Chapter 1a - Initiation of New Programmes, Validation and Approval for Undergraduate Programmes

In addition to the review process described in 1.1.1. above, an individual, or a group of staff from one department/unit or from a number of departments/units may put forward a proposal for a new programme as long as it is supported by the relevant Advisory Board. 

(a)  there is any evidence as to community need and student demand for the proposed programme; 

(b)  the proposed programme has distinct characteristics which differentiate it from other similar programmes offered in Hong Kong; 

(c)  the proposed programme is consistent with the role and direction of development of the University; 

(d)  the proposed programme complements the other degree programmes in the University; 

(e)  they can justify the level of resources (support staff, space, library, computers) needed for the programme;

(f)  the University’s overall resource provision can accommodate the new programme; 

(g)  there is adequate academic expertise within the University to support the programme; and 

(h)  any additional academic expertise required can be readily obtained. 

The initial proposal should be discussed at the Faculty Management Board(s)/SDSMB/WJYSISMB. The proposal after necessary amendments, should be forwarded to the University Administrative and Planning Committee (UAPC)/Task Force responsible for the TPE for consideration.

(a)  examine the initial programme proposal against the criteria set out in 1.1.3 above; 

(b)  recommend to the Senate that the programme should or should not be included in the University’s academic plan; 

(c)  specify the proposed starting date; 

(d)  indicate the likely resource constraints within which proposers will have to develop the full proposal; and 

(e)  tentatively arrive at a general understanding on the extent to which the University will be able to meet the department’s resource expectations. 

(a)  The Senate may support more programmes than the University is allowed to offer as some programmes may be dropped in the light of UGC comments. 

(b)  There is insufficient staff expertise and the University is unable to support additional staff acquisition within present resources. 

(c)  The programme proposal has been inadequately developed. 

(d)  The projected expectations of community need and student demand may not materialise. 

1.1.5.6 

Based on the initial proposal, the Chairman of the Academic Quality Assurance Committee for Undergraduate Programmes (AQAC), in consultation with the Dean(s) concerned, will decide whether an on-site or a postal exercise should be conducted. The guiding principle is that a postal validation would normally be conducted only if the discipline or area of study is not new to the University or the offering Faculty(ies)/School(s)/Department(s)/Unit(s) already has/have the required expertise and experience in the relevant discipline. 

The initial proposal should be discussed at the Faculty Management Board(s)/ SDSMB /WJYSISMB and, after necessary amendments, be forwarded to the UAPC for consideration. Based on the initial proposal, the Chairman of the AQAC, in consultation with the Dean(s) concerned, will decide whether an on-site or a postal exercise should be conducted adopting the same guiding principle stipulated above. 

1.2.3 

1.2.4

1.2.6 

1.2.7 

1.2.8 

For a UGC-funded programme, the PPC should plan the presentation of the full submission for validation in such a way that it will fit in with the University’s planning cycle. (Refer to Appendix D).

The Chairman of the PPC should give as much notice as possible, and certainly not less than four weeks, of the precise date when the full submission will be ready, so that arrangement for consideration of the document by the Faculty Board concerned/ SDSMB/WJYSISMB can be made and the Programme Validation Panel (PVP) or external assessors can be appointed by the AQAC. He should also ensure that all necessary documentation is prepared to meet the agreed deadline. 

[Note: When a self-financed undergraduate degree programme is to be offered, the AQAC will decide on a case-by-case basis whether validation is necessary or not. The consideration is whether the self-financed undergraduate programme is basically patterned after the UGC-funded degree programme and is substantially the same. If the self-financed undergraduate programme is substantially the same as the UGC-funded programme, no additional validation process is necessary.] 

1.3.2 

(i) uniqueness of the proposed programme; 

(ii) community needs; 

(iii) student demand; 

(iv) admission requirements; 

(v) aims and learning outcomes; 

(vi) the required standard at relevant level in the Hong Kong Qualifications Framework (HKQF); 

(vii) the consistency between the programme standards and those articulated for the University; 

(viii) programme design philosophy and structure; 

(ix) programme curriculum and content; 

(x) programme operation, management, quality assurance and enhancement; (xi) teaching/learning activities; 

(xii) assessment methods and regulations; 

(xiii) employment opportunities and their match with output; 

(xiv) the overall intellectual level of the programme and the intellectual demands it places on students; and 

(b)  the adequacy of staff and resource support, both current and planned, and any resource implications for the University over and above the previously agreed levels;

(c)  the quality and experience of academic staff who will teach the programme, together with any staff development plans and intended staff appointments;

(d) the relationship with the University’s policies and regulations, and with any published principles/regulations/guidelines of the external professional body, if appropriate; 

(e)  the presentation and quality of the submission document; and 

(f)  where relevant, the likelihood of acceptance by a specified professional body. 

In addition, whether the proposed curriculum, learning and teaching activities and the assessment methods are adequate and appropriate for achieving the learning outcomes, as well as whether the evidence to be collected will be adequate and appropriate for measuring outcomes should be considered. 

Two external assessors who are usually reputable experts from other institutions, including one member selected from one of the benchmarking institutions of the University³ or the academic unit(s) proposing the programme, where possible, shall be appointed by the AQAC. If necessary (such as for a programme involving more disciplines), three external assessors can be appointed. 

1.3.4.3

1.3.5.1

(a)  a Chairman – a senior academic outside the host Departments to be appointed by the AQAC. 

(b)  the following categories of membership to be appointed by the AQAC: 

- two external members who are usually reputable experts from other institutions, including one member selected from one of the benchmarking institutions of the University⁴ or the academic unit(s) proposing the programme, where possible; and if necessary (such as for programmes involving more disciplines), three external members can be appointed; and 

- one academic staff member to be co-opted where deemed necessary. 

1.3.5.3 

1.3.5.5 

1.3.5.7

(a)  be approved with or without recommendations; or 

(b)  be referred back for further considerations of specific issues, subject to a further, full validation. 

(a)  that the academic validity of the programme submission is acceptable, either without conditions or subject to specified conditions being met; or 

(b)  that the academic validity of the programme submission is not acceptable, and the submission is referred back for further consideration of specified issues or conditions and is then subject to reconsideration by the validating panel and the AQAC; or 

(c)  that, in exceptional cases, the programme submission is deferred for a limited or indefinite period for stated reasons.