Phases 2 and 3 of Curriculum Transformation focus directly on supporting departments in the review and design of course proposals that meet the vision and opportunities identified in Phase 1. Opportunities for engagement and feedback from other stakeholders are built in throughout.

Key pages for course designers

Workshop post it notes

Phase 2 and 3 course design information

This page provides guidance and resources to support Course Development Teams in their Phase 2 and 3 activity.

Read more
Required information

Phase 2 and 3 Required Information

This page details the information required from Phase 2 and 3 of Curriculum Transformation.

Read more
Phase 2 and 3 Feedback and Oversight

Phase 2 and 3 feedback and oversight

Feedback and oversight supports development activity, enabling opportunity for stakeholders to provide relevant input that can inform course design. Find out more here.

Read more
Phase 2 and 3 CT App Guidance

Phase 2 and 3 SharePoint App guidance

A bespoke system has been created to collate course and unit level information generated from Phase 2 and 3 activity. This page contains guidance on using the system, including setting-up your course record and completing each of the key sections.

Read more

Overview of activity

Course review, design, and development activity is at the heart of Phases 2 and 3.
Infographic showing overview of Phase 2 and 3 process for course design
What is the difference between Phases 2 and 3?

Phases 2 and 3 respond to the need to distinguish between course- and unit-level thinking and activity. Consultation with academic staff, and experience with the Vanguard courses, demonstrated clear support for this emphasis on articulating a course-wide approach to design both before, and during, the development of more detailed unit-level information. Phase 2 therefore incorporates the advancement from Phase 1 findings and course vision to development of a clear course-wide perspective of transformed provision, which will inform the development of course content, structure, and strategy for assessment. Phase 3 reflects the move to incorporate more detailed unit-level thinking within development activity.

The Vanguards demonstrated that, whilst a clear understanding of planned course-level transformation was a crucial starting point, further development activity needed to move flexibly and iteratively between course- and unit-levels. Thus, in practice, Phases 2 and 3 appear more simultaneous, as opposed to sequential, in nature.

Who else is involved in Phase 2 and 3 activity?

It is important to use Phases 2 and 3 to continue conversations with key internal stakeholders, including: UG Admissions and Outreach or PGT Recruitment and Admissions,  the Student Immigration Service; Faculty Marketing Managers, External Examiners, and Accrediting Bodies. It is likely that you will also need to liaise with Academic Registry in regards to the new Academic Framework and Regulations. Course Development Teams may also wish to engage with other stakeholders consulted in Phase 1 to share developments and seek feedback on proposals.

HoDs will maintain oversight during Phase 2 and 3 activity to support their action in regard to Outcome E (see below).

Who was involved in the development of Phases 2 and 3?

Phases 2 and 3 have been developed in consultation with a wide range of colleagues from across the institution including academic staff (Associate Deans L&T, Directors of Studies, Course Development Team leads, representatives from Vanguard courses) and professional services staff (Faculty Assistant Registrars, Academic Registry, representatives from Academic Skills, the Library, Disability Support, and Careers). The Students’ Union have been also been involved in consultation, and have contributed to areas concerning student engagement and representation.

ULTQC have maintained oversight throughout, and have approved the approach developed, whilst the outcomes and success criteria have been approved by Senate.

For more information on the approach to course development activity, including the Course Review and Design Workshop and follow-up support and resources provided by the CLT, please see the Phase 2 and 3 Course Design page.

Outcomes and success criteria

The outcomes of Phases 2 and 3 activity have been agreed by Senate, and are designed to ensure course development activity works towards the aims of Curriculum Transformation as well as external guidance and requirements.
By the end of Phase 3:
A. The course is aligned with relevant University and sector regulations and guidelines.

The course is aligned with relevant sector guidelines (e.g. QAA Subject Benchmark Statements, FHEQ etc.).

The course complies with University regulations.

The course is designed to meet Professional Accrediting Body requirements, if applicable.

B. The course is aligned with the principles of Curriculum Transformation.

The course reflects the principles of Curriculum Transformation (Senate paper S17/18-165A).

Documentation likely to be used by current or future students is clearly articulated and accessible to its audience.

Summative assessments are designed using a course-level approach and allow students to demonstrate their progress against Learning Outcomes.

There is an appropriate assessment strategy which considers how assessment supports learning, and mitigates against the potential for bunching and over-assessment.

C. There is a clear plan for ongoing course enhancement.

An ongoing vision for the course is presented.

A plan which describes how implementation of the transformed course will be evaluated against the Curriculum Transformation principles is presented.

D. There is evidence of student and other key stakeholder engagement.

The course development team has engaged with students in Phases 2 and 3, and their feedback considered in the design and development of the course.

Relevant external stakeholders (including current external examiners for the course) have been consulted in Phases 2 and 3, and their feedback considered in the design and development of the transformed course.

E. There is evidence that planning for course organisation and delivery has taken place.

The Head of Department or equivalent signatory has indicated their endorsement of the transformed course, including that sufficient consideration of key organisational and planning issues (e.g. course delivery, staff roles, teaching teams) has taken place.