Academic Renewal

What is the difference between Programme Review, Renewal and Re-design?

These three interrelated sub-sets of an overall process of continuous quality enhancement of academic programmes at SU, have slightly different purposes.

Programme Review

Programme Review is usually more analytical, critical and reflective in nature, supported by a faculty- or department-driven collegial and evidence-based process that examines the rationale and justification of an existing programme. It seeks to uncover the key issues for improvement at a programme level, with specific emphasis on curriculum, teaching, learning and assessment. 

Hounsell (2009:202) suggests that it should draw on various sources of information, including formal feedback (e.g. surveys and focus group discussions), self-generated feedback (e.g. higher education teachers’ observations and self-evaluation) and incidental feedback (e.g. everyday routines used by teaching and administrative staff such as attendance patterns and attentiveness). These sources of information can come from current students, alumni, staff, professional peers, and other internal and external stakeholders (e.g. professional bodies, employers, general public, etc.).

Programme Re-design and Renewal

Programme Re-design and Renewal often follow on from programme review, with a pertinent focus on bringing about the required improvement. These two interrelated processes are more development and future-oriented with emphasis on envisioning the revised programme, planning the redesign of the revised programme, redefining the programme purpose and outcomes, introducing innovative learning, teaching and assessment approaches, embedding graduate attributes in the curriculum and enhancing the overall quality of students’ learning experience.

The literature suggests that there are many ways in which a programme review, redesign and renewal process can be approached. There is no one ‘correct’ way, and there is no such thing as a ‘perfect’ process (University of Toronto, 2017). It is often an iterative and time-consuming process that should build on the existing strengths of the programme, be evidence-informed, be reasonable in scope and duration and be aimed at bringing about meaningful change within the academic department.​

What is the approval process for calendar changes/changes to an existing programme or module?

Changes to a module have to be approved by the faculty (i.e. Programme Committee and Faculty Board). Changes other than editorial changes also have to be submitted to and approved by the relevant institutional bodies, namely the Programme Advisory Committee (PAC), Academic Planning Committee and Senate.

A full workflow and the dates of institutional meetings are available here. ​

When do I need to submit a module specification (Form B)?

A module specification is required when there are extensive changes to a module. These changes require the registration of a new module to differentiate between students who enrolled for the existing version versus the new version of the module. Changes that would require the completion of a new module specification are the following:

  • Credits change with (1) more than 50%; or (2) 10 credits or more
  • Change of National Qualifications Framework (NQF) level
  • Change of Classification of Educational Subject Matter (CESM) category (i.e. focus of module))
  • Change of module name or subject name
  • Significant change to learning outcomes
  • Mode of provision changes (contact to HL or vice versa)
     

More information available here.

What is the process that I should follow to obtain approval for amendments to an existing module?

Please contact your Vice-Dean: Teaching and Learning to confirm the processes to follow within the faculty. The faculty procedures will also determine whether institutional permission is required and will submit the request to the Programme Advisory Committee. ​

What is the process to change a programme name?

To change a programme name, external approval by the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), the Council on Higher Education (CHE) and the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) is required. The request will serve via the faculty and institutional committees and Senate,similar to a calendar change (full motivation, explanation, etc.). Additionally, the DHET and CHE documentation to request a change must also be submitted. The documentation is available here.​

When are the changes to a programme substantial enough that a new programme is required?

Major changes to an existing qualification/programme that require the registration of a new programme include the following:
 

  • Major changes to the rationale, purpose, exit-level outcomes and associated assessment criteria of a programme
  • Major changes to the programme design, that is, amending the programme modules/content by 50% or more
  • Major changes to the CESM codes assigned to programme or modules that impact on the 50% rule applicable to the use of designators and qualifiers
  • Changes to the mode of provision (applicable when amending face-to-face [F2F]to distance learning; therefore, not possible for SU programmes)

For more information visit the APQ website here.

What support is available for completing a new module specification (Form B)?

Resources are available on the APQ we​bsite to provide more information on each of the sections of the module specification, which include examples of good practice.

Additionally,​ support is available via your CTL adviser or the advisers at APQ.

Where do I start when I want to plan a new programme?

More information on the different considerations are available on the APQ website. 

However, individual support and advice are available, and it is recommended that you consult with advisers at APQ when considering a new programme or programme review process:
 

​If you are considering starting a new programme that never existed before, you can contact the Academic Planning Adviser, Melissa van der Vyver.  

If you are considering the possibility of a new programme stemming from a programme renewal process, please contact the Programme Renewal Adviser, Marianne Bester.

Where will I find a programme specification (Form A) and module specification (Form B)?

The forms and support resources are available at the APQ website. ​

What is the difference between RPL and CAT?

  • RPL (Recognition of Prior Learning)
    RPL applies only to nonformal learning, that is, learning that did not occur as part of a module or programme at a registered institution. There are two types of RPL:

RPL for access is applied when a student who does not meet the ​minimum admission requirements is granted admission into a programme because they have gained workplace experience that is deemed equivalent to the minimum admission requirements.

RPL for exemption occurs when students are exempted from certain credits/modules because they can provide evidence that there is an extensive overlap between the module and the nonformal learning that they have completed (i.e. a short course or series of short courses). When RPL for exemption is...

  • CAT (Credit Accumulation and Transfer)
    CAT applies to the transfer and/or recognition of formal credit-bearing offerings (i.e. modules). CAT allows for students to receive recognition for modules already completed at SU in other programmes or at other institutions so that they do not have to repeat modules on the same level with the same content. A CAT application would require a curriculum mapping process that should show that at least 80% of the module outcomes, content and purpose (which include the same NQF level) should overlap.
     

For more information, please see the SU RPL and CAT policy​ (currently under revision). Each faculty also has RPL and CAT procedures to be followed. Please contact the office of the Vice-Dean: Teaching and Learning for a copy of your faculty procedures.

Where can I find more information about Extended Curriculum Programmes (ECPs) at SU?

At SU,ECPs (previously referred to as Extended Degree Programmes [EDPs]) are offered in the faculties of Arts and Social Sciences, Economic and Management Sciences, Theology and Science (including Engineering and AgriSciences). You can contact the representative in each faculty for more information.

Quality Assurance and Quality Management:

The following questions pertain to the centralised quality assurance and –management system at Stellenbosch University:

  • Self-evaluation
  • Peer review
  • Two-year follow-up report

More information is available on the APQ website.

Our quality management system provides for the regular evaluation of academic departments and professional academic support services according to a fixed cycle for quality assurance and enhancement. Our Quality Assurance and Enhancement Policy aligns itself to the CHE’s Framework for Institutional Quality Reviews.

For more information please contact the colleagues at the qualit​y office of APQ.

Self-evaluation

This evidence-based report forms a basis for the department (or faculty/centre/division) to critically review its processes and procedures to evaluate its successes and challenges and identify deficiencies. It is aimed at highlighting areas for improvement.

Peer-evaluation

A group of experts who have studied the self-evaluation report and evidence portfolio will conduct a site visit with interviews to verify the quality claims, identify commendable achievements and make recommendations for improvement. A peer-review panel is typically external to the University and could include local and international peer reviewers. Where quality management is prescribed by a professional body, these guidelines in appointing peer reviewers should be followed.

For more information please visit the APQ website or contact the colleagues of the quality office.​

The self-evaluation report must be evidence based. This means that the quality claims made in the report must be substantiated by evidence. This is the role of the evidence portfolio. The evidence portfolio can include stakeholder feedback (e.g. student feedback on modules and programmes) and institutional data as well as the core statistics reports.
 

For support with a core statistics report, please contact the colleagues of the quality office at APQ.​

ATTRIBUTION: Images courtesy of Stellenbosch University