The sharing of modules between programmes (e.g. where modules are offered as components or options to multiple programmes) can enhance both the Student Experience and the increase the viability of programmes. However, where multiple, small programmes share multiple modules or there are no modules which relate directly to programmes, then the resulting complex of interdependencies can have detrimental effects.

Expectations

• Each programme, pathway or specialism named in an award title should be distinct in content and aim.
• Programme design and the anticipated recruitment level should enable cohort identity to be established and maintained. (This expectation needs to be balanced against the (potentially) conflicting principle that module and class sizes should be efficient and effective. Strict adherence to this principle could lead to unnecessary proliferation of modules and fragmentation. Programme design teams that include both academic and professional services staff will be better placed to identify the optimal compromise between competing goals such as these).
• Compulsory/core modules should be owned (managed for the purposes of annual planning) by the same School/academic unit as owns the programme or (in the case of joint programmes) one of the partner academic units (where possible).
• Programme design should aim to minimise the number of times that modules are offered as core/compulsory elements on multiple programmes.
• Modules offered as free electives (including UOSM modules) should not be included as core/compulsory elements of any programmes.