Accreditation Handbook - University of West London · Section 1: Accreditation of Prior Learning (...

Accreditation Handbook

November 2015

Contents Page Section 1: Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL): the Credit Accumulation Transfer System (CATS)

1.1 Introduction to Accreditation 1 Section 2: The University Governance and Management of Accreditation – The external and internal context

2.1 The UK Quality Code for Higher Education 3 2.2 APL decisions 3 2.3 University Accreditation Committee 4 Section 3: Types of and, processes for, Accreditation 3.1 Types of Accreditation 8 3.2 Processes for managing the Accreditation of Prior Certificated Learning 9 3.3 Processes for managing the Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning 10 3.4 External Accreditation (accreditation of external training and educational courses) 11 3.5 Articulation Agreements 16

Section 4: Guidance for Advisers and Assessors 4.1 The Claim 18 4.2 The Assessors 18 4.3 The Criteria 18 4.4 The Evidence 19 4.5 The Judgement 20 4.6 The Role of the Adviser 20 4.7 The Role of the Assessor 22 4.8 Examples of APEL Assessment Techniques 23 Section 5: Rules and regulations governing APL 5.1 General principles 25 5.2 Specific regulations 25

Appendix 1 – University templates relating to APL 27

Appendix 2 – Glossary of Terms 45

Appendix 3 – Further Reading and References 47


Section 1: Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL): the Credit Accumulation Transfer System (CATS) 1.1 Introduction to Accreditation

The Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL) works as a mechanism for defining, accumulating and transferring credits gained for demonstrating that learning has been achieved. Credits gained through formal certification from one awarding body can be recognised by another awarding body as having a particular value and can therefore be transferred across awarding bodies, from one course into another. An awarding body can also give a value to an individual’s learning which has not been recognised by formal certification but can be evidenced from personal experience (for example, the demonstration of technical or managerial skills and knowledge in the workplace). In order for APL to carry public confidence, the UK has an agreed framework for defining and measuring credits gained through demonstrating learning (CATS). The UK CATS framework aligns with the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS). The ECTS provides a mechanism for the transfer of credits within the European Higher Education (HE) area. It is currently UK practice to convert using the formula 1 ECTS credit = 2 UK credits (e.g. 120 UK credits equals 60 ECTS). The most important agreements are that: learning that has been achieved can be measured and given a credit value; a credit value has both a number and a level attached to it (e.g. 20 credits at HE Level 5).

Credits are established within the parameters of the national Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ), which defines the number and level of credit points for specific qualifications (for example, an Honours Degree consists of a minimum of 360 credits, at least 120 of which must be at Level 6). There are two parallel UK national frameworks for higher education: ‘The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England Wales and Northern Ireland’ (FHEQ) and ‘The Framework for Qualifications of Higher Education Institutions in Scotland’ (FQHEIS). These are the foremost national reference points for threshold academic standards in UK higher education, and the University is expected to comply with their specifications. The FHEQ is supported and contextualised by Subject Benchmark Statements. The FHEQ is maintained by QAA which is also responsible for assuring the quality of their use. A current version of the FHEQ can be found at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Framework-Higher-Education-Qualifications-08.pdf Credit values attributed without regard to a particular course of study are known as general credits. These are awarded on the basis of the quantity of learning and the academic level demonstrated. General credit may be attributed to assessed knowledge derived from professional awards, NVQs and GNVQs, certificated learning in HE in the UK and abroad, in-company training, components of HE and FE courses in the UK and abroad, and experiential learning in the workplace and elsewhere.

Accreditation Handbook 1

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Framework-Higher-Education-Qualifications-08.pdf

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Framework-Higher-Education-Qualifications-08.pdf


General credits recognised through evidence of uncertificated (experiential) learning are based upon professional judgements about the level of skills and knowledge demonstrated and the number of “notional learning hours” involved in achieving the learning. Ten notional learning hours equal one credit. If general credits are to be used to allow an individual to enrol for a new award and/or to be exempted from the learning and assessment requirements of part of that award they must be matched against the learning outcomes of the new award to establish how many of those credits are directly relevant and equivalent in level and volume – that is, they can be converted into specific credits. So, for example, 40 Level 5 general credits may be accepted as specific credits for one course but not for another.



Section 2: The University Governance and Management of Accreditation - The external and internal context

2.1 The UK Quality Code for Higher Education

The UK Quality Code for Higher Education (UKQCHE) Part B, Chapter B10: Managing Higher Education provision with others applies to all learning opportunities which lead to the award of academic credit. The single expectation expresses the key principle identified as essential for the assurance of academic standards and quality when the University is working with one or more external organisations in respect of the delivery of a learning opportunity leading to the award of credit or a qualification. The QAA expects and requires the University therefore, to • take ultimate responsibility for academic standards and the quality of learning

opportunities, irrespective of where these are delivered or who provides them.

• make arrangements for delivering learning opportunities with organisations other than the University which are implemented and managed effectively.

Indicators 11 through 17 particularly address the University’s responsibilities for, and the equivalence of, academic standards. The recognition of prior learning is also addressed in the Quality Code, Part B, Chapter B6: Assessment of Students and the Recognition of Prior Learning. Recognition is given through the award of credit; prior learning relevant to this Chapter is learning which is at the same level as the Course proposed to be undertaken by a potential student and thus for which an amount of Advanced Standing is being sought. The Expectation for Chapter B6 requires the University to ensure that equitable, valid and reliable processes of assessment including those for prior learning enable such students to demonstrate the extent to which they have achieved the intended learning outcomes for the credit being sought. The Indicators of sound pratice for this Chapter require the University to ensure assessment is effective in terms of its development, design, marking and moderation processes and, ratification of outcomes by Assessment Boards.

2.2 APL decisions

As APL decisions have a direct bearing on the University’s management of academic standards, including the classification of awards made to individual students, the University is required to demonstrate that there are clear regulations governing the decisions, accountable processes that are carefully recorded, and oversight by internal and external experts. APL decisions can be technically complex and often require difficult judgements. All APL decisions require a precise mapping of prior qualifications and/or experience



against the relevant University Course Specifications, to determine the amount and level(s) of general or specific credits that can be recognised. This is a skilled and often time-consuming task, especially where an individual applicant is presenting a mix of certificated and non-certificated learning. Every School/College therefore has a designated academic who acts as an APL representative to the University Accreditation Committee (UAC) which reports directly to the Academic Board. The Academic Quality Office and Academic Registry also acts as sources of advice. The Academic Quality Office also audits the University’s APL processes.

UAC has appointed External Examiners with a specific remit to examine and report on APL decisions. Different types of APL decisions require different processes and (as might be expected) different forms must be completed. These processes and their associated forms are described further in Section Three. Depending on the particular type of decision needed, ratification of the decision will be made by UAC and/or an Assessment/Award Board. All APL decisions are recorded on the University’s student record system, so that student progress, awards and transcripts are accurate.

2.3 University Accreditation Committee

The University recognises that learning can take place in a wide variety of situations, other than within the formal classroom setting, and that the University requires a robust process to enable the accreditation of prior (experiential) learning in higher, and professional education.

The University aims to provide access to a quality higher education experience through the process of the accreditation of prior (experiential) learning which encompasses equality and increases flexibility in the learning opportunities for all students.

The purpose of the University Accreditation Committee (UAC) is to • Establish a system for accreditation of prior (experiential) learning which brings

benefits to students, employees and employers • Offer official recognition to both certificated learning acquired during courses and/or

study days and learning acquired through experience which may be in the work place, through voluntary work and during the individual’s everyday life

• Monitor the quality and effectiveness of accreditation of prior (experiential) learning

including equality of access and treatment of students at all stages of the accreditation of prior (experiential) learning process

• Give recognition to employers providing training and development in the workplace.



Remit The remit of the UAC is therefore threefold:

• Advisory • Assessment • Monitoring

UAC will advise the Academic Board on: (a) the strategic development of accreditation and credit rating within the University; (b) how national developments related to accreditation impact on the credit

framework and associated regulations within the University (c) the marketing and development of accreditation UAC will thus: • award credit to individual students based upon a portfolio of evidence of prior

(experiential) learning; • communicate such decisions on students’ prior learning to the relevant

Assessments Board(s); • ensure that courses and courses of learning (including work-based learning,

Advanced Standing arrangements and Articulation Agreements) are accredited and monitored with the appropriate action taken, in accordance with the University’s regulations;

• confirm that the accreditation processes and procedures have been followed correctly.

Ex-officio • PVC Academic and Student Services (or nominee) (Chair) • University Secretary and Head of Compliance (or nominee) • Head of Academic Registry and Student Administration (or nominee) • Heads of School/College (or nominees): • College of Nursing, Midwifery and Healthcare • Ealing Law School • London School of Film, Media and Design • London College of Music • London College of Hospitality and Tourism • School of Computing and Engineering • School of Psychology, Social Work and Human Sciences • The Claude Littner Business School • External Examiners

In attendance Representative of Assistant Registrars (or nominee) Representative of Registry Services Representative of Admissions Reporting lines The minutes of the UAC meetings will be submitted to the Academic Board and to School/College Boards



Decisions on applications for accreditation of prior learning will be reported to the relevant Assessment Board. Committees and groups feeding into the UAC None at present. Effectiveness and lifespan Lifespan ongoing. Effectiveness reviewed five-yearly as part of the Academic Board effectiveness review. Actions that may be taken by the UAC The Accreditation Committee may: • Note • Receive • Consider • Support • Approve • Recommend • Reject Most appropriate minuting style Traditional/ formal minutes in accordance with the Committee Handbook. Resources Secretary - University Secretary Officer - Academic Registry Meetings - Minimum three times per academic year Quorum Quorum is five members and must include one External Examiner member. If the Head of School/College is represented by a nominee, the nominee will count in the quorum. Chairmanship The Chair of UAC will be the Pro-Vice-Chancellor Academic and Student Service, or nominee. UAC meetings UAC manages its purposes through two types of meetings: • Business: these meetings involve the

- ratification of the Accredited Partners Assessment Process with regard to specified accredited module(s)

- ratification of specific academic credit against as an outcome of a mapping of a potential Partner’s own Course against an aspect of a specific UWL academic Course (UG/PG) which will lead to an Articulation Agreement

- ratification of specific academic credit requested by a prospective student by means of the APL processes.



• Accreditation: these meetings critically review and approve an independent organisation’s Course presented for consideration with regard to the award of general credits at a specified academic level.

The assessment process associated with accredited student outcomes is ratified by UAC in the Business Meetings; the actual student marks are ratified subsequently by School/College Assessment Boards and thus general academic credit can be awarded.



Section 3: Types of and, processes for, Accreditation

3.1 Types of Accreditation Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL) is the general term used for accreditation activities, whether based on prior certificated learning or prior experiential learning. There are different kinds of APL activity: (i) APCL – is the Accreditation of Prior Certificated Learning, mainly carried

out by Admissions Tutors/Course Leaders. APCL decisions relate to individual students who are seeking entry to or exemption from parts of University academic courses based upon achievements that have been certificated by another institution or awarding body. Such decisions do not involve UAC, unless the certified learning is non-standard (see Figure 3.2, page 9) but go straight to Assessment Boards. UAC will track the number of such applications.

(ii) APEL – is the Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning. APEL decisions

relate to individual students seeking entry to or exemption from parts of University courses and whose claims are based not on prior certificated learning but on evidence demonstrating that relevant learning has taken place through extra-curricular experience. Decisions are based upon a portfolio of evidence prepared by the applicant and assessed by two University internal assessors before being sent to an External Examiner, prior to being sent to UAC (see Figure 3.3, page 10)

It should be noted that individual student claims for APL may present as a combination of APCL and APEL.

(iii) External Accreditation – is the credit rating of courses run by external training

organisations. It is not APL as such but is still credit recognition of learning achieved outside University awards. Assessments of work produced by employees in accredited organisations are moderated by University staff and reviewed by External Examiners, prior to being sent to UAC.

(iv) Articulation Agreement - is where the University agrees with a specific institution, that specific named course(s) and qualification(s) of that institution are suitable for entry to, or credit exemption from, specific University course(s). The University would normally guarantee acceptance of a cohort of students who gain the requisite credits, though they may also have to meet other criteria e.g. an IELTS score or equivalent, or be within an agreed number of entrants to the University course.

3.1.1 Advanced Standing is a term used to confirm that a student may enter a University

course at a stage later than the normal entry point. Advanced Standing for individuals can be awarded through APCL or APEL or a combination of both. Advanced Standing also plays an essential part in Articulation Agreements, because the curriculum of our own and other organisations changes over time, Advanced Standing Agreements should be reviewed on a regular basis. For Articulation Agreements with other educational institutions Advanced Standing is determined solely through APCL.



3.2 Processes for managing the Accreditation of Prior Certificated Learning

Information available for the potential

applicant

Applicant submits required documentation to the Admissions

Tutor/Course Leader

Admissions Tutor/Course Leader checks qualifications

Qualifications are recognised as being part of the UK Credit and Qualifications Framework or on

NARIC

Qualifications are confirmed as suitable

The Admissions Tutor/Course Leader determines the point of entry to the course. If the qualifications are non-

standard then a second academic will also confirm

The amount of Advanced Standing is recorded and presented by the Course

Leader at the Assessment Board at which the credit is ratified.

The Course Leader notifies the University Accreditation Committee for

tracking purposes

The Applicant is notified of the outcome by the School/College

There may be sufficient evidence to indicate that the applicant could apply for APEL

Qualifications are non-standard (i.e. not recognised as being part of the

UK Credit and Qualifications Framework or on NARIC

Qualifications are not confirmed as suitable

Applicant is asked for further documentation relating to the qualifications to enable the

Admissions Tutor/Course Leader to judge their credit rating and



Information about APEL is made available on the University’s web pages

The potential applicant contacts the Admissions Tutor/ Course Leader for advice

The applicant decides to proceed

The School/College allocates an Adviser who works with the applicant to determine the volume and level

of specific credit being claimed and the evidence required to substantiate the claim

The applicant provides evidence in the form of a portfolio

The portfolio is assessed by a second assessor (the moderator) who confirms the recommendation – or works with the first assessor to reach agreement

The reports of the two assessors, their recommendations and the External Examiner comments are considered by the University

Accreditation Committee

Credit is not awarded. The outcome is referred to the

Adviser along with any available options

Specific credits are awarded and the outcome is communicated to the Applicant and to the

School/College

Further evidence may be required

The applicant receives a statement of credit against a specific course and period of validity

The applicant applies for admission to the course

The applicant is enrolled and information is sent to the relevant Assessment Board for information.

Further evidence may be required The Subject External Examiner considers the recommendation of the two assessors and the

portfolio and produces a report

The Adviser assesses the evidence, determines whether more is required or if the evidence appears to

substantiate the claim: if the latter a report is produced with a recommendation

3.3 Processes for managing the Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning



3.4 External Accreditation (accreditation of external training and educational courses)

3.4.1 Accreditation is the credit-rating by the University of educational/professional development courses by another organisation towards the awarding of academic credits to students successfully completing the agreed assessment requirements of these courses.

3.4.2 Applications for the credit rating (not validation) of courses of learning are considered by the UAC.

3.4.3 Courses of learning include courses delivered by, or on behalf of, the University, in-company courses delivered by the organisation or a third party, e.g. independent trainers, and independent development courses.

3.4.4 The courses of learning may take place in the University, at the organisation’s own premises, or off site.

3.4.5 The learning may or may not be certificated and can be classroom or work-based, delivered face-to-face, by distance or open learning.

3.4.6 Lower limit to the ‘size’ of the course, which may be considered for accreditation, is an equivalence to 20 credits (200 notional learning hours).

3.4.7 When considering applications for credit rating of courses, the University requires the following documentation to be completed:

• Proposal and Course Specification (Section A and B) • Module Study Guides (constituent modules)

The Proposal (Section A) addresses: Accredited Partner Details:

- Name of Organisation - Lead Contact - Address - Contact Details - Date

UWL Details: - School/College - Field/Subject - Link Tutor - Contact Details

Brief description of the organisation Rationale for the accreditation of the proposed course and the mutual benefit The Course Specification (Section B) addresses: Course Title Module level/credit Duration of course Mode/Location of study Entry criteria



Total Students per Cohort/Number of Cohorts per year What is learned:

• a full statement of the intended learning outcomes using as far as possible the same terms as the University uses for describing levels;

• course content and reading lists; • learning support in terms of tutoring, mentoring and support materials, e.g.

open-learning workbooks; • course duration, calendar time and a breakdown of the notional hours of

learning, contact time, directed study, etc. How the learning is assessed:

• the assessment package showing in full what the student is required to do in terms of assignments and assessment methods;

• marking criteria and marking scheme; • arrangements for ensuring that the assessment is reliable, valid and fair for

all students, including the use of independent moderation or scrutiny to ensure a national reference point;

• the role of staff of the applicant organisation in assessment, including their training and, particularly in the case of employment-based contexts, their working relationships with students.

How the quality and consistency of the learning and assessment is maintained: • the operation of the admissions procedures, including any arrangements for

exempting students via APL from aspects of the course; • the monitoring of progress during the course; • the review of the course after each cohort of students; • the process for revising the course for future cohorts; • the process for keeping the University informed about progress.

The Module Study Guide has three sections to be completed: Overview and Content Assessment and Feedback Module programme

3.4.8 Prime importance is attached to the question, “How is learning assessed?” UAC will

• scrutinise the outcomes of courses for appropriate evidence of the level of learning, e.g. assessment criteria, marking schemes and assessment assignments.

• determine the volume of credit, both general and/or specific. The latter will be achieved by “mapping” the accredited module learning outcomes, the academic level and the assessment against an appropriate validated UWL module.

3.4.9 The Process:

a) Enquiries may originate from the proposed client organisation and/or via the University Accreditation email address: [email protected]. These are directed to the relevant School/College.

b) The enquirer receives details of the process, is given advice on the information required, and is assisted by an accreditation expert in the preparation of the required information.


mailto:[email protected]


c) The client organisation submits the appropriate Accreditation documentation to the Link Tutor.

d) A visit by a University subject/accreditation specialist is undertaken, to see the course in action.

e) The Link Tutor submits the accreditation documentation to the clerk of the UAC who schedules its presentation at an Accreditation meeting of UAC.

f) The clerk of UAC circulates the agenda and paperwork to members at least five working days before the meeting.

g) UAC meets to consider the proposed course accreditation documentation and can make one of the following decisions: • recommend the award of specific and/or general credits at a given level,

without conditions or with conditions (which must be met by the client organisation) and/or recommendations (which should be considered as part of the annual monitoring process);

• defer the decision and ask the applicant to revise and re-submit their claim; • reject the application.

The decision will normally hold for four years or until there is a significant change in the accredited course, whichever is the shorter and, is subject to annual monitoring. With a new client organisation, the University will set or agree the assignments which will be first and second marked and the final mark agreed by the client organisation, and moderated by the Link Tutor for the accreditation. As the University gains confidence in the client organisation’s abilities, it may wish to delegate some of these processes to the client, but never the moderation of the scripts. The External Examiner’s rights to have access to and agree assignments and marked scripts will remain at all times. Upon the completion of a course/cohort, the client organisation provides the Link Tutor with a matrix of marks including the decisions reached on all candidates. The Link Tutor will present the assessment information to UAC for ratification of the assessment process. The subsequent ratification of the actual student marks will be by the appropriate School/College Assessment Board.

3.4.10 All Accredited Courses are required to have a Link Tutor whose role: • visit the partnership, at least annually, normally more frequently • provide a visit report • contribute to the Annual Monitoring Report • provides the academic oversight of Partner assessment processes through

moderation • continuity and diligence of the role holder directly relates to the mitigation and

aversion of risk Schools/Colleges must factor in the resource envelope which supports this role and ensure that any change to the role holder is managed in a timely manner. The Link Tutor role is essential for Accredited Partners as the role holder provides the day to day advice and guidance.



3.4.11 As part of the annual monitoring process, the client organisation will be required to

provide an Annual Report [Form G, page 42] to the Link Tutor, to be forwarded to UAC. All Accredited Partners Annual Reports are presented to UAC having been critically read by the membership. Feedback from UAC is provided for Link Tutors to discuss with their Accredited Partner.



3.4.12 External accreditation (accreditation of external training and educational courses)

External organisation applies for accreditation by completing Form F and submitting this to

the School/College.

Link Tutor or subject specialist visits organisation to observe teaching, check

resources etc.

UAC approves the award of specific and/or general credits

School/College supports the organisation and monitors assessment processes with the help of the Subject

External Examiner

Annual Report [Form G) considered by UAC

UAC ratifies the award of credits to successful candidates

The Link Tutor submits the application to the University Accreditation Committee (UAC)

Evidence of conditions met ratified by UAC

With conditions

Credit rating exercise undertaken and form completed – checked by Subject External

Examiner

UAC requests resubmission

UAC rejects the claim

Without conditions



3.5 Articulation Agreements

3.5.1 Articulation Agreements fall under the general heading of Academic Partnership Provision, as they result in contracts with other institutions. Information about the management of Articulation Agreements can be found in the University’s Academic Partnership Handbook: as they involve Advanced Standing decisions, however, the following accreditation process is required.

3.5.2 To qualify as an articulated route, the specific qualification(s) of an institution must be mapped against the learning outcomes and levels of assessment of the University award, to identify how much specific credit, in which curriculum areas, can be granted to the holder of the qualification, as an entry to, or credit exemption from, the University award. The mapping process may involve some sampling of student work. The mapping of qualifications is conducted by academic specialist(s), and can be initiated by Course Leaders or Heads of School/College. UAC discusses and approves the mapping of qualifications for formal Articulation Agreements. The outcome is recorded in the minutes of UAC; conditions of approval may be attached to approval, and proposals may be rejected.

3.5.3 The mapping must be reconfirmed after three years to ensure that any changes to the academic course of either the partner or the University do not invalidate the agreement. A review is undertaken by the Course Leader, Admissions Tutor and the Chair of the Student Progress Board, and the mapping is confirmed by UAC.

3.5.4 The process of approval of an Articulation Agreement

3.5.4.1 A partner seeking an Articulation Agreement is subject to preliminary enquiries relating to the institution (due diligence) and to its academic courses. A report of the partner’s suitability, along with a fully completed Business Case Approval Form, is considered by the School/College Executive. If the School/College believes there is a case for entering into an articulation arrangement, then an approval visit to the partner institution is undertaken by a senior academic of the University (normally a Head of School/College or designate). A report of the visit together with the completed Business Case Approval Form, due diligence report, and relevant minutes from UAC is sent to the School/College Quality Committee (S/CQC) for approval, prior to the preparation of a contract.



Request for an Articulation Agreement from a prospective partner to a School/College

School/College undertakes preliminary enquiries about the institution and its academic courses

Report on prospective partner’s suitability and completed Business Case Approval Form considered by School/College Executive

Approval visit to partner by a senior academic (Head of

School/College or designate)

Articulation Agreement Approval Form with visit report, Business Case Approval Form, due diligence report, APEL proposal and minutes from UAC considered by the School/College Quality

Committee (S/CQC)

If an Articulation Agreement involves more than one School/College, an Articulation Agreement Approval Form must also be approved by

the second School/College

Chair of S/CQC authorises the Articulation Agreement Approval Form and sends it to the University Legal Adviser and Solicitor

University Legal Adviser and Solicitor arranges preparation and signing of contract

Partner sends marketing/publicity materials for prior approval to Head of School/College and Director of Marketing, Communications and UK

Recruitment

Mapping of learning outcomes and levels of

assessment to University award by academic specialist

After three years, review by Course Leader, Admissions Tutor and Chair of Student Progress Board to reconfirm the APEL mapping

School/College asks University Legal Adviser and

Solicitor to undertake due diligence checks

UAC receives confirmation of the periodic mapping

UAC approves APEL mapping proposal



Section 4: Guidance for Advisers and Assessors 4.1 The Claim

4.1.1 A claim for APL is always made against a specific University course or module(s). It is

essential that, as early as is possible, the assessor establishes with the applicant the exact nature of the claim: how many credits are being claimed; at what level(s); against which module(s). If this is not clearly established the applicant will not know which evidence to present, nor will the assessor know what the evidence is to be judged against. The assessor and applicant should also agree a timescale for the submission of evidence.

4.1.2 Establishing the exact correspondence between the applicant’s prior achieved learning and a specific University course is not straightforward, however; applicants’ achievements are unlikely to be absolutely aligned with the learning outcomes of the course he or she wishes to join and thus careful judgement is required. The complexity of the judgement will depend on the number and levels of credits being claimed and the academic nature of the course (for example, whether it requires highly specific skills or knowledge or competencies required by a Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Body). Where the applicant is claiming both APCL and APEL the assessor should first establish the APL claim, to establish what additional APEL evidence may be required.

4.2 The Assessors

4.2.1 The applicant’s advisor will be the first assessor; otherwise there is a danger that the

advisor will set criteria for justifying the claim which may be challenged at the point of assessment. The second assessor should be identified early and, where APEL is claimed, should agree the criteria and types of evidence proposed by the first assessor.

4.3 The Criteria

4.3.1 The criteria for presenting evidence will always be directly related to the learning

outcomes of the University course/modules as expressed in the course/module specification. The initial discussion with the applicant should therefore identify which outcomes at course level might be evidenced in a satisfactory manner; and then, for each module, which outcomes might be evidenced in a satisfactory manner.

4.3.2 Although an absolute match for every outcome of every module is not required the question the assessor will have to answer in the affirmative to accept the APL claim is:

Is there sufficient evidence that the applicant has demonstrated enough achievement of specific knowledge and skills prior to entry to the University course at the requested stage so that, if he or she successfully completes the remaining modules, the student will have merited the title of the award, and that public confidence in the award holder’s achievements can be assured?

If, however, the Course Specification contains core or pre-requisite modules, or if there are specific technical skills, knowledge or competencies that relate directly to the



specialised nature of an award then the assessor may require a close or complete match of evidence to outcomes. Where such correspondence between outcomes and evidence is insufficient additional evidence is required.

4.4 The Evidence

4.4.1 The basic premise for APEL is that credit is awarded for learning, not experience

alone. Applicants must focus on the outcomes of learning rather than the process of learning.

4.4.2 Evidence to justify the claim is divided into two categories: the applicant has prior certificated learning (APCL) – qualifications that can be mapped against the University course; or the applicant is claiming that he or she can demonstrate mastery of particular knowledge and/or skills gained outside of a certificated course of education or training (APEL). In some cases the applicant will be offering evidence of both certificated and non-certificated learning.

4.4.3 APCL claims [Form A, page 27] are relatively straightforward in that the applicant must present: the certificate(s) and the syllabus; a transcript if one is available; and, if the assessor thinks it necessary, examples of assessed work. For UK qualifications and many overseas qualifications there are public reference points – the UK Higher Education Qualifications Framework, the NARIC register. If the applicant’s qualifications are not clearly established in the public domain the assessor should take advice from the Admissions Office; and may request the applicant to provide further information about the curriculum studied, or may conduct an interview with the applicant.

4.4.4 APEL claims are less straightforward in that the evidence has no public reference points and has not been previously accredited or verified by an awarding body. The applicant therefore must present a portfolio of evidence [Form B, page 29]. Evidence within the portfolio can, and probably will, be different in kind. A basic distinction is between direct and indirect evidence of past performance. Direct evidence consists of verified products (for example, a project report or published article written by the applicant, a physical artefact, a recorded performance – all of which can be assessed against the skills and knowledge required by the University course). Indirect evidence includes items such as a verified job description, appraisal or witness testimony by an employer - where the applicant can directly demonstrate the reality of an experience but can only indirectly indicate its quality. If the assessor feels it to be necessary, the employer, or other witness, should be asked for further information to help substantiate the claim.

4.4.5 If the combination of direct and indirect past evidence in a portfolio is not quite sufficient for the APL claim to be merited the assessor should seek to confirm the full claim by requesting additional task(s), usually in the form of a demonstration, essay or other product that can verify specific skill or understanding, or by a structured interview [Form D, page 35]. If an interview is required the second assessor should be present, as all other evidence in the portfolio will be available for later inspection.

4.4.6 The APEL applicant may need to build up the portfolio over time, so continuing dialogue with the first assessor may be necessary to ensure that optimum evidence can be presented. It should be noted that individual student claims for APL may



present as a combination of APCL and APEL. Once the portfolio is completed the assessor will make a recommendation. That recommendation, along with the portfolio of evidence, will be presented to a second assessor.

4.5 The Judgement

4.5.1 Following scrutiny of the evidence the first assessor will make a recommendation.

[Form B, page 29] The recommendation will be one of the following. • The APL claim should be fully approved. • The APL claim should be partly approved – specifying the exact number of specific

credits and levels for which exemption may be granted. If the assessor judges that the applicant’s claim for either APL or APEL against a specific module is only partly justified the applicant will need to enrol for that module.

• The APL claim is not approved. For APEL claims this would be an exceptional judgement, unless the claimant has not followed the advice and guidance of the advising assessor.

4.5.2 The second assessor will confirm the judgement or, together with the first assessor, will determine whether any further evidence might be presented. If the assessors cannot reach agreement the decision will be moderated by the External Examiner. The External Examiner will in any case review the portfolio and assessors’ recommendations prior to UAC and will report his or her views to that committee.

4.6 The Role of the Adviser

4.6.1 The Adviser, who is also the first assessor, offers advice, guidance and support to the

applicant. In fulfilling this role the Adviser's most essential purpose is to empower applicants, enabling them to assume greater responsibility for their learning and achievements. The Adviser facilitates the applicant to identify what it is that he or she has achieved. There are various ways of doing this, depending on the circumstances of the individual.

4.6.2 The Adviser must not act as a counsellor and, although an applicant's personal experiences may be explored it is not the role of the Adviser to counsel on these issues. The Adviser can, however, act as a resource for information so that the individual can choose to seek the support of a counsellor but that is the extent of the Adviser's role.

4.6.3 The Adviser will: • Encourage the applicant to clarify his/her specific goals in relation to the APEL claim

and develop strategies to be able to achieve them. • Assist the applicant to reflect on his/her past experiences and to identify strengths

and achievements. • Provide correct and accurate information to enable the applicant to make sound

decisions. • Assist the applicant to develop his/her own portfolio. • Advise the applicant on how to focus his/her evidence of learning/achievement

against the learning outcomes, which the applicant wants, assessed.



• Maintain accurate records. 4.6.4 Good practice:

• Set ground rules as to what the Adviser’s role encompasses and the amount of

applicant/Adviser contact time. The onus is on the applicant to reflect upon his/her experiences to identify learning, collate and prepare evidence of learning and to seek the appropriate advice and guidance that is required.

• Be patient with all applicants. Part of the facilitation is to develop in the applicant the skills of thinking and writing reflectively.

• Create realistic expectations, as it is important that all applicants do not see the process as a series of insurmountable hurdles. Ultimately it is the applicant who is responsible for his or her own success, not the Adviser.

• Seek to understand the level and type of experience applicants have that would be relevant to particular outcomes/competencies.

• Assist applicants to develop the skills of thinking and writing reflectively, by describing the activity that led to the learning and the effect of that learning in practice and determine the variety of suitable evidence.

• Encourage all applicants to include a wide range of experiences from work or other activities and accomplishments.

• Encourage peer-support in the development of the portfolio. • Check each portfolio for completeness before submission and assessment. • Maintain regular communication with the applicant's Assessors and with other

Advisers and Assessors to improve skills of facilitation and liaison with clinical verifiers.

• Record recommendations following each Advisory session as well as the final assessment record, so that there is a record of the applicant’s progress throughout the entire process.

4.6.5 Examples of an experience where significant learning occurred:

• A personal action that made a difference to the organisation/a client/colleague • an event that went unusually well (and why) • an event where things did not go as planned (and why) • an event that was typical/regularly occurring

4.6.6 In documenting the experience the following points need to be covered:

• Where and when the event happened • A detailed description of what happened, including the applicants own and others

actions • Why the incident was important, and how the applicant felt at the time • What was - most satisfying, most troubling about this • What the applicant may have done differently • What action, if any, the applicant will take as a result of this learning • The learning for which recognition is requested must be clearly defined.

4.6.7 The Supporting Statement:



Within the portfolio there needs to be a link with the learning to the outcomes which relate to the rationale for the applicant’s portfolio. This involves the applicant putting what he/she believes has been learnt in a format that will make sense to whoever assesses the portfolio. The claim needs to be formulated in a way, which is directed to meeting the Assessor’s requirements so that learning can be assessed.

4.6.8 The Evidence:

• Often the learning that has actually been gained from experience has come almost subconsciously. Until the applicant deliberately and consciously reflects about personal experiences, he/she may be unaware of how much has really been learned.

• Learning takes place at different levels, depending on the nature of the experience

and degree of conceptualisation that comes from reflection. The applicant needs to indicate as accurately as he/she can the level of knowledge and skills attained so that others can assess that learning. This is important because of the need, at a later stage, to link his/her learning to the levels of award for which a claim/credit is being sought.

One advantage of the applicant having to relate his/her learning to experiences and to various contexts is that this also focuses the applicant on the types of evidence he/she will need to include in the portfolio. Evidence may be cross-referenced in the portfolio if it is appropriate to claim for more than one learning outcome/competence.

4.6.9 Letters of Verification:

Verification is sought when the candidate wishes to present confirmatory evidence through witness statement(s). For example, a candidate may claim to have played a leading part in a major project within a company, and may have presented a project report that cannot fully evidence the candidate’s role. Where the testimony required can be precisely defined the verification letter/email should state what is to be confirmed. Where the witness is being asked to offer confirmation of the candidate’s competence in one or more learning outcomes, a version of the following should be used. The applicant may provide the names of those who can support the claim to learning. Letters of verification may verify several claims to learning over a range of learning outcomes/competencies. Applicants must be clear that the person concerned is able to substantiate the claims to learning/competence and that the letter of verification is not a recommendation letter [Form E, page 37].

4.7 The Role of the Assessor

4.7.1 Each Assessor is a subject specialist. The role of the Assessor is as follows:

• To assess the portfolio to determine whether or not the learning outcomes or

competencies have been attained.



• To make judgements about the applicant's competence by comparing his/her performance against the established criteria. To ensure that the evidence submitted relates to the learning outcomes and is therefore relevant to the claim, (Validity); that it represents sufficient breadth and depth appropriate to assess that the learning outcomes/competencies have been met (Sufficiency); that it is within the period of time that evidence is acceptable to ensure knowledge is up to date and skills still capable of being performed, (Currency); that it is the work of the applicant, (Authenticity); that the evidence of learning has reached an acceptable level/standard for the academic credit being claimed (Quality).

• To provide feedback so that the applicant knows what has been accepted and what

more, if anything, is required. Respect for the effort put into compiling the portfolio should be given. The way in which feedback is given can be critical in determining how the applicant feels about the entire process and often about him/herself.

• To maintain accurate records of the outcome of the evidence submitted and any

subsequent review. The documentation to record the Assessor’s recommendations and the form for recording oral evidence for an APEL claim can be found in Form D, page 35.

• To participate in any Assessment Board events that may require the Assessor’s input.

4.8 Examples of APEL Assessment Techniques

4.8.1 If the evidence submitted in the portfolio is not sufficient for the Assessor to establish the

full competence of the applicant then it will be necessary to assess the candidate further. Further evidence may be requested directly from the applicant or the Assessors may wish to use one or more of the following assessment techniques to help make the final decision. Whichever techniques are chosen records must be kept. A brief description of each follows.

4.8.2 Oral questioning or testing: This is probably the most common technique used in crediting competence. Oral questioning allows the Assessor to ask in-depth questions about an applicant's competence in order to clarify aspects of the portfolio, to elicit further information and to seek explanations. It also helps the Assessor to determine the authenticity of the evidence of learning.

4.8.3 Personal report: Applicants may develop and submit a "personal report" in addition to their other evidence. A personal report is a description of the activities an applicant carries out in relation to the specific elements of competence. The Assessor may use the personal report in conjunction with an oral interview or some other form of assessment.

4.8.4 Workplace assessment: If this method is used it is necessary to make sure that both the Assessor and the applicant are clear about times, dates, and exactly what is to be assessed. It can be time consuming and the Assessor may find that legal requirements, health and safety factors or company policy may prohibit the direct observation of the applicant in the workplace. A visit to the workplace may be needed to look at confidential material which cannot be included in a portfolio.



4.8.5 Simulation: If workplace assessment is not possible or practical the Assessor may ask the applicant to take part in a simulation exercise. For example, the Assessor might ask the applicant to participate in role-play of an appraisal interview. Simulations sometimes take a considerable amount of time to prepare and the Assessor cannot always be sure that the results reflect exactly what would happen in real situations. Yet, alongside other evidence, simulations can provide valuable information about an applicant's performance.

4.8.6 Case study: The Assessor may present the applicant with a case study outlining a particular set of circumstances and/or problems for the applicant to address. The applicant's analysis or solutions could be oral or written.

4.8.7 Assignment/Project: The Assessor may ask the applicant to complete an assignment or activity which relates to his or her work or to a hypothetical situation. In either case, the Assessor will most likely need to ask the applicant to justify his/her actions and findings in a written or oral report.

4.8.8 Written Examinations: Written examinations have limited application in APEL. If they are used it is generally to assess those aspects of the applicant's knowledge and understanding that cannot be inferred from other evidence more directly attributable to the applicant's performance.



Section 5: Rules and regulations governing APL 5.1 General principles

5.1.1 All decisions regarding APCL, APEL or Accreditation of external educational/training

activities will be transparent, fair, applied consistently in relation to University regulations and processes, fully recorded and available as public information if requested.

5.1.2 Academic judgements relating to the award of credit via APCL, APEL or Accreditation of external educational/training activities will be taken in full recognition of national and European qualifications frameworks, including the numbers of credits at specific levels required to merit an award.

5.1.3 Academic judgements relating to the award of credit via APCL, APEL or Accreditation of external educational/training activities will be taken in full recognition of relevant national Subject Benchmark Statements, any relevant Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements, and in line with University guidelines.

5.2 Specific regulations

5.2.1 APCL and APEL regulations will be applied with due reference to the University’s

Academic Regulations – for example in relation to judgements about evidence presented as equivalent to or above a pass mark for a module.

5.2.2 Where a University award is delivered in conjunction with an Academic Partner the University’s Academic Regulations, including those relating to APCL and APEL, will apply.

5.2.3 Where a University award is validated, or accredited, by a PSRB or an external commissioning agent such as a Strategic Health Authority, any course specific arrangements for APCL or APEL will be determined at the point of validation or subsequent accreditation by a PSRB.

5.2.4 The amount of credit allowed via APCL and/or APEL will be to the value of the module(s) against which credit is being claimed – normally a minimum of twenty credits.

5.2.5 The maximum credit allowed through APCL and/or APEL is as follows: • For external claimants the maximum amount and level(s) of credit allowed through

APCL and/or APEL will be up to, but not including, the final level or stage of an award. Thus, for an Honours Degree APCL and/or APEL could be claimed for all of level 4 and 5 but not level 6; for a Masters degree APCL and/or APEL could be claimed for credits equal to a Postgraduate Diploma. In no case can APCL and/or APEL be claimed against a final dissertation or major project.

• For internal claimants the maximum amount and level(s) of credit allowed through

APCL and/or APEL may be up to 50% of the final level or stage of the award, in which case the University will retract the previous award. In no case can APCL and/or APEL be claimed against a final dissertation or major project.



• In exceptional cases approval of UAC must be sought: for example, where the

claimant has demonstrated achievement of a technical proficiency at the highest level of the University course it may be possible to exempt her/him from studying that element, but the rules governing the amount of credit that can be allowed are as stated above.

5.2.6 Specific credits must be awarded for exemption from study of part of a University

course. General or specific credits may be awarded where the University accredits the educational/training activities of an external organisation.

5.2.7 The student must achieve the full credit value of the award. Any credit achieved through APL when added to the credit achieved on the University course must equal at least the total credit value of the University award.

5.2.8 The award of specific credits will be determined as equivalent to those learning outcomes of the course/module from which the applicant is seeking exemption.

5.2.9 In making academic judgements about the specific credits to be awarded through APCL the currency of achieved prior learning must be confirmed. The prior certificated learning must not normally be more than four years old and, in some subject areas and in relation to any relevant PSRB requirements, the currency may be less. The currency may be extended to five years, however, if the academics making the judgement deem the achievement is sufficiently current to merit exemption from that element of the University course.

5.2.10 Credits awarded via APCL or APEL will normally be transferred without marks, with the exception of internal applicants who have achieved University credits with marks.

5.2.11 Only in exceptional cases will credits gained through APCL at a higher award level be deemed transferable to a lower level of award: for example, where a claimant with a postgraduate award is seeking exemption from part of an undergraduate award leading to a professional qualification. In such cases a recommendation must be made to UAC, accompanied by a rationale.

5.2.12 The calculation of an award that incorporates credits gained through APCL and/or APEL will be made using standard University algorithms. Thus, for an Honours Degree the classification will be based on those modules passed while studying at the University.

5.2.13 A certificate of award will state that it is valid only with the accompanying transcript: that transcript will, where relevant, identify the number and levels of credit awarded through APCL and/or APEL, and those modules which have been passed while studying at the University.

5.2.14 Appeals against an APCL and/or APEL decision will be considered by a panel consisting of the Head of School/College, the Academic Registrar or nominee, and an APEL Co-ordinator. Appeals can only be made against the process by which decisions were reached and cannot be made against the academic judgements of those who made the decision.



Appendix 1 - University templates relating to APL

FORM A

Application for credit exemption through Accreditation of Prior Certificated Learning (individual student)

This form is completed when the applicant is applying for Advanced Standing to gain credit for part of a University course by virtue of certificated learning within a recognised credit framework. It will determine the level of entry to the course. (An example of this is an applicant who is applying for BA (Hons) Business Administration and who possesses a Foundation Degree in Business Studies. Advanced Standing for year 1 and year 2 of the University course can be recommended if it equates to the first two years of that course. The Advanced Standing would then be recorded as 120 credits at Level 4 and 120 credits at Level 5.)

The evidence is assessed by the Course Leader/Admissions Tutor, who will make a recommendation on the form. The completed form will be sent to the Chair of the relevant Student Progress or Award Board, who will present the proposal to that Board. The Course Leader is responsible for informing the student of the outcome.

Applicant’s Name:

Student ID:

Title of Course against which credit is claimed:

Course Code:

Level/Modules for which exemption is being claimed: Module title Code Level

Credits

Comments

Evidence submitted by the applicant: (For example, certificates from UK or other institutions: written confirmation of credits awarded and academic level; course documentation - learning outcomes, content, assessments; certificate from professional body.)



Comments on the evidence (e.g. additional documentation provided for non-standard qualifications): Recommendation: The candidate should be exempted from studying the following level/modules:

Signed by Admissions Tutor/Course Leader: Name (block capitals): Date:

Signed by second Assessor (if applicable): Name (block capitals): Date:

Signed by Chair of the Student Progress Board/Award Board: Name (block capitals): Date:

Date submitted to Unit-E:

A copy of this completed form must be sent to the clerk of the University Accreditation Committee (Keely Withers).



FORM B

Application for the Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning by Portfolio Name of Applicant:

Enrolment Number:

Name of First Assessor:

Name of Second Assessor:

Name of Subject External Examiner:

Date of Submission:

University Course for which Advanced Standing is sought

Number of credits claimed at level…

Number of credits claimed at level…


Accreditation Handbook List of UWL modules/module code and learning outcomes for which

exemption is being sought

Portfolio evidence provided in support of the

claim

Appropriate modules from non-UWL course with

learning outcomes/module criteria

Comments on the match (theory/practice % where

appropriate). Are all learning outcomes covered at the same

level?

First Assessor verification/further evidence requirements Second Assessor verification/further evidence requirements Subject External Examiner verification/further evidence requirements Accreditation Handbook 30

Accreditation Handbook Recommendation to the University Accreditation Committee Fully approved.

Modules for which the applicant can receive credit through APEL

Partly approved. Modules for which the applicant cannot receive credit through APEL

Recommendations for further action (if applicable)

Signature Date

First Assessor

Second Assessor

Subject External Examiner

If the applicant has also claimed exemption, through Accreditation of Prior Certificated Learning, from other modules of the University course, please specify these Module Claim accepted Claim not yet accepted Name of Admissions Tutor/Course Leader Title Code Credit level Credit volume

University Accreditation Committee decision:

Date of meeting:



FORM C

Mapping and Credit Rating of non-University of West London course for Advanced Standing leading

to an Articulation Agreement

Title of University course:

Course code:

School/College:

Title of the partner’s course:

Name and location of the partner institution:

Name of main contact at this institution:


Accreditation Handbook Evidence submitted: Please specify e.g. Course Handbook, course materials, learning outcomes, assessment, sample examinations and site visit report.

Advanced Standing claimed for: University Module title and code

Level

Credit

Partner module/course element

Comments (Give a brief summary of the match - do the modules

map exactly? If not, what percentage is similar?)

Recommendation

Tick as appropriate

The partner’s curriculum is fully equivalent to Level(s) ….. of the University’s course and is suitable for entry into Level ….. of that course

The partner’s curriculum is partially equivalent to Level(s)… of the University’s course and is suitable for entry into Level…..of that course if the additional requirement(s) below are met

The partner’s curriculum is not sufficiently equivalent to Level (s)….of the University course and Advanced Standing should not be granted


Accreditation Handbook Subject External Examiner comments

Any additional requirements: (for example, a requirement for the partner to deliver one or more University course module(s) in order to achieve the full equivalence and/or a bridging module/course to be delivered by the partner/University.)

Signed by Course Leader/Admissions Tutor: Name (block capitals): Date:

Signed by Subject External Examiner: Name (block capitals): Date:

University Accreditation Committee Decision: Date:



FORM D

Record of an additional task set by the Assessor

This form should be used when the evidence presented as a claim for prior experiential learning against specific module outcome(s) requires a direct assessment task to fully establish the claim. The nature of the task is determined by the first assessor, who may wish to consult the second assessor.

Additional evidence for APEL claim

Name of Candidate:

University course for which APEL is claimed:

Learning Outcome(s) to be verified: Module Title(s)

Module Outcome(s)

Nature of the task (e.g. viva voce, simulation, essay, performance, demonstration, production of an artefact) Commentary on the evidence presented



Recommendations: The candidate has demonstrated sufficiently the requisite skills and knowledge for the following outcomes: Module Title(s)

Module Outcome(s)

The candidate has not demonstrated sufficiently the requisite skills and knowledge for the following outcomes:

Module Title(s)

Module Outcome(s)

Signed by First Assessor: Name (block capitals): Date:

Signed by Second Assessor: Name (block capitals): Date:



FORM E

Example of a letter requesting verification Dear [Insert name of candidate] Request for Information concerning [Insert name of candidate] [Insert name of candidate] has applied to the University of West London to be exempted from studying part of the University course [Insert name of course] , on which he/she wishes to enrol, on the grounds he/she already possesses the skills/knowledge required. I have been given your name by the candidate as someone who is able to supply information that can help establish the applicant’s claim for prior achieved learning. I am therefore writing to ask if you could provide a letter of verification that the candidate has demonstrated achievement of the abilities listed below: [Insert abilities] Your letter will assist the University of West London in determining the extent to which the applicant has the competencies he/she is claiming. Candidates are assessed in a variety of ways and your letter/email, with any accompanying evidence, may play a critical role in the final assessment. It would be most helpful to us if your letter/email could contain the following: • The name of the candidate • The dates of employment or association with you • Post(s) held by the candidate or a description of the capacity in which

you knew/know him/her • Any evidence you can supply, along with your testimony, to support the

candidate’s claim • Your name, organisation and position you hold/held. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience and thank you for your time and support. If you need any further information or wish to discuss this further, please contact me on [Insert contact details]. Yours sincerely,



FORM F

Proposal and Course Specification for the accreditation of an external course

Section A - Proposal Accredited Partner Details:

Name of Organisation:

Lead Contact:

Address:

Phone:

Email:

Date:

UWL Details:

School/College:

Field/Subject:

Link Tutor:

Phone:

Email:



Brief description of the organisation (its purpose, history of training/education)

Rationale for the accreditation of the proposed course with the University of West London and the mutual benefit for all stakeholders



Section B - Course Specification

What is learned on the course and the learning approaches to be used: a full statement of the intended learning outcomes using, as far as possible, the same terms as the University uses.

Aims: Learning Outcomes:

Course Content:

Teaching and Learning Approaches and methods to be used:

Reading Lists:

Learning Resources (e.g. library, online) and Student Support (e.g. personal/academic tutors):

Course Title:

Module level:

Module credit:

Duration of course:

Mode of study:

Location(s) of study:

Entry Criteria:

Total Students per Cohort: Number of cohorts per year:



Notional Hours/Contact Time: (i.e. one 20 credit module is equal to 200 notional learning hours)

How the learning is assessed: the assessment package showing in full what the student is required to do in terms of

assignments and assessment methods; marking criteria and marking scheme; arrangements for ensuring that the assessment is reliable, valid and fair for all students, including the use of independent moderation or scrutiny to ensure a national reference point; the role of staff of the applicant organisation in assessment, including their training and, particularly in the case of employment-based contexts, their working relationships with students. Indicate clearly whether for modules involving skills competences, students will be required to visit other clinical areas and how this will be managed.

How the quality and consistency of the learning and assessment is maintained: the operation of the admissions procedures, including any arrangements for exempting

students via APL from aspects of the course; the monitoring of progress during the programme; the review of the course after each cohort of students; the process for revising the course for future cohorts; the process for keeping the University informed about progress. Recruitment, selection and admissions:

Monitoring of student progress and the process for keeping the University informed:

Course evaluation:



FORM G

Annual Report for an Accredited External Course

University Accreditation Committee Academic Year:

Name of Accredited Organisation:

Name and position of report writer(s) in the Organisation:

Title and credit level of Accredited Course / Module:

School / College associated with the Accreditation:

Name and position of Link Tutor(s):

Please complete accordingly A. Accredited Course Leader’s view Please provide a brief evaluative commentary on:

1. Progress on the action plan from the previous Annual Report.

2. Student Data and Performance Cohort Number / date

Students enrolled

Students submitted

Pass Refer



3. Student voice- module evaluation and student views

4. Any changes to the organisation and/or Course management which may have a bearing on the course delivery

5. The academic and administrative support given by the University

6. Any desired changes to the course structure, content, assessment or teaching and learning methods

7. Action Plan: Actions Timescale Responsibility 1 2 3

Further comments



B. The Link Tutor’s Comments

Please provide a brief evaluative commentary on the evidence for the continued suitability of the course for accreditation

1. Annual Site Visit Report –response from the Link Tutor

2. Meetings with students

3. Observation of teaching

4. Scrutiny of student work and its assessment

5. External Examiner comments if applicable.

6. Communication with Accredited Organisation and UAC Summary Risk Assessment: Please comment on any areas of concern you may have in respect of academic standards and the quality of the student learning experience and conclude as to whether the Accreditation should continue.



Appendix 2 - Glossary of Terms

APL Accreditation of Prior Learning. The general term used for accreditation activities, whether based on prior certificated learning or prior experiential learning. APCL The Accreditation of Prior Certificated Learning. The identification and recognition of existing certificated learning as relevant, to be used as part of a new qualification or award. Accreditation The process of awarding formal recognition, expressed as a volume and level of credit, to a given body of learning. Accumulate To build up credit to achieve a qualification (e.g. Honours Degree = 360 credits). Admission with Advanced Standing Admission to a course at a stage other than the initial stage, on the basis that a student so admitted is exempted from part of the course, owing to equivalent prior learning that can be certified or evidenced. APEL The Accreditation of Prior Experiential learning. The identification, assessment and formal acknowledgement of learning achieved through work or life experience. Assessment Regulations Rules governing assessment including pass marks and other grades of assessment/number of credits needed to complete an award or to progress to the next stage of an award CATS The Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme is the generic term used to describe the system which enables the transfer of credit between higher education courses and institutions. Certificated Learning Learning which has been formally assessed by examination, assignment or other means and for which a certificate and/or transcript has been given. Credit A numerical value given to a unit of learning on the basis that 1 credit equals 10 notional hours of learning. Credit Value Indicates the volume of learning or ‘how much’ learning is expected. For example, 20 credits de- scribes 200 notional hours of learning.



Credit Level An indicator of the relative complexity, depth and autonomy of learning associated with a particular module, used in credit frameworks. Credit Transfer A system that allows credit awarded by one higher education awarding body to be recognised and included towards the requirements for a course at another higher education provider; or that allows credit gained on a particular course to contribute towards the requirements of a different one. HEIs Higher Education Institutions - this includes Universities and Colleges of Higher Education. Learning Outcomes Express learning achievement in terms of what the student will know, understand and be able to demonstrate, on successful completion of a module, unit or qualification. A unit/module/qualification will normally have several learning outcomes. Level descriptors A statement of the generic characteristics of learning at a specific credit level, used as a reference point for those designing courses of study. Notional hours of learning The number of hours a student will need to spend, on average, in a range of activities, including all teaching, self study and assessment, to achieve the learning outcomes. Qualification descriptors Generic statements about the main qualifications at each level of a qualifications framework (for example, bachelor's degree with honours, master's degree), specifying what students should know, understand and/or be able to demonstrate on being awarded that qualification, and exemplifying its characteristics.



Appendix 3 - Further Reading and References QAA www.qaa.ac.uk SEEC www.seec.org.uk Southern England Consortium for Credit Accumulation and Transfer (SEEC)

2010 SEEC Credit Level Descriptors for Higher Education, London, SEEC

UK Credit Forum 2010 Making Sense of Credit and Qualification Frameworks in the United Kingdom, Derby, UK Credit Forum

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education

2015 UK Quality Code for Higher Education – Part B: Assuring and Enhancing Academic Quality – Chapter B6: Assessment of Students and the Recognition of Prior Learning, Gloucester, QAA


2015 UK Quality Code for Higher Education – Part B: Assuring and Enhancing Academic Quality – Chapter B10: Managing Higher Education Provision with Others

The University of West London 2015 Quality Handbook, London, The University of West London

Credit and Qualification Framework for Wales Project, (CQFW), Northern Ireland Credit Accumulation and Transfer System, (NICATS), Northern Universities Consortium for Credit Accumulation and Transfer

2001 Credit and HE Qualifications, Credit Guidelines for H.E. Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, London, CQFW, NICATS, NUCCAT and SEEC


2004 Guidelines for the Accreditation of Prior Learning, Gloucester, QAA


http://www.qaa.ac.uk/

http://www.seec.org.uk/


A Users Guide to Credit for Prior Learning through APCL and APEL, Mick Betts, Network Consultant, May 2010 Direct Gov – Compare different qualifications https://www.gov.uk/what-different-qualification-levels-mean/overview The awarding body City & Guilds www.cityandguilds.com The awarding body Pearson http://qualifications.pearson.com


https://www.gov.uk/what-different-qualification-levels-mean/overview

http://www.cityandguilds.com/

http://qualifications.pearson.com/

Academic Quality Office University of West London Walpole House 18-22 Bond Street Ealing W5 5AA Tel: 020 8231 2775 Email: [email protected] Web: uwl.ac.uk Accreditation Handbook 50

Accreditation Handbook - University of West London · Section 1: Accreditation of Prior Learning (...

Documents

Transcript of Accreditation Handbook - University of West London · Section 1: Accreditation of Prior Learning (...