{"id":10115,"date":"2026-10-05T13:02:10","date_gmt":"2026-10-05T12:02:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.cardiff.ac.uk\/education-development-toolkit\/?page_id=10115"},"modified":"2026-10-05T14:40:58","modified_gmt":"2026-10-05T13:40:58","slug":"programme-development-new","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.cardiff.ac.uk\/education-development-toolkit\/programme-development-new\/","title":{"rendered":"Programme Development &#8211; new"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2>Programme Development<\/h2>\n<p>Programme development is the point at which an idea becomes a coherent student learning experience. It is more than completing approval paperwork. The task is to design a programme that has a clear purpose, a credible structure, inclusive learning and assessment, and a visible route through which students can develop the knowledge, skills and confidence expected of the award.<\/p>\n<p>This section of the toolkit supports programme teams through Stage 2: the main design and documentation stage. By this point the broad case for the programme, or for a substantial change to an existing programme, should already be clear. Stage 2 is where that case is tested through curriculum design. The aim is to show how the programme will work in practice for students, staff, external reviewers, professional bodies and the approving institution.<\/p>\n<p>The process is structured around four milestones. They are presented separately because each asks a different design question, but they should be developed together. Programme structure shapes learning outcomes; learning outcomes shape assessment; assessment choices affect module design; and module design often reveals where the structure needs to be tightened. Good programme development is therefore iterative. It is normal to revisit earlier decisions as the design becomes clearer.<\/p>\n<h3>The four milestones at a glance<\/h3>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"62\"><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"211\"><strong>Milestone<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"350\"><strong>Main question<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"62\"><strong>1<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"211\">Programme structure, design and delivery<\/td>\n<td width=\"350\">How will the programme work as a coherent learning journey?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"62\"><strong>2<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"211\">Programme learning outcomes and graduate attributes<\/td>\n<td width=\"350\">What will graduates be able to know, do and show by the end?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"62\"><strong>3<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"211\">Assessment planning, design and delivery<\/td>\n<td width=\"350\">How will assessment support learning and give reliable evidence of achievement?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"62\"><strong>4<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"211\">Module design<\/td>\n<td width=\"350\">How will each module contribute clearly to the programme as a whole?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h2>Milestone 1: Programme structure, design and delivery<\/h2>\n<p>The first milestone is about the shape of the programme. A strong structure makes it easy to see how students enter the programme, move through it, build capability over time, and reach the standard required for the award. It should also make sense to someone outside the immediate discipline: the programme title, award, level, credit volume, core modules, optional choices and exit points should all tell a consistent story.<\/p>\n<p>A useful starting point is the programme\u2019s core spine. This is the part of the curriculum that all students, or all students on a particular route, will experience. It protects the integrity of the award by making clear which learning is essential and where students will meet the main programme outcomes. Optional modules can then add breadth, specialism or student choice without weakening the shared identity of the award.<\/p>\n \n\n                        <div class=\"alert alert alert-success with-icon \">        \n                            <div class=\"alert-icon\">\n                    <svg class=\"icon\"  xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/1999\/xlink\" viewBox=\"0 0 96 96\" shape-rendering=\"geometricPrecision\" text-rendering=\"geometricPrecision\"><g><path d=\"M48,20c1.1,0,2,.9,2,2s-.9,2-2,2-2-.9-2-2s.9-2,2-2ZM60,80c0-1.1-.9-2-2-2h-7v-50.8c.9-.5,1.7-1.3,2.2-2.2h19.2L66.8,54h4.1l4.4-22.8L80.9,54h4.1L77.7,25h1.3c1.7,0,3-1.3,3-3s-1.3-3-3-3h-25.8c-.5-.9-1.3-1.7-2.2-2.2v-5.8c0-1.7-1.3-3-3-3s-3,1.3-3,3v5.8c-.9.5-1.7,1.3-2.2,2.2L17,19c-1.7,0-3,1.3-3,3c0,1.4,1,2.7,2.4,2.9L10.7,54h4.1l4.4-22.8L24.9,54h4.1L21.7,25h21c.5.9,1.3,1.7,2.2,2.2v50.8h-7c-1.1,0-2,.9-2,2v2L24,82v6h48v-6h-12v-2Z\"\/><path d=\"M32,57h-24c0,3.3,5.4,6,12,6s12-2.7,12-6Z\"\/><path d=\"M64,57c0,3.3,5.4,6,12,6s12-2.7,12-6h-24Z\"\/><\/g><\/svg>                <\/div>\n            \n            <div class=\"alert-body\">            \n                <h3>Reflect on the Development<\/h3>                <p>Teams should test the structure against a few practical questions:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Is there a clear progression from introductory, supported learning to more independent and complex work?<\/li>\n<li>Do the credit values, levels and module designations reflect what students must achieve?<\/li>\n<li>Where there are pathways, joint honours routes or shared modules, is the distinctiveness of each award still visible?<\/li>\n<li>Is the programme deliverable and sustainable for staff, students, and partners?<\/li>\n<li>Does the structure support transition, belonging, flexibility and reasonable student choice?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n            <\/div>\n        <\/div> \n\n    \n<p>Delivery also needs early attention. Programme teams should consider how students will experience the rhythm of the academic year, the balance between contact, independent study and practice, and any placement, professional, laboratory, fieldwork, or digital requirements. Where a programme has professional, statutory or regulatory body requirements, these should be built into the design from the outset rather than added as a late compliance check.<\/p>\n<h2>Milestone 2: Programme learning outcomes<\/h2>\n<p>Programme learning outcomes describe what students should know, understand, and be able to demonstrate by the end of the programme. They are not simply a summary of module outcomes. They are the standard for the award and should express the graduate capability that the whole programme is designed to develop. Colleagues from Student Futures can support with integration of the &#8216;9 Skills for Success&#8217; <em>(formerly Graduate Attributes). <\/em>For more information see our Employability pages.<\/p>\n<p>Good outcomes are clear, assessable, and pitched at the right level. They should reflect the relevant qualifications framework, subject benchmark statements and any professional expectations, while still sounding meaningful to students and external readers. They should also make the level of study visible. For example, undergraduate learning may focus on established knowledge and supported application, and later stages might show increasing independence, criticality, synthesis, and judgement. Postgraduate outcomes should normally signal advanced knowledge, complexity, and a greater degree of autonomy.<\/p>\n<p>It is helpful to draft outcomes in a small number of domains, such as knowledge and understanding, intellectual skills, practical or professional skills, and transferable skills. The exact categories matter less than the discipline and the clarity of the statements. Avoid outcomes that are too broad to assess, too numerous to map, or dependent on one narrow mode of expression unless that mode is an essential competence standard.<\/p>\n<p>Graduate &#8216;Skills for Success&#8217; should be treated as part of the programme design rather than a separate layer of language. The question is not simply whether an Skill can be mapped to a module, but how students will practice, receive feedback on and articulate that capability. Communication, collaboration, ethical awareness, independence, resilience, enterprise and reflective practice are strongest when they are embedded in authentic learning and assessment across the programme.<\/p>\n \n\n                        <div class=\"alert alert\">        \n            \n            <div class=\"alert-body\">            \n                <h3>Programme Development: the student perspective<\/h3>                <p>\u2018The idea of building assessments that progressively develop our skills over time makes a lot of sense, especially in helping us feel more prepared for the bigger, more complex tasks later on. I think this kind of structure would be especially helpful for new undergraduates, but it\u2019s also just as relevant for PGT and PGR students who are working on long-term projects.\u2019 (PGR student)<\/p>\n            <\/div>\n        <\/div> \n\n    \n<p><strong>Writing Inclusive Programme Learning Outcomes<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>When designing Programme Learning Outcomes, you are creating the conditions by which\u00a0all\u00a0students will be assessed, whatever\u00a0their dimensions of diversity\u00a0or characteristics. It is therefore essential that you write your learning outcomes in such a way that maximises flexibility, choice and equity in your assessments, to avoid unintended institutionalised discrimination.<\/p>\n<p>Writing inclusive Programme Learning Outcomes ensures\u00a0all\u00a0students can demonstrate what they know, or can do, to enable them to meet the learning outcomes to their potential. This\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Q0F_4DWtr08&amp;t=2s&amp;ab_channel=IncludeTrinity\">useful video from the Bologna Agreement group<\/a>\u00a0explains more.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Universal Design and Inclusive Programme Learning Outcomes<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The new Universal Design for Learning Guidance can also help us frame our Programme Learning Outcomes, particularly in relation to Multiple Means of Action and Expression, as learners differ in the ways they navigate a learning environment, approach the learning process, and express what they know. Visit our Universal Design for Learning section of the &#8216;Empowering Students to Fulfil their Potential&#8217; page for more information.<\/p>\n<p>It is essential to design for varying forms of action and expression.\u00a0For example, all individuals approach learning tasks very differently, and may prefer to express themselves in written text but not speech, and vice versa.\u00a0It may not always be feasible to build in multiple options or choices for every activity or assessment, if a competence standard must be reached, but there should be diversity in assessment mode, as far as possible.<\/p>\n<p>It should also be recognised that action and expression require a great deal of strategy, practice, and organisation, and this is another area in which learners will differ.\u00a0In reality,\u00a0there is not one means of action and expression that will be optimal for every learner; options for action and expression are essential.<\/p>\n<p><strong>A note on competence standards<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>When writing Programme Learning Outcomes, it is important to distinguish between the standard students must achieve and the particular way they are asked to demonstrate it. A competence standard is an essential academic, professional or practical requirement that a student must meet in order to progress or receive the award. These may be especially relevant in professionally regulated programmes, practice-based disciplines, safety-critical contexts, or where specific communication, technical, clinical, creative or practical capabilities are genuinely central to the award.<\/p>\n<p>Not every Programme Learning Outcome will be a competence standard. Teams should avoid treating assessment methods, traditional disciplinary habits or preferred formats as competence standards unless they are genuinely essential. For example, the ability to communicate clearly may be an essential outcome, but a particular mode of communication, such as a live presentation or handwritten examination, may only be necessary if that mode is itself central to the discipline or professional context.<\/p>\n<p>You have a responsibility to clearly define the competence standards for the programme, before writing the PLOs, to ensure Reasonable Adjustments for disabled students\u2019 assessments can be addressed, under the Equality Act 2010 provisions. Reasonable adjustments cannot be made that will compromise the competence standards of programmes or modules, as the Equality Act places no duty to make a reasonable adjustment to a competence standard.<\/p>\n<p>Where a competence standard is required, it should be clearly stated, academically justified and aligned with the programme\u2019s purpose, level and external requirements. Reasonable adjustments may still be needed to the way the standard is taught or assessed, provided the adjustment does not compromise the standard itself. This is why careful wording matters: outcomes should protect the integrity of the award while avoiding unnecessary barriers to students demonstrating their learning.<\/p>\n<p>This milestone should leave the team with a clear account of the programme\u2019s graduate profile: what graduates will be able to do, why those capabilities matter, where they are developed, and how students will know they are making progress.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/intranet.cardiff.ac.uk\/staff\/supporting-your-work\/teach-and-support-students\/teach-and-assess-students\/assessment-and-feedback\/preparing-and-supporting-students\/reasonable-adjustments\">More guidance and the Policy and Procedure for Reasonable Adjustments for Disabled Students<\/a>\u00a0can be found on the Cardiff University intranet. There have been recent legal developments in this area in 2024, with\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/betacdn.equalityhumanrights.com\/guidance\/advice-note-higher-education-sector-legal-case-university-bristol-vs-abrahart#what-we-think-compliance-with-the-law-looks-like-now\">guidance produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission:<\/a>\u00a0it is recommended that you read this before writing your PLOs.<\/p>\n<h2>Milestone 3: Assessment planning, design and delivery<\/h2>\n<p>Assessment is central to programme design because it shapes how students study and provides the evidence that learning outcomes have been achieved. The assessment plan should therefore be developed at programme level before individual module assessments are finalised. This helps teams avoid over-assessment, bunching of deadlines, repeated assessment types and gaps in the evidence base.<\/p>\n<p>A good programme assessment strategy explains how assessment supports learning across the student journey. It should show where students practice key skills before they are summatively assessed, where they receive formative feedback, how feedback is expected to feed forward, and how assessment becomes more complex as students progress. It should also show how assessment is inclusive, manageable, and proportionate to credit and level.<\/p>\n \n\n                        <div class=\"alert alert alert-success with-icon \">        \n                            <div class=\"alert-icon\">\n                    <svg class=\"icon\"  xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/1999\/xlink\" viewBox=\"0 0 96 96\" shape-rendering=\"geometricPrecision\" text-rendering=\"geometricPrecision\"><g><path d=\"M48,20c1.1,0,2,.9,2,2s-.9,2-2,2-2-.9-2-2s.9-2,2-2ZM60,80c0-1.1-.9-2-2-2h-7v-50.8c.9-.5,1.7-1.3,2.2-2.2h19.2L66.8,54h4.1l4.4-22.8L80.9,54h4.1L77.7,25h1.3c1.7,0,3-1.3,3-3s-1.3-3-3-3h-25.8c-.5-.9-1.3-1.7-2.2-2.2v-5.8c0-1.7-1.3-3-3-3s-3,1.3-3,3v5.8c-.9.5-1.7,1.3-2.2,2.2L17,19c-1.7,0-3,1.3-3,3c0,1.4,1,2.7,2.4,2.9L10.7,54h4.1l4.4-22.8L24.9,54h4.1L21.7,25h21c.5.9,1.3,1.7,2.2,2.2v50.8h-7c-1.1,0-2,.9-2,2v2L24,82v6h48v-6h-12v-2Z\"\/><path d=\"M32,57h-24c0,3.3,5.4,6,12,6s12-2.7,12-6Z\"\/><path d=\"M64,57c0,3.3,5.4,6,12,6s12-2.7,12-6h-24Z\"\/><\/g><\/svg>                <\/div>\n            \n            <div class=\"alert-body\">            \n                <h3>Programme Development: reflecting on your assessments<\/h3>                <p>Programme teams should look across the whole assessment map and ask:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Does every programme learning outcome have credible assessment evidence?<\/li>\n<li>Are assessment methods varied enough to let students demonstrate different kinds of learning?<\/li>\n<li>Are deadlines, workload, and word or time limits broadly consistent for similar tasks?<\/li>\n<li>Where group work, presentations, practical tasks or professional judgements are used, are criteria and moderation arrangements clear?<\/li>\n<li>Can students understand what good performance looks like and how feedback will help them improve?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n            <\/div>\n        <\/div> \n\n    \n<p>Assessment should be authentic where this genuinely supports the discipline, but authenticity is not a label to add at the end. It means the task has a clear purpose, connects to the kinds of thinking or practice valued in the subject, and allows students to demonstrate achievement at the right academic level. In some programmes, this may mean public-facing outputs, portfolios, professional artefacts, applied projects or reflective work. In others, traditional essays, examinations, or problem sets may remain appropriate. The important point is alignment: the method should fit the learning outcome and the standard being judged.<\/p>\n<p><strong>A note on AI and the two-lane approach<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Programme teams should consider how each assessment will work in an environment where generative AI is widely available. The two-lane approach can help here. Some assessments will need to provide secure assurance of learning, particularly where progression, award integrity, professional requirements or threshold competence are at stake. Others can be designed as open assessment for and as learning, where students may use AI but must show their own reasoning, judgement, evidence use and critical evaluation.<\/p>\n<p>The key point is to choose the lane because of the learning outcome and the purpose of the assessment, not simply because AI feels either useful or risky. Lane 1 should be used where the programme needs confidence that the student can demonstrate particular knowledge or capability under appropriate assurance conditions. Lane 2 should be designed so that AI use is educationally productive, transparent and connected to disciplinary standards. In both cases, assessment briefs should be clear about what is permitted, what is expected, and how the student\u2019s own contribution will be judged.<\/p>\n<p>For more guidance and information on AI and assessment, see the toolkit section on AI.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Inclusive Assessment and Feedback<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In the Cardiff University Enhancement Model, and the\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.inclusiveeducationframework.info\/\">Inclusive Education Framework (2023)<\/a>, a series of considerations are highlighted for programme teams for assessment and feedback. To consider the inclusivity of your assessments:<\/p>\n<p>1 Map your assessments to the Programme Learning Outcomes:<\/p>\n<p>Identify any challenges for diversity: are there any particular forms of assessment which are over-represented (for example written vs speech, exam vs coursework)? (see Inclusive Programme Assessment Mapping, below).<\/p>\n<p>2. Map your assessments by student journey<\/p>\n<p>Identify: bunching, early and low-stakes preparation for assessment types, potential options for adding choice in assessment, and adequate support for new or innovative assessment types. Consider what might be offered as\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/sites.cardiff.ac.uk\/education-development-toolkit\/theme-overview\/inclusivity\/disability-and-dyslexia\/\">alternative assessments for students with Reasonable Adjustments due to disability,<\/a>\u00a0if inclusive design is not available due to competence standards.<\/p>\n<p>3. Map the socially constructed nature of your assessments:<\/p>\n<p>Assessment practices can be created through the use of \u2018folk pedagogy\u2019, using unquestioned and habitual forms, which are normalised and can marginalise and exclude certain students for whom such practices are unfamiliar and inaccessible. Analyse your assessments through the lens of Universal Design for Learning and Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP) (Hanesworth et al. 2019), being aware that we may use familiar practices (such as the domination of the written essay in UK universities), over those more familiar in other countries (such as oral examination or group work).<\/p>\n<h3>Inclusive Programme Assessment Mapping<\/h3>\n<p>To map the inclusivity of assessments on a programme, we need to apply the principles of Universal Design for Learning in enabling students\u2019 Multiple Means of Action and Expression. Identifying the modes of assessment across a programme enables us to analyse the range of different modes of assessment offered, and the potential barriers to attainment for groups of students. If analysed as a colour coded module-based timeline, the dominance and flow of modes of assessment becomes apparent:<\/p>\n<figure id=\"post-7502 media-7502\" class=\"image align-none\"><img decoding=\"async\" style=\"width: 365px;height: 246px\" src=\"https:\/\/sites.cardiff.ac.uk\/education-development-toolkit\/files\/2024\/11\/module-based-timeline.jpg\" alt=\"A 3 year map of a programme, showing assessments by mode for each semester. Semester 1 essay exam presentation Practical experiment group project exam. Semester 2 exam essay essay exam portfolio essay.\" \/><\/figure>\n<p>Figure: A module-based timeline of modes of assessment.<\/p>\n<p>This approach enables us to see in this example that there is a reasonable range of assessment modes across the programme, with some oral, digital and practical forms of assessment. However, assessments in semester 2 in years one and two all use written modes of assessment: dyslexic students, or those with English as an additional language, might find this more challenging. Oral forms of assessment create less barriers to learning than these academic written assessment modes for these students, so a change to one or two of these assessment modes would be more equitable for your diverse students.<\/p>\n<p>In terms of progression, presentations are usefully introduced in the first year before higher-stakes presentation assessments in later years. However, MCQs (multiple choice questions) are not introduced in year 1, and the research project of the dissertation could be supported by earlier, smaller research projects in years 1 and\/or 2.<\/p>\n<h2>Milestone 4: Module design<\/h2>\n<p>The final milestone brings the programme design into the module descriptions. Modules are where students encounter the curriculum in practice, but they should not be designed in isolation. Each module needs a clear role in the programme: introducing, developing, consolidating, or assessing particular knowledge and skills.<\/p>\n<p>Module learning outcomes should be specific enough to guide teaching and assessment, but not so narrow that they become a list of weekly topics. They should align with the module level, credit value, and assessment methods. If a module contributes to a programme learning outcome, students should be able to see where that contribution happens and what evidence they will produce.<\/p>\n<p>The module description should also make the learning experience visible. This includes the indicative content, learning activities, assessment tasks, reassessment arrangements, and any requirements linked to placements, practical work, fieldwork, digital tools, or professional standards. Where students have a choice, the boundaries of that choice should be clear. Where flexibility is limited by competence standards or professional requirements, the rationale should be transparent.<\/p>\n<p>Inclusive module design means considering accessibility, workload, assessment preparation, and feedback from the beginning. Teams should look for unnecessary barriers in teaching methods, resources, assessment formats, and assumptions about prior knowledge. Not every module can offer unlimited choice, but every module should be designed so that students understand what is expected and have a fair opportunity to demonstrate the required learning.<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\">Working through the milestones<\/h2>\n<figure id=\"post-11161 media-11161\" class=\"image align-centre\" style=\"padding-left: 240px\"><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone aligncenter\" style=\"width: 179px;height: 116px\" src=\"https:\/\/sites.cardiff.ac.uk\/education-development-toolkit\/files\/2026\/10\/milestones-2.png\" alt=\"\" \/><\/figure>\n<p>Programme development works best as a collaborative process. Academic teams bring the disciplinary vision; students and graduates bring lived experience of the curriculum; professional services colleagues bring expertise in quality, regulation, data, employability, learning design and delivery; and external advisers bring sector, employer or professional perspectives. The strongest proposals usually show evidence of this dialogue.<\/p>\n<p>By the end of Stage 2, the programme documentation should tell one consistent story. The rationale should explain why the programme is needed. The structure should show how it works. The learning outcomes should define the award standard. The assessment strategy should show how achievement will be evidenced. The module descriptions should make the student learning journey visible. If those elements align, the approval documentation becomes more than a set of forms: it becomes a clear account of a coherent, inclusive and academically credible programme.<\/p>\n<p>Teams do not need to make every decision alone or resolve every issue in the first draft. The purpose of the milestones is to create useful points for discussion, testing and refinement. Used well, they help programme teams move from a promising idea to a programme that students can navigate, staff can deliver, and reviewers can understand.<\/p>\n<h2>Where Next?<\/h2>\n<h3>Link to other toolkit pages<\/h3>\n<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Once your stage 2 Programme Development approval is granted, as highlighted above, you will begin to draw the detail into module design, before creating and designing sessions. Read more on the next &#8216;Module and Session Design&#8217; Page.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">You can also read more detail about design principles for &#8216;Inclusive Design&#8217;and using the ABC method in your design, in other pages in this section.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<h3><span data-contrast=\"none\">Additional resources and references.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;134245418&quot;:true,&quot;134245529&quot;:true,&quot;335559738&quot;:160,&quot;335559739&quot;:80}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Cardiff University staff can read much more on Programme Scoping and Development on <a href=\"https:\/\/intranet.cardiff.ac.uk\/staff\/supporting-your-work\/teach-and-support-students\/teach-and-assess-students\/curriculum-and-programme-design\/approving-and-managing-programmes\">the &#8216;Approving and Managing Programmes&#8217; intranet pages.\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Programme Development Programme development is the point at which an idea becomes a coherent student learning experience. It is more than completing approval paperwork. The task is to design a [&hellip;]","protected":false},"author":9344,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10115","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"meta_box":{"cu_accordion":"","cu_alert":"","cu_tabs":"","cu_quote":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.cardiff.ac.uk\/education-development-toolkit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10115","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.cardiff.ac.uk\/education-development-toolkit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.cardiff.ac.uk\/education-development-toolkit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.cardiff.ac.uk\/education-development-toolkit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9344"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.cardiff.ac.uk\/education-development-toolkit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10115"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/sites.cardiff.ac.uk\/education-development-toolkit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10115\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11197,"href":"https:\/\/sites.cardiff.ac.uk\/education-development-toolkit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10115\/revisions\/11197"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.cardiff.ac.uk\/education-development-toolkit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10115"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.cardiff.ac.uk\/education-development-toolkit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10115"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.cardiff.ac.uk\/education-development-toolkit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10115"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}