3. Curriculum Development and Approval
3.1 Development and approval of new curricula
3.1.1 The conceptualisation of new curricula usually occurs within academic Departments and Faculties. 7 Consultation on the planning of such developments, particularly multidisciplinary programmes and collaborative ventures, extends beyond contributing units to cognate groups and stakeholders within and outside the University. External input and benchmarking of new curricula against similar offerings of internationally reputable universities are mandatory, and all concerns raised by external advisers must be addressed.
3.1.2 Curriculum and programme development is therefore informed by feedback from disciplinary experts and stakeholders as well as external peer reviews and benchmarks. Curriculum and programme approval processes involve iterations of feedback and improvement.
3.1.3 There are broad guidelines on the preparation of academic proposals which must include: academic rationale, alignment with the Faculty’s and University’s strategic development, curriculum structure and governance, input from external assessors, international and professional benchmarking, teaching expertise, QA and QE mechanisms, articulation with other curricula and programmes in the same area of study, market demand and competitiveness, latest academic, societal and professional needs, and financial viability and sustainability (Appendix 3.1). Submission of a Financial Planning Form is required for offering new self-financing curricula and programmes to ensure financial viability and the absence of cross-subsidisation. Strict compliance with the Cost Allocation Guidelines (https://www.ugc.edu.hk/doc/eng/ugc/note/CAGs.pdf) and other relevant financial administration procedures of the University is mandatory.
3.1.4 There are also detailed guidance notes and a designated template to assist Faculties and Departments in preparing proposals for new academic curricula and programmes (Appendix 3.2).
3.1.5 Curriculum and programme proposals at Ug and TPg levels must be endorsed by the Faculty Board before submission to the AB Sub-group, which facilitates the review process by engaging in proactive discussions with the Faculties and offering advice on all issues pertaining to the proposal. 8 Faculties should then submit a formal proposal to AB for consideration. Approval processes are iterative, with AB having to be satisfied that Faculties and Departments have addressed the concerns raised either by external assessors or by AB before referral to the Senate for deliberation. New UGC-funded curricula (not already included in the approved triennial Planning Exercise Proposal) must receive UGC’s endorsement. Where the proposed curriculum is offered in partnership with Mainland or international institutions, the “Guidelines for Joint and Dual Taught Degrees” and/or the “Guidelines for Off-campus Taught Degrees” at Appendix 3.3 should be followed respectively. They should be read in conjunction with these broad guidelines and other prevailing University policies, regulations, guidelines, as applicable.
3.1.7 A PLOAP, which ensures that every academic curriculum/programme can demonstrate the use of direct evidence of student learning for gauging students’ achievement of the PLOs of the curriculum/programme, should be created shortly after the curriculum/programme is implemented (see Section 4.8).
3.2 Development and approval of new disciplinary courses
3.2.1 Faculty Boards have delegated authority from the Senate to approve syllabus changes. Introduction of new disciplinary courses is also approved by the Faculty Boards. A template for offering a new disciplinary course with guidance notes is at Appendix 3.4.
3.3 Changes to existing taught curricula, programmes and disciplinary courses
3.3.1 Major changes to existing curricula and programmes include changes to the curriculum structure, substantial changes to the curriculum or programme requirements, adding or dropping a mode of study, change of degree or programme name, and other key features of the curricula which depart significantly from those approved originally. Input from external assessors must be sought for significant changes proposed to existing curricula and programmes. The template for making major changes to a taught curriculum or programme is at Appendix 3.5.
3.3.2 Proposals for making major changes to curricula and programmes must be endorsed by the relevant Faculty Board before submission to the AB Sub-group, which offers advice on possible refinement before Faculties submit a formal proposal. The formal proposal should be submitted to AB, which will make a recommendation to the Senate for deliberation.
3.3.3 Revisions to an existing disciplinary course may cover a change of course code, course title, course description, coursework/examination ratio, CLOs, and course grade descriptors. These revisions should be approved by the relevant Faculty Board(s). Other minor changes are normally approved by the relevant Department, School, or Programme Committee. The template for proposing changes to an existing course is at Appendix 3.6.
3.4 Suspension and sun-setting arrangements
3.4.1 The Senate has delegated authority to the Faculty Boards to approve suspension of curricula, with the proviso that suspension of admission to any curricula listed under Statute III must be reported to the Senate. The template for suspending a curriculum/programme is at Appendix 3.7.
3.4.2 A mechanism is in place for sun-setting obsolete TPg curricula (Appendix 3.8). (Sun-setting in this context means suspending admission to a curriculum without a planned timeline for re-introducing it.)
3.4.3 An obsolete disciplinary course necessitates updating of the curriculum syllabus. This requires approval from the relevant Faculty Boards. A template for closing an existing course is at Appendix 3.9.