Foundation Degrees

Foundation Degree ForwardLichfield Centre

The FriaryLichfield

Staffs WS13 6QG—

Tel: 01543 301150Fax: 01543 301152

www.fdf.ac.uk—

Derek LonghurstDirector

d.longhurst@fdf.ac.uk

This would involve the provision of evidence that employers, sector skills councils or other employer organisations had been involved in the design of the curriculum.

Does the design and content of the Curriculum reflect the core features of the FD qualification?

Does the design and content of the Curriculum reflect the core features of the FD qualification?

•Has the design of the curriculum taken account of national occupational standards where they exist or, in the future, has the curriculum drawn upon the relevant SSC framework?

•Is there a balance and integration of employment-related skills and broad-based academic study and content?

•Is work based learning embedded in the programme of learning?

•Are the arrangements for the management and supervision of workplace learning systematic and clear?•Are there systems in place for the continuous briefing of employers?

The QAA Review Report suggests that this is not commonly a strength of provision.

Does the design and content of the Curriculum reflect the core features of the FD qualification?

This would involve a judgement concerning the Aims of the award as registering a distinctive identity for the qualification. As the QAA Review Report indicates, some Foundation Degree development teams have found it to be more difficult to define distinctive Learning Outcomes.

Are the Aims and Programme Learning Outcomes clear and appropriate to the articulation of the core features of a Foundation Degree?

• Do module, level and programme learning outcomes manifest clear and appropriate relationships or coherence?

• Do the Learning Outcomes demonstrate the integration of work-based learning and the academic programme of study?

Are the Aims and Programme Learning Outcomes clear and appropriate to the articulation of the core features of a Foundation Degree?

• Do the Learning Outcomes provide a sound basis for student achievement on the award?

• Has the development team taken account of the HEFCE Prospectus, the QAA Qualification Benchmark Statement [Final Draft], the QAA Framework for Higher Education Qualifications [FHEQ], relevant Subject Benchmark Statements?

Are the Aims and Programme Learning Outcomes clear and appropriate to the articulation of the core features of a Foundation Degree?

This involves reviewing whether there is an overall strategy that is more than a sum of the parts, the accumulation of the range of activities employed by individual modules.

Is the Teaching and Learning Strategy effectively designed for achieving the Learning Outcomes and is the strategy reflective of the core features of the Foundation Degree?

• Does the strategy underpin the integration of work-based learning and “academic learning?

• Are there effective means for stimulating capacities for lifelong learning?

• Are the arrangements for and VLE delivery clearly defined, fully resourced, supported and planned at each site of delivery?

Is the Teaching and Learning Strategy effectively designed for achieving the Learning Outcomes and is the strategy reflective of the core features of the Foundation Degree?

• Are there Learning Agreements in place to define the specific outcomes intended for the workplace learning, the responsibilities of employers, students, mentors and academic tutors?

• Is there practice involving the implementation of Personal Development Planning?

• Where employers are contributing to the delivery of the programme, how are these contributions designed and integrated?

Is the Teaching and Learning Strategy effectively designed for achieving the Learning Outcomes and is the strategy reflective of the core features of the Foundation Degree?

This involves enquiry into assessment strategy: is the approach to assessment strategic in that modes, timing and design of assessment are appropriately challenging and address level and programme outcomes systematically and clearly. Again, the design needs to be more than an accumulation of assessment tasks for individual modules.

Are the assessment arrangements clear and systematically related to judging students' achievements and level/programme outcomes?

Are the assessment arrangements clear and systematically related to judging students' achievements and level/programme outcomes?

•Does the programme offer a clear integration of assessment criteria relating to programme, level and module outcomes? •Are there systems in place for addressing quality of feedback to students in relation to such criteria?

Are the assessment arrangements clear and systematically related to judging students' achievements and level/programme outcomes?

•Does the assessment framework address a range of employment-related skills [technical, work-specific, key, generic] and the capacity for independent and critical analysis? •Are employers involved in the assessment of students? If so, are there systematic arrangements for co-ordinating such activity involving academic staff?

What are the arrangements for providing academic and tutorial support that is responsive to the distinctive experience of students on a Foundation Degree?

This involves reviewing the extent to which student support systems have been designed and will be real in terms of student experience and common at all sites of delivery. Evidence from the QAA Review suggests that support for part-time students is not commonly a strength of provision.

What are the arrangements for providing academic and tutorial support that is responsive to the distinctive experience of students on a Foundation Degree?

•Do all delivery sites manifest a commitment to widening participation, diversity and good practice in the support of students with disability? •Is the Student Handbook clear, well-designed and user friendly? •Is it customised to each site of delivery? •Are there other sources of student information that are readily accessible?

What are the arrangements for providing academic and tutorial support that is responsive to the distinctive experience of students on a Foundation Degree?

•Are there arrangements for identifying the particular study skills needs of individual students? •Are there well-designed arrangements for student induction, for monitoring student confidence and retention? •Are the admissions procedures fair, clearly-designed and co-ordinated across all delivery sites? •Are there clearly-owned and transparent procedures for APL/APEL?

Is the provision of human and physical resources adequate to meet the achievement of programme outcomes, teaching and learning strategy and the distinctive features of the award?

This involves reviewing the resource strategy underpinning the development of the award to ensure that it is planned rather than reactive.

Is the provision of human and physical resources adequate to meet the achievement of programme outcomes, teaching and learning strategy and the distinctive features of the award?

•Is the award supported by an appropriate number of staff with relevant expertise at each site of delivery? •Are there appropriate and accessible specialist facilities? •Is there access to sufficient and convenient ICT facilities with technical support systems? •Is there provision of appropriate resources to support the integration of workplace learning and academic study experiences?

Are there clear arrangements in place for both programme management and for the effective monitoring and enhancement of quality and standards across all aspects and locations of provision?

This involves reviewing the ways in which the management and quality assurance systems have been designed to meet the characteristics of the award.

Are there clear arrangements in place for both programme management and for the effective monitoring and enhancement of quality and standards across all aspects and locations of provision?

•Do the approval and validation procedures for the Foundation Degree ensure that it meets a clear employment need/demand and that it manifests the core features for the qualification? •Have the development team considered relevant aspects of the QAA academic infrastructure (eg the Code of Practice)? •Are there clearly-owned quality assurance and management systems at programme level?

Are there clear arrangements in place for both programme management and for the effective monitoring and enhancement of quality and standards across all aspects and locations of provision?

•How effective are the proposed systems for monitoring, evaluating student feedback and for the implementation of action based upon it? •Is there clear delineation of roles and responsibilities within the provision at all locations for monitoring and enhancing quality? •How are monitoring procedures designed to review the programme against intended outcomes and to implement action plans for improvements?

Are there clear arrangements in place for both programme management and for the effective monitoring and enhancement of quality and standards across all aspects and locations of provision?

•Are the quality assurance systems effectively designed to support the integration of work-based learning and academic learning opportunities? •Is there a coherent and sustained Staff Development strategy in place to support the requirements of the award? •How are External Examiners appointed, briefed and supported in fulfilling their responsibilities appropriately to the distinctive characteristics of the qualification?