Feedback and oversight supports development activity, providing opportunities for stakeholders to provide relevant input that can inform course design.

Oversight responsibilities

The following checks will be formally recorded in the Oversight section of the Phase 2 and 3 CT App.
Course Development Teams

Have you followed up any outstanding issues from Phase 1 feedback from UG Admissions & Outreach / PGT Recruitment & Admissions?

Specific follow-up actions will have been communicated to CDTs following Phase 1 CTC. CDTs should refer to these.

Guidance is available here or contact UG Admissions & Outreach / PGT Recruitment & Admissions.

Is your course proposal compliant with Student Immigration requirements?

Key structural changes that might impact on immigration requirements should have been flagged at Phase 1 and considered by APC where appropriate.

Guidance is available here or contact the Student Immigration Service for further advice and guidance.

Have you engaged with your Accrediting Body/ies where relevant?

Has your Accrediting Body/ies confirmed that the University may advertise the course as accredited for [your designated year of] delivery?

Information on any specific requirements/conditions placed on the course by the relevant Accrediting Body, including the timeframe for accreditation.

Upload [link to] evidence of engagement with Accrediting Body/ies.

Course Development Team response to External Examiner report (see below).

External Examiner

The External Examiner has confirmed that the proposed course, including the Course Intended Learning Outcomes, is aligned with relevant subject benchmark statements (if applicable) and FHEQ level(s).

Provide [link to] evidence of External Examiner report.

External Examiner input at Phases 2-3 should be focused, reflecting their specific role and expertise (as distinct from what other external stakeholders may offer). The prompts below may be helpful in this respect. External Examiners are likely to wish to comment on the extent to which proposed changes to courses may help to address any particular issues they or their predecessors have raised in previous External Examiner reports.


  • Course learning outcomes: are these clear, appropriate, and in accordance with the level and title of the award? Have they been informed by the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) and any Subject Benchmark Statement(s)?
  • Course coherence and relevance: is the course coherent, of appropriate breadth and scope, and informed by recent developments in the discipline?
  • Assessment design: does assessment promote effective student learning and enable students to demonstrate achievement of the intended learning outcomes? Is there an appropriate variety of assessment methods?

Departments are responsible for identifying External Examiners and requesting reports through their usual processes. Departments are welcome to ask their External Examiner to comment on other features of their course proposal.

Head of Department

The HoD 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.

The HoD has confirmed that all course information to be used for marketing and recruitment activity is accurate.

Provide [link to] evidence of HoD endorsement (e.g. email file).

HoDs have specific responsibility for Phase 2-3 Outcome 5: 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.

HoDs also have responsibility for confirming that all course information used for marketing and recruitment activity is accurate.


DLTQC supports the proposed course.

Provide [link to] minutes of relevant meeting.

Academic Registry

Comments by exception.

Centre for Learning & Teaching

Comments by exception.


How have students been consulted as part of Phase 2 and 3 activity?

FLTQC supports the proposed course.

Have all issues arising from FLTQC been appropriately resolved?

Detail any outstanding items that require resolution.

Provide [link to] minutes of relevant meeting.

Ahead of F/SLTQC all required information for Phases 2 and 3 should be completed in draft format. Following F/SLTQC, finalised information should be entered into the CT App from where it will be used to automatically produce a number of reports to inform CTC scrutiny. These will include: a copy of the Rationale for Course Design; Course-level Information and Description; Course Structure; Course Intended Learning Outcomes and Units mapping; an overview of the Feedback and Oversight overview; individual Unit Overviews.

F/SLTQC should review each course against the Outcomes/Success Criteria for Phases 2 and 3 of Curriculum Transformation.

Curriculum Transformation Committee

It is the responsibility of CTC to employ its specialist expertise and academic judgement to assess whether course proposals are in accordance with the success criteria (including assuring itself that any issues previously raised by staff or committees during the Phase 2 and 3 process have been adequately resolved). The outcome of CTC’s decision will take the form of one of the following options:

  • approval of the proposal;
  • approval of the proposal subject to conditions and/or requirements, or;
  • non-approval of the proposal with requirement for further work and re-presentation to a future meeting of CTC.

CTC’s decision, along with any conditions and/or requirements, will normally be communicated to the relevant Department/Course Development Team within two weeks of the meeting being held.

Conditions must be met prior to the new course commencing, whereas requirements must be met by a specified date after the course has commenced. Completion of conditions and requirements must be signed off by the Chair of CTC.

In the case of new courses, the Secretary of CTC will report the Committee’s decision in summary form as a recommendation to Senate, which is responsible for full and final approval of new courses.

Feedback and guidance providers

UG Admissions and Outreach / PGT Recruitment and Admissions

Will provide feedback on course proposals relevant to admissions issues. Course development teams are recommended to follow-up on any specific feedback arising from Phase 1.

Faculty Marketing Managers

Will provide feedback on course material used for marketing and/or recruitment, and will be asked to endorse this material as suitable for publication. This may include enhancing the Course Description generated as part of Phase 1. Course development teams are recommended to liaise directly with their Faculty Marketing Manager.

Student Immigration Service

Does your vision for your redesigned course include structural changes e.g. duration, timing of placements / work based activities, or involve students spending extended/unusually long periods away from the University? If so, have these plans been considered in regards to Tier 4 visa requirements?

The Student Immigration Service will provide a specific check that course proposals are compatible with immigration requirements. This will be reported to Curriculum Transformation Committee.

For questions about your design choices and impact of immigration and Tier 4 visa requirements, please contact

Related pages

Curriculum Transformation – Support

Sources of support

There is a wide range of support available for your course development activity.

Read more
Workshop post it notes

Phase 2 and 3 Course Design

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

Read more