into arrangements for accredited or franchised provision due to the
complexity of these types of arrangement and the devolved responsibility for quality assurance mechanisms
where the College would only have limited control. Therefore, the definitions for accredited provision and
franchised provision have been included for advisory purposes only.
Accredited provision A partnership arrangement whereby an institution without its own degree
awarding powers is given wide authority by the College to exercise powers
and responsibility for academic provision. The College will remain
ultimately responsible for the quality and standard of its awards, but only
exercises limited control over the quality assurance functions of the partner
institution.
Franchised Provision: A partnership arrangement under which a partner is authorised/licensed to
provide the whole or part of a programme of study designed by the College
and leading to an award or award of credit of the College.
Validated Provision: A partnership arrangement whereby King’s judges that a programme of
study developed and delivered by another organisation is of an appropriate
quality and standard to lead to a King’s award and is subject to King’s
quality assurance procedures.
These types of arrangement are normally with a provider (without their own
degree awarding powers) for specialist provision not offered by the College.
The specialist education provided is designed and delivered by the delivery
organisation enabling students to receive a King’s award that is recognised
and trusted by future employers. The students will have a direct contractual
relationship with the Partner and will not have a contractual relationship
with King’s. Therefore, the students will not have any student entitlements
at King’s.
Separate ‘Procedures for validated provision’ govern these types of

arrangement.
Table Four (Physically present overseas campus arrangements)
Type Flying Faculty

Definition: An arrangement whereby a programme is delivered in a location away from the main
campus (usually in another country) by staff from the College, who also carry out all
assessment. Support for students may be provided by local staff, but the programme is
solely delivered by King’s leading to a King’s only award.
Programme Design: The whole or major part of a King’s programme is delivered at Partner organisation by
King’s staff, opening up the opportunity for students to gain a King’s experience away
from the main College campus.
Programme King’s is responsible for managing the relationship with the Partner to ensure the
Management: necessary oversight for the provision of resources and teaching arrangements to deliver
the King’s programme.
Nature of Award: Leads to a King’s award
Certification: Standard King’s certificate
Student entitlements Students have remote access to normal King’s entitlements and may also have
entitlements to facilities at the Partner organisation to complete the elements of their
programme.
253
Responsibility for King’s is solely responsible for the academic standards of award
academic standards:
Quality Assurance King’s is the awarding institution and owns the programme. King’s has overall
processes: responsibility for quality assurance through the usual mechanisms, but there may be
some input from the Partner who deliver the resources for the programme.
Regulations, policy and Governed by the relevant sections of the College’s Academic Regulations, policies and
student related procedures
procedures:
Guidance: Guidance on the operation of collaborative teaching activity
Consult • Human Resources
• Finance Directorate
• Visa Compliance team
• QAS
• Global Engagement Office (International Partners)
Type of Agreement Memorandum of Agreement (incorporating operational arrangements for services
provided and delivery of programme)
Risks Low to Medium
• Impact on King’s reputation through association with the Partner including
protection of King’s brand, King’s obligations and Government advice;
• Impact on monitoring the quality of student experience and expectations where this
is being managed by the Partner;
• Impact on maintaining and safeguarding academic standards of King’s awards
where academic regulations and related policies are being implemented and student
records maintained by the Partner or any teaching delivered, including compliance
with UK QAA obligations, compatibility with Partner quality assurance obligations
and any PSRB requirements;
• Impact on King’s in respect of government requirements for legal compliance,
including data protection, accessibility, equality, right of appeal, freedom of speech,
suitability of learning environment, employment law and tax issues that may impact
on the delivery of the programme;
• Impact of in-country permissions or changes to operate King’s business in the
Partner Country, including ease of obtaining permissions and adapting to changes,
IP, financial and tax regulations for hiring staff and contacting with students, staff
visas, implementation of the regulatory framework to accredit and deliver the
programme in another Partner Country;
• Impact on management of human resources including employment and training/
development of local staff, political situations posing potential risks to staff working
in another Country, physical impact on staff working across different campuses,
effective communication and maintaining good relations between staff and students
based at different campuses and operating in a different cultural teaching
environment;
• Impact on ensuring the Partner is able to provide appropriate resources and support
levels to protect the student experience;
• Impact of Partner withdrawal.
Individual student activity

The following types of individual student activity may be attached to an ‘approved’ programme of study
leading to a King’s award but does not fall under the Procedures for the approval, monitoring and
management of collaborative provision for the following reasons:
➢ Student placement or internship opportunities: covered separately under the ‘Guidance on student
placements’ once the programme approval process has been completed to allow for these types of
opportunity to be undertaken.
➢ Research student opportunities: covered separately under the ‘Guidance on off-campus study in
research degrees’ and approval and monitoring arrangements are set out in the ‘Regulations for research
degrees’ and the ‘Core code of practice’.
➢ Intercollegiate module opportunities: fall under the governance structure of the University of London
and arrangements for intercollegiate module registration and are covered separately in the College’s
‘Policy Statement on intercollegiate modules’. The only exception is where the programme is jointly
254
delivered with the Partner leading to a King’s award in association with the Partner or the final
qualification award is made jointly with the Partner.
255
1. Introduction
1.1 This guidance has been written to assist colleagues with developing proposals for jointly
delivered programme activity with a Partner. It is designed to make clear the responsibilities
of the programme teams in offering jointly delivered taught programmes with a Partner and
the risk assessment, due diligence and quality assurance mechanisms that apply and should be
read in conjunction with the College’s Procedures for the approval and monitoring of collaborative
provision.
1.2 The guidance draws on and is consistent with the various components of the QAA’s UK
Quality Code for Higher Education and in particular draws on the QAA ‘Advice and Guidance:
Partnerships’.
1.3 Colleagues who are interested in developing a programme with an International Partner are
encouraged to discuss options with the Partner to determine which type of activity would best
suit with the strategic priorities of their Faculty and may wish to consider an articulation /
progression style arrangement in the first instance. Arrangements leading to a Double or
Multiple Award based on a programme with only one set of learning aims and outcomes will
normally only be considered for approval where there are legal or regulatory impediments to
issuing a joint award or it is not in the interests of the student to mark their achievement in this
way. This is due to the possible consequences arising from each participating partner offering
credit for the same pieces of work (double counting) and the necessity of ensuring that the
completion of the programme leads to the conferment of all of the attached awards.
1.4 A set of questions to consider at the programme proposal and development stage has been
created to support colleagues wishing to establish a jointly delivered programme with a
Partner.
2. Definition and key characteristics
2.1 Jointly delivered programmes are arrangements whereby the College and one or more
awarding bodies share or pool resources to jointly provide or deliver a programme of study
designed to enhance the student learning experience, irrespective of the final award (e.g.
single, joint, double/multiple or dual). They are defined by education provided rather than
the nature of the award.
2.2 The following types of jointly delivered taught programme activity are covered by this
guidance:
➢ Co-operative partnership, an arrangement whereby the College enters into a partnership
with another degree awarding body to design and jointly deliver a programme of study,
but with only one awarding institution.
➢ Double or Multiple Award, a partnership arrangement whereby the College and one or
more partner(s) provide a single jointly delivered programme for the same qualification
that leads to separate awards and separate certification being granted by both King’s and
the Partner(s).
➢ Dual Award, a partnership arrangement whereby the College and another Partner work
together to offer a jointly conceived programme leading to separate awards (and separate
certification) being granted by both King’s and the Partner.
256
➢ Joint Award, a partnership arrangement under which the College and one or more
partner(s) provide a programme leading to a single award made jointly by King’s and the
Partner(s). 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.
2.3 The key characteristics defining each type of activity are set out in Table One of the College’s
‘Definitions of collaborative activity’.
3. Principles underlying jointly delivered programmes
3.1 The partner(s) must represent a suitable strategic fit with the College. For International
Partners this will be decided by the relevant Vice Dean (International) and Vice
President/Vice Principal (International in consultation with Global Engagement.
3.2 The arrangement entered into must be fully compliant with King’s governance arrangements
with Faculties being responsible for undertaking the detailed scrutiny of the proposal at the
approval stage and overseeing the management and monitoring of the programme once it has
been approved.
3.3 The arrangement entered into must, where practicable, be compliant with King’s policies and
procedures and meet the requirements of the relevant academic regulations. Variations in
practice should be considered and resolved at the outset. Where a bespoke set of academic
regulations is required for the programme this will need approval from the College’s Academic
Board.
3.4 The partner institution must be legally empowered through their relevant statutes and charters
to enter into an arrangement with the College. Both parties will need to ensure that they are
fully aware of any legal restrictions, and compliant with the laws of that country to be able to
satisfy the academic standards of each degree awarding body, which cannot be shared
amongst partners, ensuring that the standards of all jurisdictions are met. Where the
arrangement is for a Joint Award, a check should be made as to where permission resides in
permitting a Partner to pool their degree awarding powers with those of King’s to be able to
confer a joint award. For example, a Partner in China will need the approval of their Ministry
of Education in China.
3.5 Partnership arrangements should be based on shared academic interests and complementary
expertise and be organised between specific academic units in both institutions. Risk
management strategies should be established with appropriate and proportionate safeguards
put in place to manage the risks involved.
3.6 Proposals must undergo the appropriate due diligence processes and should be proportionate
and relevant in nature and intensity to risks identified. The process should ensure the
academic standing of the partner is satisfactory, financial and legal obligations have been met,
staff are appropriately qualified to deliver those parts of the programme for which they are
responsible, and the appropriate resources are in place to support the student. The
arrangements for access to learning resources should be clearly communicated to students.
3.7 The roles, responsibilities, and obligations of each partner in respect of the jointly awarded
programme(s), particularly the operational aspects around the student lifecycle, must be
clearly set out in the Memorandum of Agreement and accompanying Activity Schedule, and
where appropriate the programme and/or module specification.
3.8 The proposal should ensure that College is able to retain proper control of any aspects of the
arrangement delegated to the Partner to safeguard the academic standards of the award from
the College’s perspective.
257
3.9 Teaching out arrangements should be put in place to ensure that students are able to complete
their programme of study and be granted the joint award in the event that one or other of the
partners withdraws from the arrangement earlier than planned.
3.10 Arrangements must be recorded on the College’s register of activity as this will be made
available publicly to interested parties.
3.11 The standards of award made by the College where the activity has been jointly delivered
with the Partner must be maintained irrespective of any requirements of the Partner
institution and should ensure parity with other awards conferred at the same level by the
College, including ensuring consistency with any UK national requirements. Where the
arrangement is for a Dual award, care should be taken that academic standards are not
compromised by ensuring that credit awarded for transfer and accumulation purposes are not
multiplied.
3.12 Where appropriate, the design of the programme(s) and type of awards offered take into
account any Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements.
3.13 It is expected that jointly designed or conceived programmes will offer students clear benefits
that will add to their academic development and employability. The programme specification
should be submitted in accordance with the College’s ‘Procedures for programme and module
approval and modification’. Details should be provided on the learning delivered by the
Partner as well as by the College. Where the Partner is providing specific modules or
components for the programme, confirmation is sought of their approval process as part of due
diligence enquiries. Details of the final awards made, particularly where this differs to the
award made by the College, should also be stated in the programme specification. The
arrangements for how the programme will operate around the student lifecycle should be
clearly set out in the Activity Schedule that is considered as part of the approval process.
3.14 Partners should determine the division of responsibilities for the management of the
admissions process and how these responsibilities are shared. The obligations of each partner
should be communicated to students in their offer letter in accordance with CMA compliance.
The ‘home’ institution for the student should be designated as the administrative lead for co-
ordinating the operational aspects of delivering the programme.
3.15 Partners should determine the division of responsibilities relating to assessment and
regulations and which requirements apply, any deviation from the College’s published
regulations must be explicitly approved as part of the programme approval process. Mapping
of the marking criteria for all marks assessed by a partner counting towards the classification
of the final award will require approval from the Academic Standards Sub-Committee
(ASSC).
3.16 The appointment, induction and role of external examiners must be clearly defined at the
outset and conform to the requirements of the College regulations. The external examiner
should have oversight of the totality of the programme and comment on this in their report. As
a rule of thumb this means that the external examiners should be invited to attend any
meetings where results are being jointly considered, should be given access to samples of
students work and all relevant marking schemes and any other material to support them in
their role.
3.17 Arrangements should be put in place to ensure the effective monitoring and review of jointly
delivered programmes. This includes the establishment of a Joint Programme Management
Committee to oversee the programme. Information on the Partner relationship and teaching
and learning support for students, including how their expectations are being managed should
258
be included in the Continuous Enhancement Review for Programmes process for each
programme with the report being submitted in the relevant academic year as per the College
‘Procedures for programme and module monitoring and review’. The partnership arrangements
should be reviewed a minimum of six months prior to the expiry of the agreement and in
conjunction with the College’s periodic review processes. Any proposed deviation from these
expectations will need to be explicitly approved as part of the programme approval process.
3.18 The arrangements for marketing and publicising the programmes should be clearly defined to
ensure the College has effective control over the accuracy of public information, publicity and
promotional material and agreed between the parties at the outset. Each administrative lead
for the programme will have designated responsibility for this purpose.
3.19 In the interests of transparency, the certificate and/or record of achievement should (where
possible) indicate whether the programme has been jointly awarded or leads to a double/
multiple, dual or single award1. Care should be taken to ensure that the certificate of award is
not issued until the student has fully completed their programme of study in accordance with
all participating institutions regulatory framework. The expectations for each type of
arrangement are set out in the table below:
1
Partner in-Country regulations may also apply to the information stated on a degree certificate. This should be
explored and approved by both parties prior to the signing of the final agreement.
259
Joint Degree Programme

A programme of study where the learning opportunity is delivered or provided jointly by two or more organisations leading to one of the following award
options.
Joint Award Double¹ Degree Award Dual Award Single Award

A single award is conferred in Two separate awards that Two separate awards that A single award by the home
the joint names of all the are dependent on the other may not be dependent on the institution;
degree awarding bodies being granted by each of the other being granted by each A single certificate is issued
concerned; participating degree awarding of the participating degree by the home institution to the
A single certificate is issued bodies; awarding bodies; student attesting to the
(on two pages/sides) to the Two certificates are issued to Two certificates are issued to successful completion of the
student attesting to the the student attesting to the the student attesting to the programme;
successful completion of the successful completion of the successful completion of The degree certificate must
joint degree programme; joint degree programme; each qualification awarded state that the programme has
The single certificate issued Each degree certificate must within the overall programme; been delivered in association
is signed by all the competent state that the programme has Each degree certificate must with the other party;
authorities of the participating led to a double degree and state that the programme has Each party is responsible for
degree awarding bodies; an equivalent certificate led to a dual degree and their own qualification award
Requires a pooling together being issued by the other another award and certificate and the issuing of the
of degree awarding powers party; has been issued by the other certificate to the student.
and recognition under each Each party is responsible for party;
Partner Country’s legal their own qualification award Each party is responsible for
jurisdiction as both Parties and the issuing of their their own qualification award
are jointly responsible for the certificate to the student. and the issuing of their
qualification award and certificate to the student.
issuing of the certificate
replacing the separate
institutional or national
qualifications.
¹ Where more than one partner is awarding the qualification alongside King’s leading to a minimum of three separate qualifications this is referred to as a Multiple Degree Award
260
4. Areas for agreement with prospective partner institutions
4.1 The following areas should be agreed during the establishment of a new joint award
arrangement, the establishment of a programme, its approval and subsequent monitoring and
detailed in the memorandum of agreement and accompanying Activity Schedule before the
commencement of the activity.
Administrative • Consider who will be acting as the lead institution for the purposes of
arrangements the collaborative arrangement, particularly in cases where home rules
will be applying to the students.
• Consider the role, responsibility and obligations for each Partner,
particularly where these arrangements may be joint in all aspects of
programme design, development, equal academic contribution,
assessment and review, including related IPR (Intellectual Property
Rights) where there is shared ownership of the curriculum.
• Consider how oversight of the programme arrangements and student
activity will be maintained.
Financial arrangements • Consider the level of tuition fees to be charged, including division of
fee and any other relevant income for example OfS funding body
grants taking into account any additional fees borne by the lead
institution.
• Consider sponsorship and funding arrangements offered to the
student.
Marketing and Publicity • Consider the content of how the arrangement will be publicised,
including any costs associated and the use of crests, logos and
trademarks or registered images in publicity material.
• Consider how the programme will be marketed and actively
promoted to students, including launch date, taking into account
CMA compliance.
• Consider the contents of the material information sheet provided to
students and agree information to be included from the Partner,
ensuring CMA compliance.
Recruitment and • Ensure that the admissions criteria meet the minimum entrance
Admissions requirements of both King’s and the Partner.
• Consider any requirements from external accreditation processes.
• Consider how decisions will be made for admitting students to the
programme, including the application process.
• Consider who will be responsible for advising students of the decision
on their application, including rights of appeal.
Enrolment and • Consider the periods of registration at King’s and the Partner,
Registration including mapping the programme structure taking into account
relevant academic year start and end dates, periods of attendance.
• Consider student entitlements and access to facilities for the duration
of the programme, particularly where students are unable to attend
the relevant campus in person to enrol and register for their studies.
• Consider any student visa implications for the duration of the
programme, particularly where the status of the student may be
different for the Partner Country.
Student Records • Consider status of student and how changes to student status and
student registration, progression through the programme will be
managed between King’s and the Partner.
• Consider how student data will be shared to ensure consistency in
record keeping, taking into account Data Protection and FOI
legislation.
261
• Consider any statutory reporting requirements for the programme
(e.g. UK HESA returns) and who will be responsible for completing
these.
Student Support • Consider what pastoral support is available and how this can be
jointly provided to students e.g. careers advice, language support,
liaison between pastoral care tutors and accommodation.
• Consider what academic support will be provided to enable student
integration into the programme e.g. induction events, student
materials and liaison between academic tutors.
Teaching arrangements • Consider how teaching arrangements will be shared and organised to
meet the expected learning aims and outcomes for the programme.
• Consider how any opportunities for transferable skills will jointly
considered and made available to students, including whether the
programme facilitates any work-based learning opportunities.
• Consider if the student will be instructed in a different language at
the Partner and what arrangements would be put in place to ensure
the student understands what is expected of them.
• Consider how student feedback on their modules will be integrated
• Consider any joint arrangements for ethical approval of research
activity.
Assessment • Consider the assessment regulations to be applied, including mapping
arrangements the relevant marking schemes. Approval for mark translation schemes
will be needed from the College’s Assessment and Standards
Committee at the outset.
• Consider timing and reporting of assessment results to enable student
progression and conferment of award.
• Consider opportunities for students re-sitting any elements of the
programme and how this will impact on student progression and
conferment of award.
• Consider arrangements for joint reporting of assessment results
through relevant assessment board structures, including the
opportunity for the external examiner to
• Consider how students will be routinely advised of their results.
Language requirements • Consider whether the Partner has any regulations on how elements of
the programme will be taught and assessed. It is expected that the
teaching, learning and assessment practices will be delivered in the
English language. Where this is not possible, reference to this should
be made in the Activity Schedule and the relevant PAF including
arrangements for ensuring that academic standards of the King’s
award will not be compromised e.g. the appointment of an external
examiner with expertise in English and the other language.
External Examiner • Consider arrangements for the nomination and appointment of
arrangements external examiners and whether appointments can be made jointly,
induction arrangements and sharing of expenses. Degree awarding
bodies are responsible for the academic standards of their own awards
and for the appointment of external examiners even if part or the
whole of a course is delivered by a partner.
• Consider arrangements to enable the external examiner the
opportunity to have the necessary oversight of the totality of the
degree and joint reporting mechanisms. Where one degree awarding
body is UK-based and the other is not, the former needs to ensure
that the standards of its awards and the quality of its provision are
secure. Other countries may have other means of assuring the
standards and quality of higher education courses and awards, for
example national programme accreditation. It is the responsibility of
the UK institutions to ascertain the quality assurance arrangements
262
that are in place in the partner’s country, and therefore the levels and
types of scrutiny by the UK institution that are appropriate.
Conferment of Award • Consider the classification scheme that will apply. Where the
intended classification scheme differs to King’s this will be subject to
approval from the College’s Assessment and Standards Sub
Committee at the outset.
• Consider what the student’s final qualification award or awards will
be, including exit award availability within each awarding body
charter and statutes.
• Consider how final assessment outcomes will be shared to ensure
conferment of the award meets the academic standards of each
awarding body, including date of award and student expectations
should they meet the requirements of one awarding body, but not the
other. It is expected that for Joint and Double/Multiple awards
students will need to satisfy requirements of all awarding bodies to be
awarded the degree. However, for Dual awards, students may meet
the requirements of one awarding body where this does not impact
on the requirements of the other awarding body.
Certificates and • Consider the information that will be stated on the final degree
Graduation certificate or certificates, including any national or institutional legal
requirements. Where the programme leads to a joint award,
consideration should also be given to how the certificate will be
jointly undertaken and issued to the student to make clear to the
student that they are receiving a single certificate not two certificates.
• Consider the mechanism that will need to be put in place in the event
that any awarding body needs to revoke the student award.
• Consider where students will attend their graduation.
Student Conduct and • Consider how information relating to student conduct, appeals and
Appeals complaints will be shared between the relevant parties to meet the
expectations of the OIA that King’s and their collaborative partners
should make sure that procedures properly signpost students to the
OIA scheme and follow the guidance set out in the Good Practice
Framework: Delivering learning opportunities with others.
• The procedures given to students should clearly set out whether,
when and how the student can take their complaint/appeal etc. to an
awarding partner.
• It should be noted that the College will need to issue a ‘completion of
procedures’ letter to a student even if the matter was handled under
the Partner’s regulations.
Quality Assurance and • Consider how arrangements will be jointly managed to meet the
Management processes academic standards of award and is compliant with each awarding
body quality assurance framework, particularly where all aspects of
programme design, development, delivery, assessment, management
and decision-making on student achievement are subject to both/all
awarding institutions quality assurance processes.
• Consider what mechanisms are in place for ensuring that staff are
suitably qualified to deliver the elements of the programme they are
responsible for to meet the College’s expectations.
• Consider joint arrangements for student engagement and feedback
within the programme.
• Consider what arrangements will be put in place to support the
student should the agreement terminate before all students have
completed the programme. It is expected that as a minimum a
transition plan will be put in place taking into account the timeframe
for enrolled cohorts of students to complete the programme,
arrangements for teaching out the programme, student expectations,
263
financial arrangements, reporting requirements and future
relationship with the Partner.
Monitoring • Consider how the programme will be monitored on an ongoing basis
arrangements to ensure the effective oversight of the programme and student
expectations. The expectation is that a Joint Programme
Management Committee will be established for this purpose.
• Consideration should be given to how outcomes will be shared across
all partners to ensure that the academic standards of the award are
being maintained and that the content of the programme and quality
of learning opportunities is appropriate.
Alumni Programme • Consider how information relating to alumni events will be advised
to students.
4.2 Further information can be found in the ‘Guidance on the operation of collaborative teaching
activity’.
5. Approval, Monitoring and Management
5.1 Jointly delivered programmes are subject to the College’s processes for approval, monitoring
and review and partnerships policy.
5.2 Where there are modifications to the programme as a result of changes in the partner
relationship identified as part of the annual monitoring or review of activity processes these
will be considered a major modification and will require final approval by the Programme
Development and Approval Sub-Committee.
5.3 Management oversight of the programme rests with the relevant Faculty.
6. Contacts for advice
If you are proposing to develop a jointly delivered programme with another HEI then there is
assistance within the College who may aid your deliberations:
• For any collaboration contact the Head of Collaborative Provision
• For any International collaboration contact King’s Global Engagement
Information and guidance on collaborative provision, including definitions of collaborative

activity and a register of collaborative partners, can be located on the policy hub.
Relevant template forms are available can be downloaded via our Collaborative Provision
SharePoint site. If you require access to our SharePoint site, please contact the Head of
Collaborative Provision.
QAA Characteristics Statement on Qualifications involving more than one Degree Awarding
Body.
264
Guidance on the design of taught interdisciplinary, joint honours and major/minor combination
programmes
Guidance on the design of taught interdisciplinary, joint honours and
major/minor combination programmes
1. Introduction
1.1 For the purpose of these guidelines a programme is defined as an interdisciplinary
programme if teaching is provided by a department in King’s other than the lead
department. The College Education Committee would like to encourage appropriate and
challenging programmes of this type, but recognises that some questions need to be
addressed at the outset. These are listed and addressed below followed by a checklist to
ensure that all these questions are addressed during programme approval and monitoring.
2. Lead department1
2.1 All taught programmes in the College must have a designated ‘lead department’ which is
responsible for all aspects of the programme unless other, defined, responsibilities are
allocated elsewhere. There should always be one King’s department to which the students
on the programme belong. It is very important that students know who to approach with
questions or problems, do not feel ignored by any department providing teaching, and are
confident that their home department will follow up any areas of concern they have. The
lead department will normally (but not always) be that of the programme leader.
2.1 The lead department will be responsible for:
• providing the appropriate facilities, or arranging that they be provided elsewhere;

• administrative support;
• overseeing timetabling;
• ensuring appropriate representation for students on the relevant fora (e.g. staff/student
liaison committee);
• ensuring the allocation of a personal tutor/s.
2.2 The Chair of the Faculty’s Education Committee for the lead department will have
oversight of the arrangements; but he/she will consult their opposite number in the
collaborating Faculty where necessary, depending on the level of collaboration.
3. Advertising
3.1 Departments may wish to promote their interdisciplinary programmes independently of
other provision and agree to share the costs. Otherwise the College’s web pages should
include such programmes, linked to both participating departments, using keywords which
will lead students to the relevant information.
4. Admissions
4.1 The administrative admissions procedures should be done by the lead department (or
admissions office as appropriate), but they must ensure that the letter offering the student a
place makes clear the nature of the interdisciplinary programme. All admissions
correspondence should be copied to the other department so that they are kept fully
informed.
5. Funding
5.1 Any grant or studentship allocated to the student should be administered by the lead
department.
1 In the following “department” is used to cover Divisions or Institutes as appropriate.

265
Guidance on the design of taught interdisciplinary, joint honours and major/minor combination
programmes
6. Facilities
6.1 The collaborating departments must agree at the planning stage what facilities should be
provided, by whom and where. The student must have comparable facilities to the students
studying in the collaborating departments and must be located within a community of
students. He/she should have access to the seminars, specialised courses, facilities and
lectures within both departments.
7. Financial split between departments

7.1 Normally the financial split will be formally recorded in the module approval form; for
individual student projects this will be negotiated as required.
8. Programme approval and monitoring

8.1 As part of the programme approval process, the responsibilities of the collaborating
departments must be defined in writing in the appropriate sections of the form.
8.2 Programme monitoring is the formal responsibility of the lead department but the
contributing departments should have an input into the process.
9. Responsibilities for assessment and examiners

9.1 Responsibilities for the organisation and management of assessment, including external
examiner arrangements and reporting, must be agreed. If external examiners do not have
full expertise in the subject then two (or three) examiners, with complementary expertise,
should be chosen.
10. Procedures if there are problems

10.1 These will, in the first instance, be dealt with by the lead department and the programme
leader, who should keep the collaborating department informed, and consult them if
necessary. Where a department is contributing teaching worth 90 credits or more, a named
contact from the department should be designated for the programme (in addition to the
programme leader in the home department).
11. Checklist (‘standard’ recommended practice in brackets)

11.1 The following areas should be agreed during the establishment of a new programme, its
approval and subsequent monitoring. Not all of them require formal notification in the
programme approval form but all should be agreed between the contributing departments:
• Programme
• Collaborating departments/divisions
• Lead department
• Faculty (of the programme leader)
• Name and contact details of departmental leads where 90 credits or more is delivered
• Advertising for project organised and funded by (lead department)
• Admissions procedures (lead department)
• Funding administration (lead department)
• Facilities – specify what will be provided, by whom (department of programme leader)
• Financial split
• Programme approval and monitoring (lead department and collaborators)
• Nomination of External Examiners (assessment sub board)
• Named individual who is responsible for ensuring problems are resolved (lead
department and Faculty)
266
Guidance on key principles relating to the management, monitoring and assessment of joint PhD
programmes
Guidance on key principles relating to the management, monitoring and
assessment of joint PhD programmes
1. Basic principles underlying joint PhD programmes

Each programme should:
(a) Be arranged with partner institutions of the same academic standing as King’s or
higher;
(b) Be organised between specific academic units in both institutions, so as to ensure
that support structures for the joint degree are appropriate;
(c) Be based on shared academic interests and complementary expertise;
(d) Offer students clear benefits that will add to their academic development and their
employability.
2. Management and monitoring of a joint PhD programme

2.1 All programmes will meet the requirements of the General Academic regulations and the
Academic Regulations for Research Degrees.
2.2 All students should have a home institution, faculty and department/division and these will
be responsible for quality assurance, pastoral care and progress monitoring.
2.3 Students will be managed by the faculty that is hosting the programme at the home
institution.
2.4 Students are subject to the regulations of the home institution, e.g. relating to suspension of
studies or complaints.
2.5 Students will be selected against the host institution’s usual criteria through normal
admissions mechanisms.
2.6 Programmes will be reviewed by Joint Academic Committees made up of academics from
both institutions, see the below Core terms of reference for a Joint Academic Committee for joint
PhD programmes.
2.7 Students will have supervisors from both institutions, with both being active.
2.8 The College will maintain oversight of programmes via annual reports that are submitted to
the Postgraduate Research Students Subcommittee, which will ensure that the programme
is functioning as intended and that students are receiving the support they need and making
the progress expected of them.
2.9 It is imperative that a timetable is devised early on for each student, so that there is
agreement about when the student will be studying in each institution and information is
shared and suitable arrangements can be made well in advance. Depending on the
requirements of the partner the timetable may need to be available before the student is
admitted to the programme.
2.10 Where it is intended that examination procedures will vary from those that are normal at
King’s (e.g. the need for a public defence of the thesis), then approval for variations need to
be sought from the College’s Research Degrees Examination Board. This needs to be
agreed before the programme commences.
2.11 Where the form of the thesis varies from what is normal at King’s (e.g. length of abstract)
this needs to be approved, in advance, by clear specification of the variance in the
267
Guidance on key principles relating to the management, monitoring and assessment of joint PhD
programmes
programme documentation presented to the Postgraduate Research Students
Subcommittee.
3. Key principles relating to the assessment of joint degrees
3.1 For students registered for a research degree dually or jointly with another institution, the
Research Degrees Examination Board may, at its discretion, and on application to it by the
faculty concerned, approve a different composition to the oral examination. Details of
specific arrangements must be detailed in the Schedule of Activity.
3.2 In general, the Research Degrees Examination Board will be content with the academic
standards of the institution with which the College has formed a partnership, and will permit
the processes of the home institution to be followed. It is assumed that the practices and
procedures of the home institution, that is the institution at which the student is initially
registered, will be the ones followed in the assessment.
3.3 Notwithstanding the above, the principles listed below are a core requirement of any
College research degree offered and must be met even where they are not the practice of the
partner institution:
(a) The examination process must be bona fide and must include a rigorous assessment
of the thesis. This will normally be by means of an oral examination, but it is
accepted that oral examinations are not held in all parts of the world and there are
other equally valid ways to undertake the assessment. In countries where the oral
examination is normally a public showpiece with the agreement to award the degree
already agreed, one possible solution will be to hold both a full oral examination of
the candidate and a subsequent public examination;
(b) The assessment of the thesis (whether it is carried out by oral examination or not)
must include at least two examiners that meet the criteria set down in the College
regulations under “Appointment for Examiners”; though it will not necessarily be
required to have one internal and one external examiner;
(c) The candidate’s supervisors shall not form part of the panel which assesses the thesis
(whether by oral examination or not), although they may attend an oral examination
as an observer;
(d) All members of the oral examination or thesis assessment panel must be approved by
the relevant Subject Area Board.
3.4 When a joint degree is in the process of being established, it will be important for a full
dialogue to take place at this stage, to ensure that the assessment arrangements are fully
agreed and set out in the Schedule of Activity between the two institutions.
3.5 These principles also apply to students admitted onto individual joint programmes, whether
or not under a co-tutelle or similar scheme.
268
Core terms of reference for a Joint Academic Committee for joint PhD
programmes
Where a Joint Academic Committee (JAC) is established for the oversight of a research degree
jointly offered with another institution, the following core terms of reference will apply:
1. For a joint PhD degree programme/partnership, a JAC must be established between

both institutions and have academic membership from both.
2. Each university-based JAC will normally work independently to assess and monitor
applications, but will meet as a larger group as necessary to discuss any developmental
issues and review progress.
3. A single academic and administrative lead must be nominated, who will be responsible for
taking issues forward and liaising with the scrutiny panel and partner institution.
4. For partnerships with a Joint PhD Schedule of Activity covering more than one
faculty/department, there will be one JAC per international partner and they will oversee
all programmes with that partner. W ithin King’s, the JAC will normally be composed of
at least two Vice Deans for Doctoral Studies from participating faculties and will be
established and supported by the Centre for Doctoral Studies.
5. Where a department-specific Joint PhD Schedule of Activity exists, the participating

department/faculty will establish and support its own JAC and must comply with the below
points.
6. The JAC will report, on an annual basis, to the Postgraduate Research Students
Subcommittee (PRSS), chaired by the Dean for Doctoral Studies. The Subcommittee
will have responsibility of overseeing the operation of joint degrees within the university as
a whole.
7. The role of the JAC will be:
(a) to ensure an approximate balance in admissions to the programme from

both institutions;
(b) to approve the admission of students onto the programme and oversee the
quality of students admitted;
(c) to review and approve a plan for each student’s programme, including the
probable time and dates to be spent at each institution, research training
arrangements and progression monitoring and reporting;
(d) where necessary, to seek approval from the university’s Academic Standards
Sub-Committee and/or Research Degrees Examination Board for variations to
examination and assessment procedures;
(e) to ensure that each student is assigned two supervisors (one from each institution);
(f) to oversee the functioning of the programme; monitor outcomes for students and
deal with any institutional barriers to the smooth functioning of the programme;
(g) to provide annual reports to the scrutiny panel on individual students, programmes
and the partnership as a whole
269
270
Guidance on Doctoral Training Partnerships/Centres for Doctoral Training: approval, monitoring
and review
Guidance on Doctoral Training Partnerships/Centres for Doctoral
Training: approval, monitoring and review
1 Introduction
1.1 This guidance is produced by the Centre for Doctoral Studies to assist those developing
proposals for Doctoral Training Partnerships and/or Centres for Doctoral Training, where
students are based in more than one university and should be read in conjunction with the
College’s ‘Procedures for the approval and monitoring of collaborative provision’ that sets
out the framework for how the College’s collaborative provision activity will be managed.
1.2 The guidance draws on and is consistent with the various components of the QAA’s UK
Quality Code for Higher Education with particular reference to the Expectations and Core
Practices for Standards and for quality, and associated guidance, and is designed to make
clear the responsibilities of departments, Schools, Faculties and the university at the
various stages of the process.
1.3 All of UKRI’s research councils have moved to funding and training students through
Doctoral Training Partnership / Centres for Doctoral Training (DTC / CDT) type
models. Some of the DTPs are single institution based (e.g. MRC DTP in Biomedical
Sciences, STFC DTP, EPSRC DTP, Wellcome Trust PhD) and are not in the scope of
this guidance.
1.4 KCL hosts CDT/DTPs which are Partnerships of two or more HEIs. KCL is a leading
partner in some of DTP/CDTs ( e.g. LISS DTP, EPSRC Smart Medical Imaging CDT,
the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Cross-Disciplinary Approaches to Non-
Equilibrium Systems (CANES)), whereas in others King’s College London is one of the
Partners. For example, BBSRC LIDo DTP led by UCL in 2012, and renewed in 2018. In
the academic session 2013/14 the university was awarded the AHRC London Arts &
Humanities Partnership (UCL led), renewed in 2018; the NERC London DTP (UCL
led), also renewed in 2019; EPSRC London School for Geometry & Number Theory
CDT (UCL led).
1.5 The UKRI drive for doctoral training partnership models is to encourage more structured
programmes, embed cohort learning, and focus funding in key research–led institutions.
The UKRI DTP/CDT status can be viewed as a benchmark and increasingly additional
funding opportunities and partnerships (academic, industrial and cultural) are being
channelled through the DTP/CDT networks. UKRI have encouraged and engendered a
consortia approach to DTP/CDTs and it is in response to this collaborative provision
approach that these guidelines have been developed to ensure King’s has a robust and
effective approval and monitoring programme across all our DTPs and CDTs.
2 Definition and key characteristics
2.1 Multi-institutional Centres for Doctoral Training (CDT) and Doctoral Training Partnerships
(DTP) are Educational Partnerships, and defined by QAA as a partnership arrangement
whereby two or more awarding bodies collaborate in the delivery of studentships,
collaborative PhD research and co-supervision, taught programmes with core and
advanced skills, personal, professional and career development skills training for PhD
students.
2.2 The key characteristics of DTPs/CDTs as outlined by QAA are as follows:

• One Partner is designated as the administrative lead for the partnership;
271
and review
• Each student will have a home institution depending on where the student has
primarily been registered;
• Each partner is responsible for the content, delivery, quality and standards of its own
provision;
• May be used as a model of effective practice in providing research methods and skills
training for PhD students and early career researchers;
• May involve a planned period of experience at the partner institution or co-
supervisory arrangements;
• Normally, funded by UKRI Research Council studentships and other key funders
(e.g. Wellcome Trust);
• Governed by relevant sections of the Academic Regulations. The student is awarded
a Doctoral degree from their home institution.
3. Approval Process for new DTPs/CDTs and renewal
3.1 The approval and renewal of Doctoral Training Partnerships/Centres/Programmes are

covered by the process detailed below:
Stage 1: New opportunities for DTPs/CDTs/Programmes must initially be discussed with

Vice-President/Vice-Principal (Research), the Dean for Doctoral Studies, Director of
Research Talent and Head of Doctoral Partnerships (Centre for Doctoral Studies). This
group will advise on whether King’s will centrally support the application.
Stage 2: New opportunities for externally funded DTPs/CDTs are presented through key
funder bidding calls for DTP/CDTs. The Funder (UKRI, WT, other) will publish the key
requirements for the bidding proposal, aligned with the UK strategic priorities in research
and training of future research leaders.
Stage 3: In response to the Funder’s Call for a DTP/CDT, the KCL internal major
bidding process will be initiated by CDS, and coordinated across RMID and faculty
academic and professional services staff. Usually, there will be a triage process in place,
with the Expression of Interest panel and review of internal applications, followed by
selection of best proposals and academic leads for CDT/DTPs, whether only one or
multiple proposals from KCL are invited to submit an EoI and/or a full proposal to the
funder.
Stage 4: If central institutional match funding is required/agreed, then outline approval to

proceed with an application will be given by VP (Research), the Centre for Doctoral
Studies, territorial VPs (and Executive Deans where appropriate), and Finance based on
outlined business and strategic case. Additionally, where the DTP/CDT is in partnership
with another Research Organisation a Memorandum of Understanding will be agreed
between partners.
Stage 5: For applications requiring central institutional funding VP (Research) and/or

Dean for Doctoral Studies will provide final sign-off to all applications.
3.2 When the funding is awarded to a CDT/DTP, all activities whereby outside bodies deliver
parts of a King’s programme will be underpinned by a legally binding Institutional
Collaboration Agreement (ICA) between King’s and the partner(s) setting out the roles,
responsibilities and obligations of each partner for the duration of the activity. This may
include a risk assessment for the partners involved.
272
and review
4. Monitoring, review and governance of DTPs/CDTs
4.1 Doctoral Training Partnerships and Centres for Doctoral Training are monitored and
reviewed at King’s by the university’s Postgraduate Research Students Subcommittee and
relevant faculty research committees. All DTPs/CDTs, including multi HEIs
CDT/DTPs, are subject to:
• King’s Annual reports (including all CDT/DTPs, not only multi-HEIs): to be
submitted to the Postgraduate Research Students Subcommittee (PRSS). PRSS
receives and considers the Annual Reports, and provides feedback to CDT/DTPs and
if appropriate the King’s Academic Lead will be invited to attend to present their
Annual Report and take questions KCL Annual reports have a dedicated template,
which is available through PRSS secretary (Kelly Power). s: periodic site visits are
normally undertaken by the relevant Research Council/Funding Body in accordance
with their policies and award requirements. In addition, the Postgraduate Research
Students Subcommittee may undertake internal reviews of Partnerships and Centres
as necessary. This might include preparation for renewal, or resolution of issues
identified by the DTP/CDT itself or the funding body.
• Reports to funders (e.g. UKRI): will be submitted to the research council/funding
body in accordance with their policies and award requirements.
4.2 In addition to central university oversight via the Postgraduate Research Students
Subcommittee, all CDT/DTP Directors and Managers are members of the King’s
Doctoral Training Entity Network, to share best practice, to collaborate and to horizon
scan for new opportunities.
4.3 Each DTP/CDT has its own embedded governance structures, this normally includes a
Management/Operations Board (or similar group) that help the Director/academic leads
ensure the efficient and effective running of the DTP/CDT and the allocation of its
resources. This Board will normally be made up of the key stakeholders who have
responsibility for the DTP/CDT delivery. Some DTPs, including the King’s led ESRC
LISS DTP, have cross-institutional representation Governing Councils on which the
King’s Vice-President/Vice-Principal (Research) or Dean for Doctoral Studies normally
sits. For example, the London Interdisciplinary Social Science Doctoral Training
Partnership’s Governing Council is chaired by the Executive Dean of the Faculty of Social
Science and Public Policy.
4.4 A list of Doctoral Training Partnerships/Centres will be reported to the Collaborative

Provision Sub-Committee on an annual basis.
273
and review
274
Guidance on equality of opportunity and access in programme and module
review1
1. Introduction
1.1 This guidance aims to ensure that when programmes are reviewed, this takes account of
inclusion issues for all the protected characteristics2. The Procedures for programme and
module monitoring and review asks that the Self Reflection Document (SRD) includes:
• An assessment of the effectiveness of teaching, learning and assessment and how
these support equality of opportunity and access
• An assessment of the learning environment and how this facilitates equality of
opportunity and access
• Consideration of relevant statistical data covering progression, completion and
attainment and the outcomes achieved by different protected groups
1.2 Furthermore the Review Report must also make an assessment about the degree to which
the programme has achieved the requirements above.
1.3 The university is committed to providing an inclusive and welcoming environment for all its
students. It also has a responsibility under the Equality Act 2010, to promote an
environment free from all forms of discrimination, pre-empt any differential outcomes,
aiming to prevent the differential outcomes rather than take them as given, and to
proactively address any differential outcomes. To achieve this, the university must
proactively design in equality to programmes and closely monitor and assess the impact of its
key activities and where differential outcomes are identified, alter its provision to meet the
needs of students from different groups, hence the purpose of this exercise.
1.4 The university has made reducing the attainment gap for Black and Minority Ethnic (BME)
students a key priority and this now features within the corporate KPIs. It is also an Office
for Students requirement. Nationally BME students of equal ability are less likely to achieve
a 1st or 2.1 degree than their White counterparts. While there are many teams within the
College working to reduce this gap, a couple of examples are our Student Attainment
Steering Committee and our King’s WhatWorks that aims to address this issue and
programmes are encouraged to pay particular attention to this issue when undertaking
programme review.
1.5 It is important to note, that inclusive practice is a key way of ensuring academic standards
are maintained and improved upon; developing inclusive practice should not necessitate the
compromising of academic standards. It should allow an area of knowledge or expertise to
be conveyed as effectively as possible within a learning environment that is accessible to all,
in order to assist a diverse range of students to attain agreed academic standards. Inclusive
practice will benefit all students and is essential for a world-class university seeking to
deliver excellent teaching.
2. Contents of equalities guidance
2.1 The Guidance is divided into three sections and should help those preparing SRDs and
review reports to address the requirements of the procedure summarised above:
1
Period programme review is currently suspended
275
• Section 4: provides examples of the sorts of issues that might be experienced by students
with different protected characteristics3 which may impact on their experience at the
university and hence their progression and attainment;
• Section 5: explains how the equalities data4 produced by Student Planning and
Analytics should be used to help complete the SRD and review report;
• Section 6: provides examples of good practice which can be used proactively to help
embed equality of opportunity and access into the delivery of programmes and mitigate
any negative impacts experienced by students identified using the equalities data.
1&3 A legal term used to describe the nine equality areas covered by the legislation, including gender, gender
reassignment, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion/belief, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil
partnership and age.
4 This data currently covers the protected characteristics of race, gender, disability and age only.
276
3. Flowchart of stages for completing the equalities aspects of the SRD
Completing the equalities aspects of the SED and review report
SPA produces relevant programme

review data in January each year
(covering Student Composition &
Performance)
The programme should review the data

and identify any notable differential
outcomes for particular groups. Further
research will be required to understand
any underlying causes (see Section 5)
The information in Section 4, which

provides examples of issues experienced
by students with particular protected
characteristics will be of relevance here.
The programme should also consider

broadly how to facilitate equality of
opportunity and access within teaching,
learning, assessment and the learning
environment on the programme for all
the 9 protected characteristics.
The programme will identify good

equalities practice that will help to
mitigate any adverse impacts identified
in the data/promote equality of
opportunity more broadly (see Section
6)
Record any notable findings, remedial

actions planned or taken or good practice
to be adopted in the SED and review
report
4. Possible equalities issues experienced by students.
4.1 Below are examples of the sorts of issues that students with different protected
characteristics might experience in relation to teaching and learning, assessment and the
learning environment. These are provided as a guide to the issues and barriers that might
arise and should not be used to form assumptions about the challenges experienced by
277
particular groups. Some issues relevant to social class are also highlighted. Social class is not
covered by equalities legislation but is highlighted here as a causal factor.
Teaching and learning

• Feeling inhibited to participate or experiencing feelings of not fitting in/being on the
outside, where the student is in the minority on the programme
• Unfamiliarity with approaches to independent study and thinking, self study or
particular teaching styles and exercises that are part of the programme because either
previous education was overseas, utilised different approaches or because the student has
been out of education for some time
• Lack of confidence in ability because of extended period out of an education
environment.
• Lectures and group work are not accessible to disabled students
• Handouts and course materials are not accessible to disabled students
• Inability to fully participate in practicals, field work or placements due to a disability or
religious observance
• Timing of modules is not sufficiently flexible to accommodate religious observance or
medical appointments
• Modules scheduled within insufficient time to make appropriate childcare arrangements
• Family expectations or family and childcare commitments inhibit the time available for
dedicated study
• Course materials and content take a heterosexist view point or focus exclusively on areas
which are traditionally associated with the opposite gender
Assessment
• Assessment methods are not accessible and no attempt is made to modify them
• Timing of course work and assessments is not sufficiently flexible to accommodate
medical appointments, periods of illness, religious observance and other non-negotiable
external commitments
• Assessments scheduled within insufficient time to make appropriate childcare
arrangements
Learning environment
• Challenges in obtaining accessible materials from the Library
• Adjustments are not made to the information technology available so that it is accessible
for disabled students
• Student is not comfortable with sharing personal information relating to mitigating
circumstances with the university due to different cultural norms or the sensitivity of the
information
• Increased volume of administration in order to facilitate personal disability adjustments
• Student support services are not familiar with cultural needs or those relating to gender
transition
• Difficulties adjusting on being away from home for the first time because student is
particularly young, from overseas etc.
• Accommodation, social and leisure activities on offer do not take account of particular
needs such as age, disability, race, religion
• Catering arrangements do not take account of health conditions or religious needs
Other factors
• Financial concerns/hardship
• Working part-time
• Experiences of racial, sexual, homophobic or trans-phobic harassment
• Fellow students and staff take a heterosexist view point
278
5. Using equalities data to support periodic review
5.1 This section provides specific guidance on how to use the equalities data produced by SPA
to support the programme review process
5.2 Key transition points: For the purpose of programme review, key transition points have been
identified within the student life-cycle that help to characterise a student’s experience at the
university. These transition points include:
• normal progression to second year (undergraduate programmes only);

• normal completion within expected time period;
• attainment of an upper degree classification/grade (first or upper second class degree for
undergraduate and distinction or merit for taught postgraduate).
5.3 Key tables: Periodic review data is available on the dashboard, offering equalities specific
tables that focus on the key transition points and enable the outcomes of students to be
compared for the protected characteristics of gender, race, disability and age. These are
detailed in:
• Student Composition –outlining attainment and composition data

• Student Performance – Completion, Progression and Award Reports - outlining
progression and completion data.
5.4 Programmes should consider the data and identify any differential outcomes in respect of
progression, completion and attainment for students with particular protected
characteristics. Where these are considered to be notable they should be explored further.
5.5 As mentioned above, the College has made reducing the attainment gap for BME students a
key priority and this now features within the corporate KPIs. Nationally BME students of
equal ability are less likely to achieve a 1st or 2.1 degree than their White counterparts.
5.6 Where notable differential findings are identified, further research is likely to be required to
pinpoint specific issues/causes and identify relevant courses of action. Further quantitative
analysis or qualitative research such as focus groups, questionnaires or desk research might
be required.
5.7 Sections 4 and 6 of this guidance can be used to help identify probable causes for these
differentials and good equalities practice that will help to mitigate any adverse impacts.
5.8 Where no notable differences in outcomes are observed a programme should focus broadly
on how to facilitate equality of opportunity and access within teaching, learning, assessment
and the learning environment using Sections 4 and 6 of this guidance.
5.10 Completing the SRD and review report: Where time permits research should form part of the
periodic review process. Where this is not possible, areas for further research and
exploration should be identified and included and subsequently followed up and reviewed in
order to achieve sustained improvements.
5.11 The SRD and review report must contain a record of any notable differential findings,
remedial actions planned or taken or good practice to be adopted.
5.12 On-going review of findings: Any notable differential findings, should be examined for a
further 3 years and any changes in the data and actions taken reported on as part of the
annual monitoring reports produced for College Education Committee.
279
6. Areas of good equalities practice
The information provided here should be used as a checklist by programmes to help them identify
areas where they can proactively embed measures to support equality of opportunity and access. It
should also be used to help mitigate any adverse impacts emerging from the analysis of programme
review data in relation to progression, completion and attainment.

Specific area Areas of good practice Additional comments
/element
Delivery • Where possible modify lecture and group Delivery methods can be made more
methods – work arrangements to enable all students to accessible by giving due consideration
lecturers, be fully included to the following:
group work, • Respond to requests for reasonable • Room layout
seminars, adjustments5 and where necessary, consider • Acoustics
tutorials etc. whether the same material/competencies can • Lighting
be taught in an alternative way • Communication support
• Use a variety of teaching and learning • Pace
methods to cater for a range of preferred • Materials provided in advance in
learning styles alternative formats
• Instructions should be clear and explicit and • Facilitating the use of assistive
backed up in writing technologies
• Challenge any inappropriate/intimidating • Use of interactive multi-media
behaviour occurring between students or approaches
groups of students • Good communication skills and
use of plain language
• Inclusion of regular breaks
• Allowing recording devices
• Pairing students so that they can
work with another who acts as a
mentor
Materials and • Design module and programme materials so The following are examples of
learning that they are accessible to all accessible written and visual materials:
resources • Where possible make written materials • Typed lecture notes and
available in advance and compatible for use PowerPoint downloads that can
with assistive technologies be used with assistive
• Where appropriate to the discipline, technologies
consideration should be given to promoting • Videos and audio-visuals with
the needs of a multi-cultural/diverse society subtitles
by providing positive images of different • Paper-based materials in
protected characteristics alternative formats such as in
• Ensure that the language used is sensitive and large print, on disk, online or
demonstrates an awareness of the impact on different coloured paper
certain protected characteristics • Workstations with enabling
• Provide glossaries of difficult terminology technologies
• Where possible incorporate the use of • Virtual learning environments
memory aids and visually stimulating where the layout and structure
materials such as tables and graphs are suitable for students with
• Provide reading lists in advance and separate dyslexia or with partial sight and
into essential and further recommended where sound clips have text
reading alternatives or sub-titles
• Software which allows students to
• King's guidance on creating accessible go at their own speed or take rest
content breaks
• Flexible Teaching and Learning Course
5Providing reasonable adjustments is a legal requirement under the Equality Act. It involves
employers altering their practices and premises to accommodate disabled people so that they have
equal access to employment, education, good and services.
280
• Blackboard Ally • Sourcing diverse materials, from
• Siteimprove different countries/cultures and
not just white/Eurocentric e.g.
• Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile decolonised curriculum
Applications) Accessibility Regulations 2018
and WCAG 2.1 See the Action for Blind People
Guidelines for producing written
materials for people with visual
impairments.
Practicals and • Where practical elements are essential to the Other issues to consider:
laboratory programme, considerations of inclusivity • An audit of the physical
work should occur at the design stage. environment to assess whether
• Where it is not possible to design practicals so any reasonable adjustments are
that they are inclusive to all students, it will required and whether the
be important to consider whether there are necessary assistive technology is
alternative ways to assess the required in place
learning outcomes, requiring ‘reasonable • See Additional Comments in the
adjustments’ to be put in place ‘Delivery methods’ section above
• When assessing what reasonable adjustments
are required, consider whether it is essential
for the student to physically complete the
experiment or whether it would be sufficient
for them to direct it
• Consideration of the timing and spacing of
assessed practicals might enable students with
fluctuating illnesses to participate fully
• In most cases there should not be tensions
between health and safety requirements and
an individual’s religious observance in terms
of dress. Where specific factors pose a risk,
these should be identified, and where possible
reasonable adjustments or alternative learning
activities put in place
Field trips, • Where field trips, study abroad and To increase accessibility, where
placements, academic/vocational placements are offered possible, seek to:
study abroad it is important to ensure that, wherever • Find placements in accessible
possible, all students have access to these contexts
opportunities • Offer a range of destinations to
• Where possible, it will be important to ensure choose from that can meet a range
that placement providers have relevant of needs
equalities policies in place and that their • Consider re-locating field trips to
facilities are accessible alternative sites, provide
• Placement coordinators should be trained in alternative experiences or
Disability Awareness comparable opportunities which
• Systems should be in place in order to pick satisfy the learning outcomes
up and respond to the needs of particular • Build in flexibility regarding the
students required length of time in the field
• Where placements are a formal requirement • Build in flexibility regarding the
or standard component of the programme, assessment of field work
ways to ensure the specified learning components, so that it is possible
opportunities are available to all students to demonstrate learning outcomes
must be considered – including whether the via other means
same learning might occur virtually • Clarify lines of responsibility for
• Where particular students are unable to equalities legal compliance with
participate, appropriate alternative collaborating institutions
arrangements must be made • Provide support before, during
• For overseas placements in particular, it will and after placements that takes
be beneficial to provide students with a account of the needs of any
281
cultural orientation to prepare them for their disabled students, including
stay, which might include background transport needs
information about what a placement in that • Avoid scheduling placements
country/institution may entail, and during school holidays or during
commonly held attitudes and beliefs of the times of religious significance
host country that might impact on different • Consider that some students will
student groups differentially request to work or stay with those
of the same sex, for reasons of
religious observance
• Understand how faith needs
might pose restrictions on social
and other activities
• Key areas for consideration will
be: travel arrangements,
accommodation, curriculum,
delivery methods and social and
informal elements
Programme • A programme which is flexible in structure A programme can be made more
structure will almost by definition be more accessible, flexible by:
although the scope for flexibility will vary • Clearly identifying which aspects
between programmes of the curriculum are essential to a
• In order to consider where greater flexibility prescribed learning outcome and
might be incorporated it will be important to progression and which are more
clarify the core elements or aspects of a flexible
programme, in order to make an assessment • Clearly identifying whether
of where adjustments to teaching practices flexibility exists over the pace of
can occur delivery for the whole programme
• Students who work to finance study, who of study, allowing students to
have family or religious commitments, who choose to study part-time or full-
may have intermittent health conditions, as time, or a mixture of both, at
well as students with impairments, are among different times of their programme
those who can benefit from a programme of • Clearly indicating whether
study incorporating substantial choices flexibility exists over the pace of
within it delivery of individual modules or
• Where possible timetables should be credits, allowing students to
scheduled well in advance so that appropriate either complete all aspects of a
childcare arrangements can be made module or credit as it is
scheduled, or perhaps postpone
some elements of it, such as parts
of the assessment or a placement,
for completion at a later date.
This will allow students to take
breaks without losing continuity
for periods of illness or pregnancy
etc
• Providing a choice of modules
within programmes of study and
ease of movement between such
elements
• Enabling flexibility over method
of delivery (e.g. learning
packages, use of e-mail)
• Flexibility can also be
incorporated by acknowledging
that there may be many ways of
demonstrating competence in
relation to a clearly defined
programme objective. This may
mean making available to, or
282
developing with, students a
variety of ways of demonstrating
programme specific learning
Assessment – examinations, coursework and in-class assessment

/element
• It is important to utilise a range and variety of Alternative assessment methods might
assessment methods, in order to enable include:
students with a range of learning styles and • Problem-based assessment
experiences to demonstrate their aptitude • Signed presentations
• Assessment procedures should also be • Viva voce examinations
scrutinised to ensure that they are balanced • Audio-visual materials
and do not unfairly discriminate against any • Performance
individual or group of students • Additional coursework
• If literacy skills such as spelling and grammar
are to be assessed, this needs to be made clear
and transparent
• Assessment methods should be designed with
inclusivity in mind, including computer-
based tests
• Where disabled students are unable to
perform particular types of assessment,
alternative assessment methods will need to
be considered in order to test the relevant
programme objectives
• Where possible assessments should be
scheduled well in advance so that appropriate
childcare arrangements can be made
• Where possible build in flexibility regarding
the deadlines and timetabling of assessments,
to take account of domestic commitments,
part-time working, periods of illness and
religious commitments
• Where possible coordinate the assessment
deadlines for particular modules of a
programme, so that the timing of assessments
is staggered. This will benefit all students,
but in particular those with specific learning
difficulties such as dyslexia, who may become
overwhelmed when assessments are clustered
at one point during the year
/element
Student support • The student handbook should include Student support mechanisms will
mechanisms - reference to the policies, resources and play a key role in identifying and
includes pastoral support that are available from within the helping to resolve student concerns
support and Department to disabled students in relation arising from:
monitoring of to teaching, learning and assessment, • Financial issues including
attendance and including the Personal Tutor system hardship
progress • The handbook should also list other relevant • Challenges settling in
sources of support such as the Disability • Periods of illness
Advisory Service, Disabled Student’s • Family commitments which
Allowance, Organisational Development place restrictions on
Unit, Counselling, Welfare, Student opportunities for study
283
Funding and Chaplaincy and relevant • Challenges experienced because
policies such as Student complaints, student is unfamiliar with the
bullying and harassment, special UK Higher education system
examination arrangements, alternative • Challenges experienced because
assessments and mitigating circumstances previous School Type or class
arrangements background differ from the
• Student handbooks and other important majority of students on the
course materials should be provided in programme
advance and in alternative formats • English not being the student’s
• Personal Tutors should be informed about first language
equality and diversity and be alert to issues
that arise that might hinder a student’s
attendance, progression or achievement and
be able to make relevant referrals as
necessary. They might also need to be
willing to meet more frequently with certain
students
• Additional study skills support might be
necessary for certain groups of students
• Personal Tutors and Departmental
Administrative Offices should be located in
accessible venues and ensure that their
appointment times are sufficiently flexible to
enable those with additional external
commitments to schedule and attend an
appointment
• Staff should be alert to issues relating to
English language ability and make
appropriate referrals to the English
Language Centre
• Special induction and social activities
should be organised for international
students to help them adjust to their new
environment
• Pair students with particular needs such as
mental health disorders, under 18s, students
on programmes where the vast majority of
students are of the opposite gender, with
other students who can act as a mentor
Learning • Where possible a range of learning resources
resources - should be utilised including multi-media
including approaches and alternative formats to suit a
information variety of learning styles
services, staff • Ensure library staff are notified about the
and needs of any disabled students so that where
accommodation relevant, adjustments can be made to the
physical access, specialist equipment,
assistive technologies, printed materials,
alternative formats, software, book retrieval
and loan arrangements and any relaxation of
fines
• Booklists should be provided in advance to
allow materials to be located and prepared
in alternative formats
• Postgraduate students may require a wider
range of learning materials which maybe less
accessible in their original form.
Consideration needs to be given to
accessibility at the point of need for
284
resources such as archive material, print
stock and e-resources
• Where necessary disabled, mature or
international students might require an in-
depth tailored induction to the library
• Part-time students and those with additional
external commitments may need to attend
the library when specialist staff are not
available, so alternative support mechanisms
will need to be considered such as on-line
support or accessing provision at a more
convenient location
7. Case studies
Identifying and tackling differential outcomes

Statistics for achievement at Cambridge University revealed that all students performed well above the
national average, whatever their ethnicity but that the three lowest performing groups were Black Caribbean,
Bangladeshi and Pakistani students. Students from these three groups were less likely to get a first class or
upper second degree than other groups and were more likely to get a lower second or third class degree.
Consequently an in-depth research project was undertaken utilising both questionnaires and interviews. This
revealed that for those students whose academic performance was weaker they were more likely to
experience:
• Low levels of intrinsic motivation

• A difficulty in ‘fitting into’ Cambridge socially, or a fear of not ‘fitting in’
• Severe financial hardship and/or extreme worry about financial issues
As a result the project produced key recommendations that Cambridge could explore to improve the
experience of ethnic minority students during their degree, these included:
• Reviewing the role of alcohol in college social events and during Fresher’s’ week, and finding ways in
which more events could be staged without having alcohol as an integral component
• Exploring the possibility of providing Halal food in college canteens
• Identifying ways of providing additional financial support to those in extreme financial need
• Exploring the possibility of subsidised vacation accommodation for those without homes to go to during
the vacation and for those who do not wish to return to parental homes in which conditions are not
conducive to vacation study
An example of a project-based approach to analysing equality data

The Programme Coordinators in a particular Faculty (Institutes/School) identified that a large proportion of
students were not completing their assessed coursework and therefore failing the programme. As a result they
undertook some detailed data analysis using SPSS software which identified that this issue was more prevalent
for students from particular ethnic origins, males and those who were more mature. When they explored the
issues in more detail the most influential factor was the length of residence in the UK. Students who had been
living in the UK for less than five years were struggling with the written work necessary to complete the
course work assignments.
As a result the admissions process was modified to include a written assignment. Where students are not able
to reach the necessary standard of written work, they are offered study skills support so that they can apply
again the following year.
Further focus groups are being conducted to explore some of the other issues that have arisen from the initial
data analysis.
285
286
1. Where the PSRB visit is combined with the College’s periodic review process the procedure
to be followed is set out in the Procedures for programme and module monitoring and review.
2. Where the PSRB visit is not combined with periodic review the following procedure will
apply. The procedure specifies that authority for sign-off of the documentation and
subsequent response to the report has to be at least at the level of the Executive Dean of
Faculty, however some PSRBs may deal directly at Vice-Principal or Principal level.
3. The outcomes letter and report are considered by the College Education Committee and
should be accompanied by:
(a) a brief summary of the programme and its relationship with the PSRB (including a
glossary of abbreviations);
(b) a copy of the response made to the report;
(c) a copy of the action plan responding to the recommendations.
PSRB notifies date for visit Notification may be received in the College at a
and documentation required number of levels but Principal, territorial Vice-
Principal, Vice-Principal (Education), Executive Dean
of Faculty and ARQS office must all be informed
Documentation for the visit prepared by the

Department/Division/area and signed off by the CEC are notified of
Executive Dean of Faculty before submission to the date of visit from
PSRB Faculty
Visit takes place, involving as necessary

those staff at Faculty and College as
requested by the PSRB
Outcomes letter and report received and

copied to Principal, territorial Vice-
Report and response
Principal, Vice-Principal (Education) and
considered by FEC
Executive Dean of Faculty
Response to the outcomes letter and Response forwarded to CEC

report signed off by Executive Dean of from FEC
Faculty and sent to the PSRB
Progress on implementing the recommendations is reported on

in programme annual report to the Faculty and then Faculty
annual report to the CEC
287
288
Translation of credits/marks attained through study away from

the College1
The College regulations make provision for students registered in the College to undertake, as a
requirement or by request, a period of study at another institution (whether in the UK or
abroad), subject toconditions. One of the conditions is that the Faculty/Institute/School must
ensure that there are satisfactory arrangements for the assessment of the student’s performance
while attending the institution and that these have been approved by the appropriate Assessment
Board on an annual basis.
The College’s default position regarding how best to recognise a student’s achievements whilst
studying away from the College is to transfer only the credits (not the marks) that they attain
externally.
Chapter 5: Progression and Award for Taught programmes

5.59. Students taking level 4-5 modules can transfer credits only. Exception: BA
European Studies (approved by College Academic Standards Committee May 2014)
5.60. Students taking level 6-7 modules can transfer marks and credits on condition that
a mark translation scheme has been approved by the Academic Standards Sub-
Committee. The marks will contribute to the degree algorithm.
A students’ final results would be calculated solely on marks obtained in modules studiedat
King’s. Students would be required to pass any modules undertaken externally in order to gain
the requisite number of credits for an award. The raw marks obtained from the external
institution would appear on a student’s transcript, clearly labelled as beingobtained at an
institution other than King’s.
College transfer of marks

There is still provision within the regulations for Programmes that wish to translate the marks
attained externally on the understanding that the following guidelines are adhered to:
• Before any translation scheme is drawn up a thorough understanding of the partner
institution’s assessment practices and standards needed to be established by the
programme;
• Existing translation schemes should be the starting point for departments looking to send
students abroad for the first time to see if anexisting scheme can be adopted;
• Departments must ensure that a translation scheme is in place before anystudent
study including placements are agreed;
• Translation schemes must be transparent and students must be aware of how their
marks will be translated before they begin their study abroad;
• New translation schemes must be recommended by Assessment Board to the Academic
Standards Sub-Committee for approval;
• All schemes must be re-approved at both Faculty and College level on an annual basis.
289
The marks awarded for studying abroad are translated according to the approved schemes (which
has been drawn up in accordance with the above) and incorporated into the C-score calculation.
Approved June 2011 College Assessment Board

Updated July 2016 College Assessment and Standards Committee
1 Applicable to student who registered prior to September 2013 only. New students registered from
September 2015 onwards Regulations T25 and T26 applies.
290

The College Marking Framework was revised and approved for use in 2023/24. The framework now
incorporates marking criteria for levels 3 – 7 and can be found here:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/marking-college-framework
291

1. What is the HEAR?
1.1. The HEAR is an initiative developed following a report (Beyond the Honours Degree
Classification) produced by the Measuring and Recording Student Achievement Steering
Group, in 2007. The report concluded that the development of the HEAR would assist in
providing a richer record of student activity, as well as modernising the traditional degree
classification system. The HEAR was formally introduced by the Burgess Implementation
Steering Group in October 2012, through the publication of a report entitled ‘Bringing It
All Together: Introducing the HEAR, which provided a comprehensive breakdown of the
HEAR and its implementation. The first HEARs were issued by King’s from August 2013.
1.2. The HEAR provides students with detailed information about their learning and
achievement to supplement the traditional degree classification and standard transcript and
is intended to replace the need for a Diploma Supplement.
2. Section 6.1
2.1. Section 6.1 of the Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR) covers additional
information (extra-curricular activity) All extra-curricular activity achieved by the student
must be verified before it can be added to the HEAR.
3. Criteria for Approval

3.1. Currently, Achievements eligible for 6.1 must:
a. Demonstrate a student’s commitment, skill, ability, or knowledge in an activity
undertaken under the auspices of King’s College London or KCLSU.
b. Be verifiable by a Programme Assessment Sub-board or delegated committee or office.
c. Be verified before students have completed their academic programme. Final HEAR’s
will be issued to graduating students shortly after their final Assessment Board. The
date of the Board will be the final date for inclusion and verification of items.
d. Not be a direct part of the academic curriculum (reflected in section 4.3 of the HEAR).
e. Be available to all students (a) at the College or (b) on a specific academic programme,
or (c) within a specific Department or School; except for certain representative roles
which may be restricted to ensure democratic representation of the whole student
population.
f. Not overlap with an accredited achievement already recorded in 4.3 or with other
achievements listed in section 6.1.
g. The unit within King's College London proposing the new item can undertake its
administration. This will involve approving and / or verifying the achievement,
maintaining an audit trail, and adding the details of the achievers via e:vision student
records1.
h. The activity must be advertised to all eligible students in advance by the relevant unit.
i. Students must have fulfilled any requirements for obtaining the recognition.
4. Examples of items
4.1. Examples of items that may be included in section 6.1 are defined below;
• Prizes: A prize is something (usually a cash sum) given to an enrolled student in
recognition of a specific academic achievement while studying at the College;
1
Where a unit is unable to gain access to e:vision student records a request to have an achievement added can be
made directly by the student by raising a ticket through the Student Services Online portal.
292
• Associateship of King’s College: The award granted by College on completion of the
Associateship of King’s College London programme;
• King’s Awards: Awards made by the College for study taken outside of their taught
programmes, including the King’s Experience Awards (e.g. King’s Experience Global
Award) and Leadership & Professional Skills Awards;
• KCLSU office holder: An elected sabbatical officer of the King’s College London
Students’ Union;
• Active in KCLSU societies or sports clubs: A demonstrably active role within a society or
sports club beyond membership of the club, for example as President or Treasurer;;
• Working as student ambassador: Completion of a task or period of time as an appointed
ambassador of the College, for example at induction or graduation events;
• Student representation: Acting as an elected representative of students, for example as a
Student-Staff Liaison Committee representative;
• Active in official departmental student societies: A demonstrably active role within a
society, established by a department, beyond the membership of the club, for example
as President or Treasurer;
• Work related experience: An internship or placement opportunity organised by the
College that enables students to apply their academic instruction in a real working
environment that is taken outside of their taught programme (e.g. Global Internships
Programme);
• Scholarships: A scholarship is a financial award made to a student, often at the
beginning of their programme, based on academic merit.
5. Process for “adding” an item to section 6.1

5.1. The Data Governance & Security Team are the business owners for the Gradintelligence
platform on which the official HEAR sits. The process for adding an item to section 6.1 is
as follows:
➢ The Faculty (Institute/ School) or relevant division approves the proposal to add a new
item via either its Programme Assessment Sub-Board or relevant Faculty (Institute/
School) Committee.
➢ The proposer sends details of the achievement to the Head of Data Security & Access
to add to SITS. Information provided should include the title of the achievement, the
description, how the achievement will be advertised to students and who will be
responsible for approving or verifying the achievement.
➢ The Data Governance & Security Team may contact the Head of Collaborative
Provision in the Academic Regulations, Quality and Standards Team for advice if the
achievement to be added does not fully meet the criteria for approval in section 3 or fall
into a recognisable category, see section 4.1 for examples.
➢ The Data Governance & Security Team will create either a GAT or MAV record on
SITS, advising the Faculty (Institute/ School)/ department) of this addition to the
system.
➢ Once the relevant section (e.g. Faculty Board) has confirmed which student is to be
awarded the item the Faculty/ Department or relevant division2 allocates the item to
the student via e:vision student records (HEAR Achievement Management process).
2
Where a staff member within a Faculty does not have access or is having problems with accessing the HEAR
tab on e:vision student records they should contact the IT Service Desk or submit a ticket via the IT Remedy
Force self-service portal.
293
➢ Where a proposal is made to add a prize to the system, the proposer should ensure that
the College Prizes book managed by the Graduation and Ceremonies team has been
updated prior to the request being submitted to the Data Governance & Security
Team.
294
Section O
Templates and forms
Templates and forms
Templates and forms
The following templates and forms are available:
Programme Development and Approval Sub-Committee

• Initial Programme Proposal form
• Collaborative Activity Risk Assessment Tool
https://emckclac.sharepoint.com/sites/SEcp
Programme and module approval and modification

• Templates for business and marketing plans
• Programme approval form: taught programmes
• Module approval form
• Modification form
• Template for student placement
• Major/minor modification table
https://emckclac.sharepoint.com/sites/SEeg/SitePages/Programme-Approval-and-
Modification.aspx
Collaborative provision
• Collaborative Activity Risk Assessment Tool
• Template for Review of Activity (prior to re-signing a Memorandum of Understanding and
related Agreements)
https://emckclac.sharepoint.com/sites/SEcp
Programme and module monitoring and review

• Continuous Enhancement Template
https://emckclac.sharepoint.com/sites/SEeg/SitePages/AnnualMonitoring.aspx
External peers and external specialists

• External peers nomination form
• External peers and specialists financial forms
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/academicregulations/college-chief-external-examiner
Postgraduate research degrees

• Programme approval form: research programmes
https://emckclac.sharepoint.com/sites/SEeg/SitePages/Research-programme-approval-and-
modification.aspx
External Examiners
• External examiner nomination form
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/academicregulations/external
• External examiner extension to contract form
• https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policyhub/academicregulations/external
• External Examiners UG/PGT report form, which includes the sections for responding back to
the report
• External Examiner financial forms
297

Qa Handbook 2023 24

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qa Handbook 2023 24

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qa Handbook 2023 24

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quality Assurance Handbook

Published by the Academic Regulations, Quality and

Academic session 2023-24

1. Scope of the procedures

Section B Procedures for programme and module approval and

Section C Procedures for programme and module monitoring and review

1. Introduction to monitoring and review

Section D Procedures for the approval and monitoring of collaborative

6. Academic standards and quality

Section E Procedures for validated provision

Section F Procedures for postgraduate research degrees approval and

1. New research degree programmes – approval process

5. Ethical approval and statutory requirements

Section H Assessment and External Examiners

Section I Short Course Policy

Section J Intercollegiate Policy

Section K Policy on closing or suspending a programme

1. Scope of the policy

7. Stage 1: Faculty consideration

Section L Sunset Clause for New Taught Programmes Policy

1. Purpose and scope

Section M Policy for Module and Teaching Evaluations

1. Scope of the policy

Section N Notes of guidance

Guidance on risk and ethics assessment in the design of modules

Guidance on Doctoral Training Partnerships/Centres for Doctoral Training:

Section O Templates and forms

1.2 The information in the Handbook covers:

Module an individual element of a programme of study which is taught and

3. Quality assurance, regulatory and credit frameworks – national and College

3.3 King’s structure and operation is characterised by the devolution to Faculties

1.7 Initial Programme Development Phase

• make them aware of the proposal

1.15 The main purposes of the process is to ensure that:

2. Internal and External Reference points

External Reference Points

Level 4 Undergraduate Certificates of Higher Education

Subject Benchmark Statements

2.6. Degree Apprenticeships

Apprenticeship Standards are developed by groups of employers called Trailblazers. They

The current list of approved standards can be accessed here.

Internal Reference Points

• Strategic Vision 2029;

o an educational rationale applies to instances whereby the components of a joint

• intellectual coherence of the programme;

5. Development of a new programme proposal

Business plan and marketing

Initial programme development

6 Distance learning, blended learning and e-learning programmes

7. Collaborative programme activity

8 The approval process

• Programme Proposal Form (PPF);

9 For example, work placement, experiential learning, live projects, volunteering.

• A programme approval form;13

the Quality Assurance Handbook)

8.27 The agreed criteria for this review are:

8.29 Outcomes of the review will be formally reported to Academic Board.

Design and complete Programme and Module Organise and undertake

Following a 3-recruitment cycle, a

10. Fast Track Approval Process