Guidance and Procedures for the Quality Assurance of Collaborative Provision Contents
Page no.
Introduction
3
A. Definition of Collaborative Provision
3
B. Key Principles
4
C. Policies
4
D. Procedures and Requirements
5
1. Initiation of a Proposal for Collaboration
5
2. The Approval of the Prospective Partner Institution
7
3. Negotiation of the Arrangements for Collaboration
9
4. Approving Proposals for Collaborative Programmes
9
5. The Memorandum of Agreement
10
6. The Register of Collaborative Provision
11
7. Arrangements for Monitoring
12
8. Procedures for Review and Re-Approval
13
9. Procedures for withdrawing from a Collaborative Link__ __ ___
14
10. Student Support in Collaborative Provision
16
11. Students Academic Representation in Collaborative Provision
18
12. Approval of Staff teaching on Collaborative Provision programmes 21 13. Receiving Feedback from Students, Employers and Alumni in Collaborative Provision
22
14. Working with Professional Bodies in Collaborative Provision __
23
15. Academic Advisers in Collaborative Provision
24
Annex 1 Typology of Collaborative Provision
27
1
Annex 2 Collaborative Provision - risk assessment tool
30
Annex 3 Criteria for Approval of Prospective Partner Institutions
32
Annex 4 Areas for agreement with partners (Guidance to Schools, including the approval of Publicity and Marketing)
33
Annex 5 Programme Proposals
42
Annex 6 Criteria to be Applied by Faculty Quality Committees
43
Annex 7 Job Description for a Student Programme Representative
43
Template reproduced with the permission of the University of Newcastle.
2
Introduction The University is responsible for the academic standards of awards made in its name, irrespective of whether it delivers the programme itself or whether this is done in whole or part by another institution, i.e. through collaborative provision. The purpose of this document is to set out appropriate policies, procedures and requirements that will enable the University to fulfil its responsibilities for the standards of its collaborative provision. The document is divided into four parts covering 1) definitions 2) key principles 3) policies and (4) procedures.
A. Definition of collaborative provision Collaborative provision may be defined as all arrangements in which the University makes an award (solely or jointly) or gives credit towards an award on the basis of education provided by another institution or institution in the UK or overseas. Any collaborative activity that results in an award of the University of Manchester is subject to Institutional Approval by the Vice- President (Teaching and Learning). There are, of course, a variety of types of collaborative arrangements, including accreditation, articulation, franchising, joint programmes, Split Site PhDs, consortium agreements, Erasmus Mundus, award of credit and validation. The University acknowledges that these different types of arrangements have different implications for the respective responsibilities of the University and the partner institution in relation to recruitment and selection, student registration and regulation, programme design and approval, programme delivery, the quality of the student learning experience, the standards of the credits/award, and for financial matters. The University's typology for collaborative provision is set out in Annex 1. In addition to those links that fall under the definition of collaborative activity, it is also useful to note that there may be other activities, not specifically mentioned here, that need careful consideration under this policy as there may be implied responsibility for standards.
3
B. Key principles The University is responsible for the academic standards of all awards granted in its name: the University's principles are: 1 the academic standards of awards involving collaborative provision must be equivalent to those of comparable awards delivered at the University; 2 the academic standards of such awards must also be compatible with relevant UK referents, including the Framework of Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) and any subject benchmarks; 3 the quality of student learning opportunities and experiences on collaborative programmes should enable students to achieve the appropriate academic standards.
C. Policies In pursuit of these principles, the University has the following policies in relation to collaborative provision: 1 it will only consider collaboration with partner institutions which have the academic standing to successfully deliver programmes to appropriate academic standards, the financial standing to sustain them, and the legal standing to contract to their delivery; 2 it will only approve programmes taught in whole or partially in partner institutions which meet appropriate academic standards and which offer the learning opportunities and experiences necessary for students to attain those standards; 3 it will only negotiate arrangements for collaboration with partner institutions which will enable it to effectively discharge its responsibilities for the academic standards of awards; 4 it requires that these arrangements should be set out in the form of a legally binding agreement or contract, that will be monitored and reviewed every five years. The University reserves the right to terminate the collaboration subject to safeguards for students.
4
D. Procedures and requirements Procedures and requirements cover (1) approval in principle (2) approval of the partner and negotiation of the arrangements for collaborative provision (3) approval of the proposed programme (4) the Memorandum of Agreement (5) the Register of Collaborative Provision (6) arrangements for monitoring (7) arrangements for review and re-approval and (8) procedures for withdrawal from a collaborative agreement. In addition it details other quality assurance processes such as approval of partner staff, the role of the academic advisers, use of external examiners and withdrawing from links. As well as general advice on the role of students support, receiving feedback from students, employers and alumni, use of student representation and working with professional bodies in collaborative provision.
1
Initiation of a proposal for collaboration
Approaches made from outside the University will be directed to the appropriate Faculty for consideration in liaison with the School/s. A proposal for collaboration may be initiated by a prospective partner institution or by a School, Faculty or the University’s senior managers. The initial proposal (template available from the TLSO) should indicate: 1 the rationale for collaboration; 2 the programme or programmes which would be the subject of the collaboration; 3 the type of collaboration (accreditation, articulation, franchise, validation, multiple or dual awards, or specified hybrids) 4 the name of the prospective partner institution(s); 5 an indication of the number of students which might be enrolled; 6 an outline of the business case for the proposal (including the costs of establishing the partnership, details of any visits made, possible external examiners etc.); 7 an assessment of risk associated with the link; 8 approval by the Director of International Development (where appropriate). Approval of collaborations at all levels of the University structure The proposal should be pre-approved by the Head of School, Dean of Faculty and the Director of International Development (where appropriate). Note: Faculties should have their own processes in place to deal with the consideration of proposed links and approval, prior to the Institutional approval. This process must also include the approval of the programme (NPP1/2). Where the delivery is delegated in whole or in part to another institution, final approval will be required from the Vice-President (Teaching and Learning). The proposal and
5
pre-approvals are sent to the Teaching and Learning Manager (Quality), Teaching and Learning Support Office (TLSO). This proposal, including the pre-approvals and costings, should be accompanied by a risk assessment of the proposed partnership, using the indicators set out in Annex 2. The risk assessment score will be considered. If it falls into the "high risk" area, a further, more detailed risk assessment may be requested. The following types of activity can be approved by School and Faculty, in liaison with the Directorate of International Development when necessary (refer to Annex 1 typology of collaborative provision): Memorandum of understanding Research collaborations Individual split site PhDs Exchanges (staff and students) Articulation agreements The following types of activity can be pre-approved by School and Faculty, in liaison with the Directorate of International Development when necessary. In addition, they must receive institutional approval from the Vice-President (Teaching and Learning) (refer to Annex 1 - typology of collaborative provision): Franchise Validation Institutional split site PhD arrangements Erasmus Mundus Consortium agreements Joint Programmes Distance delivery of University of Manchester programmes Partner delivering credit towards a University award Articulation (guaranteed progression) Note: if in doubt and you are unable to identify your chosen activity in the typology of collaborative provision, please contact the TLSO for advice on the approval process.
Institutional approval in principle The proposal and pre-approvals are submitted to the Vice-President (Teaching and Learning). The Vice-President will nominate a panel for the "approval in principle meeting", managed by the TLSO, who will make preliminary judgements about: 1 whether there is a sound rationale for the proposed collaboration; 2 whether the proposed collaboration is consistent with ’Towards Manchester 2015’ and the University's International Strategy; 3 whether it would be appropriate to undertake the proposed collaboration in view of
6
the University's existing collaborative arrangements and other commitments; 4 whether the proposed collaboration will command the commitment and support of the School, Faculty and senior management of the University and of the prospective partner institution. Consideration will be given to: 1 whether the outline business case is sound, particularly in the light of the requirement that overseas provision should not be cross-subsidised by HEFCE funding. 2 risk to the University. The panel will produce a short written report on these matters and will recommend to the Vice-President (Teaching and Learning) whether the proposal should proceed. In the case of overseas provision, irrespective of type, the approval panel must be satisfied that students will have the competence in English necessary to attain the standards of the award. For all types of collaborative programmes, the approval panel must be satisfied that there is a sound business case for the programme based upon realistic projections of revenues and full and accurate costing of activities. Particularly in the case of overseas provision, costs should include the travel and subsistence of staff involved in liaison, where appropriate in teaching, and in quality assurance and enhancement. Costs should also include those incurred in setting up the programme.
2
The institutional approval of the prospective partner institution
If a recommendation to proceed is agreed, the TLSO will invite the prospective partner institution to prepare a self-profile with supporting evidence including for example its mission statement, strategic plan, institution structure, arrangements for the assurance of quality and standards, relevant accounts, reports from funding or external quality bodies, business plans, and where appropriate bankers' references. In cases of overseas proposed partner institutions, the School will seek additional evidence and advice on the legal, financial and cultural environment (particularly in relation to quality and standards and language issues) from relevant national government offices and agencies, UK bodies with a presence in the country such as the British Council, UK NARIC, UK government offices. Staff in the Directorate of International Development will be able to assist Schools with the collation this information. In cases where prospective partner institutions are known to have, or to have had, previous relationships with other UK awarding institutions, the latter should be contacted by the TLSO as to the standing and effectiveness of the prospective partner, particularly
7
in cases where the awarding institution has withdrawn from the partnership. Where the risk assessment of the proposed collaboration submitted to the approval in principle meeting has indicated that there is a medium or high risk in collaborating with the prospective partner, the Vice-President (Teaching and Learning) will require that a review team visit the institution. The review team will normally include: 1 a senior member of the academic staff from a Faculty other than that or those involved in the proposed collaboration; 2 a member of the TLSO. The team should gather relevant evidence and present this in a report to the Dean of Faculty. The Dean of Faculty should evaluate all of the evidence, including where appropriate that gathered during the visit, against the criteria set out in Annex 3, and recommend to the Vice-President (Teaching and Learning) whether, or not to proceed to a full Institutional approval and the final panel event. Panel event Once all the information on the potential partner has been received it will be forwarded to the approval event panel members. Ideally this panel will include the same people as the original "approval in principle" meeting. The panel will have access to all documentation relating to the collaboration, including the initial approval of the partner institution, the draft Memorandum of Agreement, and approval paperwork for the programme/s. The panel will also consider whether due process has been followed at previous stages and whether the relevant criteria at each stage have been met. If it is satisfied that this is the case, it will recommend approval of the collaboration to the Vice President (Teaching and Learning). The final decision to approve the collaborative link will be taken by the Vice-President (Teaching and Learning).
8
3
Negotiation of the arrangements for collaboration
Once the partner institution has been approved in principle, the next step is to agree arrangements for the collaboration with the partner institution. The areas for agreement are set out in Annex 4. The agreed arrangements should be set out in a draft agreement. Where the link spans more than one Faculty it is required that a ‘lead ‘ Faculty take responsibility for the negotiations and the management of the link, with participation from the other parties involved through a steering group.
4
Approving proposals for collaborative programmes (NPP1 and NPP2)
Once general arrangements for a collaboration have been agreed, it is then possible to consider and, where appropriate, approve the proposal for the specific programme/s to be provided upon a collaborative basis. The University’s procedure for approving new programmes should be completed for each programme, including a programme specification, unit specifications, and draft regulations. It is recommended that the Faculty Committee responsible for approving the programme/s also receive a copy of the draft agreement.
9
5
The Memorandum of Agreement
Once the Vice-President (Teaching and Learning) has approved the collaboration, the final Memorandum of Agreement should be finalised. The TLSO will manage the process for drafting and signing the document and there is a template available. The template agreement clearly sets out the following requirements: 1 responsibilities for publicity and marketing and, where appropriate, agreed procedures for University approval; 2 responsibilities for admissions and, where appropriate, agreed procedures for monitoring entry standards; 3 responsibilities for enrolment and registration; 4 minimum and maximum student numbers; 5 responsibilities for student support and guidance; 6 responsibilities for student progression, including the maintenance of student and other designated records during the course of the agreement, after its termination, and in the event of the partner institution ceasing to exist; 7 responsibilities for student discipline, complaints, and appeals; 8 arrangements for the conduct of examination and assessment; 9 the appointment and role of external examiners; 10 quality assurance arrangements; 11 the duration of the agreement and arrangements to review it; 12 provision to enable the University to seek arbitration or suspend or terminate the agreement in the event of the partner institution failing to fulfil its obligations; 13 residual obligations to students on the termination of the agreement; 14 responsibilities for managing and issuing certificates and transcripts; 15 mechanisms for administering the collaboration; 16 the language of instruction and assessment and, in the event that this is not English, responsibilities for the authoritative translation of documents and the quality assurance of translations; 17 financial arrangements including costings, the recording of all financial transactions with the partner institution, safeguards against financial pressures compromising standards and the interests of students, confirmation of who is to pay travel, accommodation, external examiner and subsistence expenses; 18 legal arrangements, including the legal jurisdiction under which disputes will be resolved; 19 annexes with details of the programme(s) covered by the agreement. The School and Faculty must agree the contents of the agreement with the partner, before sending the draft document to the TLSO, for signing by the Registrar and Secretary.
10
6
The Register of Collaborative Provision
Once the written agreement has been concluded and signed, the TLSO will enter the collaboration in the University's official Register of Collaborative Provision. The information held on the Register includes: 1 the name, address and nature of the partner institution; 2 the date of the formal agreement or contract, the dates on which it is to be reviewed, and the dates on which it will end; 3 the nature of the collaboration, the programmes and awards involved; 4 details of individuals in the University (the Head of School) and the partner institution (the Programme Director or similar) with responsibility for overseeing the arrangement; 5 the language of assessment used in the programme. Any changes to the details held on the Register must be reported at the earliest possible opportunity to the TLSO, in particular where partners indicate an intention to withdraw from the arrangement and/or where it is proposed to contract with a new partner.
11
7
Arrangements for monitoring
The Faculty monitors the quality and standards of provision through the University’s quality framework. The School Quality Committee (or similar) includes collaborative programmes in its annual monitoring return to the relevant Faculty Committee which is responsible for monitoring the quality and standards of provision. The Faculty Committee is responsible for identifying any issues of concern, taking them up with the School, evaluating their responses, and monitoring the implementation of action plans. In addition, the School receives the report of the external examiner for collaborative programmes leading to a University award. The Faculty has to be satisfied that any outstanding issues have been addressed and resolved so as to maintain the security of standards. If, in its consideration of internal or external reports on the quality and standards of provision, the School or Faculty perceive that quality and/or standards of the award are threatened and the partner institution is unable or unwilling to take remedial action, it should immediately notify the Dean of Faculty, the Vice-President (Teaching and Learning) and the TLSO. The latter should conduct a full investigation of the matter. If the threat is confirmed, and subject to safeguards for students, the Vice-President (Teaching and Learning) on the advice of the Dean of Faculty may recommend that the agreement should be suspended pending remedial action, or that it should be terminated. It is also required that collaborative programmes are periodically reviewed every five years and this should be a periodic review of the programme(s) culminating in an Institutional Review of the Partner. Where delivery is fully devolved to a partner institution, the TLSO organises the review event. Where delivery is joint/ shared between a School or centre, Faculties will remain responsible for the periodic review of the programme but TLSO will remain responsible for the Institutional Review element. Annually, an extended meeting of the Teaching and Learning Group receives a report, prepared by the TLSO in consultation with Faculties, which includes summaries of any periodical and institutional reviews that have taken place in that academic year, new collaborative links that have been approved, and issues arising from external examiner reports.
12
8
Procedures for review and re-approval of agreements
At the end of the five year period, the agreement will be subject to formal review by the University. The review will seek to establish: 1 whether the rationale for the collaboration remains valid; 2 whether the collaboration remains aligned with ‘Towards Manchester 2015’; 3 whether the collaboration remains appropriate in the context of the University's commitments; 4 whether it continues to command the support of the School, Faculty and senior managers in the University and the partner institution; 5 whether the partner institution retains appropriate academic, financial, and legal status; 6 whether the programme will continue to meet the appropriate academic standards and offer students the learning opportunities and experiences necessary to achieve them; 7 whether the arrangements for collaboration will continue to enable it to effectively discharge its responsibilities for the academic standards of awards and the quality of the student learning experience; 8 whether the business case remains valid. The review is undertaken by the Vice-President (Teaching and Learning) or nominee. A panel is convened with representatives from the relevant Faculty and School and the TLSO. Refer to the procedure for the Institutional review of collaborative provision. The panel reviews the evidence against the criteria above and, if it is satisfied that they are met, recommends that the collaboration be re-approved. If the panel is not satisfied but considers that the criteria could be met after improvements are made, it may recommend that the collaboration continue for a defined period, following which it is subject to further review. If, either initially or after further review, the panel is not satisfied that the criteria have been met, it will recommend that the agreement be terminated subject to safeguards for students and the programme removed from the Register. The panel reports to the Head of School and the Associate Dean, whom will recommend continuation of the link to the Dean of the Faculty who will then make the final decision to re-approve a link for a further five years.
13
9
Procedure for withdrawal from a collaborative agreement
A collaborative agreement may come to an end for various reasons: a partner institution may successfully achieve degree-awarding powers; a partner may decide to cease offering a programme; or the University may decide, following a review, that a collaboration no longer fits with its strategic plan. Withdrawal must be carefully managed so as to ensure that academic standards and the quality of experience are maintained for remaining students. Responsibilities 1. Until all students have completed or have left the programme or programmes, the following will apply. The University will continue to appoint External Examiners; to provide an Academic Adviser or equivalent; and to convene a forum for University and partner staff to meet in order to discuss issues relating to the programme or programmes. 2 The partner institution will continue to undertake annual monitoring in accordance with the University’s current procedures. 3 The University will continue to undertake periodic review in accordance with the University’s current procedures. 4 The partner institution will continue to apply the approved procedures for the assessment of students. 5 The partner institution will continue to pay fees to the University as previously agreed. Special arrangements may be made for students who interrupt their programme or repeat a year. Arrangements In all cases the withdrawal decision must be communicated promptly to the University by the partner institution or to the partner institution by the University. Communication of the decision must allow sufficient time for detailed arrangements to be discussed and agreed. An action plan must be agreed via a meeting of the appropriate Associate Dean, one or more senior representatives of the partner institution, the Academic Adviser or Advisers, and the Head of TLSO (or nominee). In the case of postgraduate research collaborations, the meeting will also include the Head of Graduate Education, Research Office (or nominee). The notes of this discussion plus the action plan will serve as the exit agreement. The action plan will include an agreed date for final student admissions to the programme or programmes that are the subject of the collaborative agreement. The partner institution will prepare a programme withdrawal form for submission to the
14
appropriate Faculty (as detailed in the procedure for programme withdrawal). Following the completion or departure of the final students, the University will write to the partner institution to confirm the termination of the collaborative agreement. The timeline for completion of the withdrawal will be agreed by the University with the partner institution on a case-by-case basis. Internal collaboration Although the foregoing is intended for collaborations with external partner institutions, similar considerations apply to internal collaborations where one School wishes to withdraw from providing all or part of a programme to another School or from receiving all or part of a programme from another School.
15
10 Student Support in Collaborative Provision Scope The University of Manchester is responsible for the standards of the awards it makes in collaboration with partner institutions and for the quality of the student learning experience they provide. It is therefore concerned to define what student support should be provided by collaborative partners where it does not provide that support itself. In collaborative provision, two types of student are distinguished: registered and associate students. The responsibility for their support differs accordingly. •
Registered students pay fees directly to The University of Manchester and therefore the University provides support and access to learning resources directly.
•
Associate students pay their fees to a collaborative partner and therefore the partner has responsibility devolved to them to provide support and access to learning resources.
Support by The University of Manchester for Registered Students In accordance with its general policy on collaborative provision, the University will provide registered students on collaborative programmes with support equivalent to that provided to registered students on other programmes. Support may however be subject to geographical constraints (e.g. disability support cannot normally be provided at a distance). Support by the University of Manchester for Associate Students Associate students do not normally have access to support services supplied by the University. Nevertheless, they can use the Careers Service resource centres and some areas of its website, and those who are able to visit the Library can borrow books and can access on-line resources for one day. Any additional access will be only as stated in the details of an agreement negotiated with the collaborative partner. Support by Collaborative Partners for Associate Students The following defines the minimum set of roles and services the University expects to find as support for associate students at a collaborative partner. The University will seek assurances of a partner’s ability to provide such roles and services during institutional approval and review. The University accepts that because of the different sizes and structures of institutions, there may not be posts or offices that carry exactly the specified title and that a variety of staff and units may provide the specified roles and services.
16
Programme level support Academic programme director Administrative contact Personal Tutor Personal Development Planning Peer representation Institutional level support Library resources and learning resources support Information Technology resources and support Disability support Counselling support Accommodation advice Financial advice Careers advice Central oversight of administration and records Information Programme Specification Student Handbook, including Programme regulations and mitigating circumstances procedures Academic malpractice policy Appeals procedure Complaints procedure Notice boards/Website Advice on Data Protection and Freedom of Information legislation Transcript of results/Diploma Supplement Information about the University and the nature of the partnership Social support Sports facilities Student societies Students’ Union (or similar)
17
11 Student Academic Representation in Collaborative Provision Introduction This document clarifies the valuable role of student academic representation within the University and our collaborative partners. The guidelines set out minimum expectations for student academic representation that each Partner, in liaison with the appropriate school can then develop to suit their specific needs. Each partner must, however, ensure that sufficient methods of student representation are available. Mechanisms for student representation should be reviewed in periodic, annual and Institutional review events. The document covers all students. However, some areas will require adaptations to suit the specific needs of particular types of programmes and levels of study. The Importance of Student Academic Representation Students form the heart of the University. The University of Manchester is committed to receiving and responding to student feedback in order to bring about improvement in the quality of the student experience and development of learning and teaching within the institution. The core principle is that all students studying collaboratively should have the opportunity to contribute to and enhance their experience. Definition of Student Academic Representation Student representation covers a diverse range of activities and structures and student feedback can be provided by a number of different means. For example, through evaluation questionnaires, the personal tutorial system or through students being present at Staff-Student Liaison Committees or Programme Committees. Representation enables dialogue between students and staff in order to aid development of programmes of study, the student experience and the quality of the institution as a whole. This dialogue can take place in both formal and informal structures and circumstances. Student Academic Representatives (Reps) will be defined in this document as those students on a particular programme of study who have been chosen by their peers to represent the interests of their peer group on Programme Committees, Staff-Student Liaison Committees, other School or Faculty committees or other appropriate groups. The Underlying Principles of Student Representation 1. There should be forums which enable discussion between students and staff at each of the following levels and which are suitable to the particular structures inherent within the levels:-
18
• • •
Programme or Discipline (dependant on number of programmes) Partner Institution University (through annual, periodic review) 2. All students should be able to contribute to and enhance their experience while studying at the partner institution. All students should have an opportunity to become a Student Representative to represent their programme, institution. 3. There should be a democratic process to select student representatives. 4. Student Representatives should always be invited to relevant meetings. If a student representative is unable to be present, the Chair should feedback information to the rep by use of email, etc. If the Chair is aware that a rep is unable to attend a meeting which has specific student matters are on the agenda, the Chair may wish to contact the student rep prior to the meeting to request any comments or suggest sending an alternative rep in their place. 5. Partners should assign a member of staff to act as Student Representation Coordinator to be the first point of contact for students and representatives on representation issues and to co-ordinate student representation within the School. 6. Particular consideration should be given to those students who are either parttime, postgraduate students, on multidisciplinary programmes or away from their normal place of study on placements. Mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that these particular students have access to representation structures. Meetings should be planned at times/dates which would not unduly prevent these particular students from attending.
Responsibilities of Partner staff 1. Administration and co-ordination of student representation processes is delegated to partner institution, including development of documentation, guidance, recruitment and training. 2. Partner staff should ensure that open, fair elections are organised, with all students having an equal opportunity to put themselves forward to become representatives. 3. It is suggested Representatives:• • •
that
the
partner
provides
the
following
to
Student
a pigeon hole and notice board. specific information on the committee/body that they are a member of adequate notice of meeting dates and ensure that relevant papers are distributed to
19
•
Student Representatives the support of a Student Representation Co-ordinator within the partner.
The Role of a Student Representative The main duties include to:1 2 3 4 5 6
liaise between students and staff on matters of mutual interest or concern attend Staff-Student Liaison Committee, Programme Committee or other relevant meetings voice student views to University staff involved in programmes provide two-way feedback on the quality of units, programmes and teaching provide advice and information to students or refer them to the Students’ Union or other areas of the University in cases of specialised or more complex issues promote active student involvement in the development of programmes
A full “Job Description” can be seen in Annex 7 – Student Programme Representative Job Description.
20
12 Approval of staff teaching on collaborative programmes Background The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) states that staff teaching on an award of the University must be appropriately approved by the Institution. Faculties are responsible for approving collaborative staff, although this maybe delegated to schools. It is suggested that up to date copies of CVs are kept relating to each partner as these maybe requested as part of future QAA audits. All staff who teach on a programme leading to an award or credit of The University of Manchester must be approved by the University before they begin teaching. However, only staff leading a unit/module, managing a programme, giving academic advice to students or supervising a dissertation must be approved. Guest lecturers or staff involved in tutorials and seminar presentations need not be approved as long as they are under supervision of an approved member of staff. Guidelines for approving CP staff The following guidelines are intended: (a)
to indicate what qualifications and qualities the University expects in staff teaching on the programmes, and
(b)
to provide an outline of the information required for the University to be assured that these are met.
Curriculum vitae Current curriculum vitae for all staff teaching on a programme or course unit/module (leading to a University award) should be submitted to the school for approval. This includes all full time, part time and sessional staff. In addition, the curriculum vitae for any staff who are employed to cover for long-term sickness on behalf of approved staff must be submitted for approval The curriculum vitae does not need to be extensive but must provide all the relevant information to allow an informed decision to be made. It is important that the information is relevant to the proposed teaching – normally the curriculum vitae should only be two or three sides of A4 but should clearly indicate the appropriate qualifications and experience. Criteria for Approval The following criteria should be applied when considering whether staff can be approved: •
Anyone teaching at HE level should normally have an appropriate qualification, at
21
a level above that of the programme on which the person would teach. •
Evidence of academic recognition, such as an established record of research publications in the field concerned, should normally be provided. Where this is not available any other evidence should be presented to compensate for the lack of a higher degree.
•
Where necessary, there will be appropriate recognition of the development difficulties faced in the FE context of building HE level teaching, and a willingness to accommodate these to some degree. Where such accommodation has been made, it will be balanced by an active staff development programme designed to ensure that the ‘accommodation’ will not last for too long.
Normally the University expects teaching staff to hold a degree in a relevant subject at a level above that of the programme being taught eg for a BA or BSc degree programme the staff should have at least a Masters qualification; for an MA or MSc they should hold a PhD. However, in some disciplines this is not always possible and other qualifications or experience may be more important. For instance, in vocational subjects professional experience, coupled with an appropriate academic award, may be more appropriate. Where Partner Institutions are nominating staff with non-standard qualifications they should provide a covering letter which explains why the nominee is suitable to teach on the programme and give information on the composition of the overall programme team within which they will be working and any planned staff development. Evidence of an established record of research may also compensate for a higher degree. Although postgraduate teaching certificates may indicate training in the methods and practice of teaching and learning, they are not in themselves adequate and must be supported by appropriate subject-specific qualifications.
13. Receiving Feedback from Students, Employers and Alumni in Collaborative Provision From Students: The University has a minimum requirement for gathering feedback, anonymously from students. The use of a questionnaire is the University’s preferred method. Feedback must be gained as follows: • • •
from each unit or module. from each Programme. from the Institution as a whole, taking into account generic resources such as teaching accommodation, learning resources, catering, halls of residence, careers advice, disability support services, etc.
It is recognised that the format of the gathering of this information will be specific to 22
partners and that smaller partners may combine the programme and Institutional level review into one questionnaire. The University is also receptive to the development of innovations in this area where the use of questionnaires or anonymous feedback is challenged by the mode of study, context of the programme or size of the students population. Developments and innovations should be brought to the attention of the University through annual monitoring and periodic review. Actions resulting from feedback should be fed back to the students via student/ staff liaison or programme committees. From Alumni and Employers: It is recognised that the format of the gathering of this information will be specific to partners. The University is receptive to the development of innovations in this area where the use of questionnaires or anonymous feedback is challenged by the context of the programme, size and location of the student alumni population. Developments and innovations should be brought to the attention of the University through annual monitoring and periodic review. Actions resulting from feedback should be fed back to the alumni and employers whenever possible.
14. Working with Professional Bodies in Collaborative Provision Some Professional Bodies have specific requirements about accrediting collaborative partners of HEIs (for example: The Law Society, GMC). In the first instance it is advisable to ask the PSRB if such guidance exists. If the PSRB is not prescriptive in its requirements the following guidance is offered to Schools and collaborative partners working with professional bodies on collaborative projects. If a collaborative programme is receiving official recognition from a Professional Body the following points should be considered: •
• • • •
the steps required to gain accreditation in Institutional or programme approval documentation, including any University support or interaction needed with the PSRB , required. This should be articulated in the NPP1/2 and Approval in Principle documentation. Copies of any approval letters, reports and resulting action plans must be sent to the Head of School for consideration. University staff must meet with the PSRB if required, possibly as part of the approval visit. PSRB staff may be invited to participate in University 'Periodic reviews' in order to combine the accreditation process with review into one event. Any interaction with professional bodies must be evaluated and recorded within annual monitoring and periodic review.
23
15 Academic Advisers in Collaborative Provision Role Description An Academic Adviser is allocated to each collaborative programme (or group of). The adviser is appointed by and reports to the relevant Head of School and is the main point of contact for partner staff, involved in the delivery of the programme. S/he will be available to deal with queries and advise in the development of programme and to assist the university in ensuring the maintenance of quality and standards. The adviser will visit twice (minimum/ or as agreed with the Head of School) in an academic year, and one visit should include attendance at the examination boards. Each visit will require the adviser to complete areas of review and moderation required by the University to ensure standards of the provision (agendas available). Advisers will provide an annual report to be received by School/ Faculty (as appropriate and copied to the partner), which will feed into the annual monitoring process (template available). It is estimated that the workload in support of such links should equate to approximately half a day, per week (max, dependant on size of link): The full responsibilities are listed below: 1. The Adviser plays a key role in helping the university to manage the standards and quality of the collaborative programmes. 2. Acts as main point of contact within the relevant school and reports to; and advises the Head of School. 3. Provides the initial academic advice on content of programme proposals, and then continuing advice on programme development. 4. Advises on comparability with other similar programmes in the University and offers advice on the academic infrastructure. 5. Advises on the suitability of staff in the partner institution to teach on the collaborative programme. 6. Provides advice on the University’s policies and regulations. 7. Advises on, checks operation of, assessment and examination practices/ procedures and monitors the operation of the examinations procedure on an annual basis and attends the Examination Board meeting. 8. Visits the partner twice a year and undertakes activities as specified in the visit agenda’s, which feeds into the annual report and the school committee structure.
24
9. Annually reviews the publicity material and notes in annual report that this has been deemed suitable for publication. 10. Receives minutes of any internal quality committee where reviews/ approvals/ amendments are to be considered and act as a scrutineer to the documentation for reporting to School and Faculty committee. Person Specification An Academic Adviser should have experience of operating within and the implementation of the universities framework for academic quality, with experience of programme administration (for example: Programme Director). It is expected that the role will be performed by an experienced, senior member of staff within schools and appointed by the Head of School. The Head of School is responsible for ensuring that the functions of an Academic Adviser are undertaken in an appropriate and timely manner. Academic Adviser visits Advisers are required to visit twice in an academic year. The first visit should take place during the first semester, the second at the end of the academic year to coincide with examination boards. It is the responsibility of the school to ensure University representation at the board and if the adviser is unable to attend, then an alternative representative must be provided from the school. The first semester visit must include the following activities: programme development and review of action plans and activities as a result of annual monitoring or Institutional/ periodic (if applicable). There must be a general review of resources during this visit as well as meetings with staff and students. This is also an opportunity for staff development events to take place. Attendees at the examination board must ensure that the University’s regulations are complied with, that there is an external examiner present and that all students are treated fairly and equitably. During this visit they must also take the opportunity to review programme information to students for the following academic year, discuss the approval of new teaching staff, annual monitoring arrangements and the approval of publicity material for the following year. Agenda (visit 1) 1. Programme Development. 2. Review of Action Plans: • Annual monitoring. • Periodic Review (where applicable). • Institutional Review (where applicable).
25
3. Review of Resources. 4. Staff Development Events (as applicable). 5. Meeting with Staff. 6. Meeting with Students. 7. Any other Business. Agenda (visit 2) 1. Attendance at Examination Board. 2. Approval of new Teaching staff. 3. Approval of student information for next academic year. 4. Approval of publicity material for next academic year. 5. Preparation for annual monitoring. 6. Consideration of results. 7. Programme Development. 8. Any other Business.
26
Annex 1
Typology of collaborative provision
Articulation The process by which a qualification and/or credits from a programme of study undertaken at an approved partner institution is recognised as giving advanced standing for entry to programmes at the University. The partner institution is responsible for the recruitment and selection of students; for the registration and regulation of students (including complaints and appeals procedures); for the design of the programme; for its delivery; for the quality of the student learning experience; for the standards of the credit/award; and for financial matters. The University is responsible for ensuring that the output standards set and achieved by students are equivalent to those set and achieved by University students taking the programme and entering the same stage of their studies. The University currently has two types of articulation; the first guarantees progression to the University and this brings with it quality and standards requirements as stated below, under Validation/ Franchise (see Hybrid, below). The second does not guarantee progression to the University but allows the credits to be considered for advanced standing, through the usual admissions process. Both types require a signed agreement. Franchising The process by which the University agrees to authorise the delivery of all or part of one or more of its own approved programmes of study leading to a University award by an approved partner institution. The University is ultimately responsible for the recruitment and selection of students, although it may delegate this to the partner institution subject to approval of arrangements and monitoring. Students are registered with the University and are subject to its regulations, including those relating to complaints and appeals. The University is responsible for the design of the programme, for the quality of the student learning experience, for the academic standards of the award, and for financial matters. The partner institution is responsible for the delivery of the programme, learning resources and student support, subject to the University’s overall responsibility for the quality of the student learning experience and the standards of the award. Careful consideration must be given to the University resources that students are able to access and this must be detailed within the agreement. These are students of the University but may have limited access to resources as detailed in the agreement. A variant of this is a distance delivery programme in which delivery is shared between the University and the partner institution. In such cases, the only difference is that the University has sole responsibilities for programme delivery and delegates the provision
27
of student support and learning resources. Consortium Awards/ Joint Programmes The process by which two or more awarding institutions, collectively provide units on a programme. This could result in a single award from the registering Institution (Consortium Agreement) or a Joint Award from both partners (Joint Programmes). In terms of the division of responsibilities, these cases are subject to individual negotiation. However there has to be clarity in terms of responsibilities for recruitment and selection, the registration of the student, the regulations governing the student including complaints and appeals procedures, the approval of programme design and arrangements for delivery, responsibility for the quality of the student learning experience, and financial matters. As the final award is a University of Manchester degree, the University remains responsible for ensuring that output standards are equivalent to those for the same or a similar award for its own programmes. Validation The process by which the University judges that a programme developed and delivered by another institution or institution is of an appropriate quality and standard to lead to a University award. The partner institution is responsible for the recruitment and selection of students. Students are normally registered at the partner institution and subject to its regulation in relation to discipline and complaints. The partner institution is responsible for the design of the programme, learning resources, student support, for the quality of the student learning experience, and for financial matters. The University is responsible for approving entry standards to the programme, the design of the programme, arrangements for its delivery, and mechanisms for quality assurance and enhancement. The University is also responsible for ensuring that the output standards of the award are equivalent to those for the same or a similar award for its own programmes. As the University is the awarding body, students have access to its appeal procedures in the final stages, once they have exhausted the registering institution’s processes. These students are 'associate students' of the University, registered with a partner institution and having limited access to University resources. Note: The University does not intend to validate any further PhD programmes. Hybrids It should be noted that collaborative arrangements may involve combinations of the above. So, for example, there may be an articulation arrangement governing the first two years of a programme leading to a Diploma that is accepted for entry to the final
28
year of study leading to an Honours degree. The final year may be delivered by the partner institution under an accreditation, franchise, or validation agreement. In such hybrids, the responsibilities of the partners would still correspond to those described above, and be different in relation to the types of collaborative provision. Split Site PhDs The process by which the University agrees to authorise the supervision and support of one or more its PhD students, leading to an award of the University. The University policy for split site PhDs provides more detail on the approval requirements for such links. The University is responsible for the recruitment and selection of students. Students are registered with the University and are subject to its regulations, including those relating to complaints and appeals. The University is responsible for the design of the study programme, for the quality of the student learning experience, for the academic standards of the award, and for financial matters. The partner institution is responsible for part of the delivery, which is detailed in individual study plans. Overall, the University is responsible for the quality of the student learning experience and the standards of the award. In some cases, the University has an Institutional agreement with partners to participate in the delivery of split site PhDs. In this case the procedure for the approval of a partner institution will be applied. Please refer to the Policy for Split Site PhDs for further information. Licensing The process by which programmes of study owned by, and delivered at The University of Manchester, are made available for use by another institution or organisation for a fee, where no award is given by Manchester, and no accreditation or validation is done on behalf of Manchester. A legal definition of licensing is; ‘the granting of permission to use intellectual property (IP) rights (such as copyright) under defined conditions.’ Licensing is different from assigning (selling). Licensing is classed by the University as commercialisation. Licensing is ideally carried out on a non-exclusive basis, i.e. the University remains free to license the material to other parties in the future, and can continue to use the material for the University’s purposes. The University has certain requirements which relate to protection of the interests and reputation of the University, and these are covered in the following checklist for the process of commercialising by licensing at the University. It is important that these steps are followed to safeguard the rights of the University. The checklist is not exhaustive. • •
Notify your Head of School, who will notify the Dean of Faculty as appropriate, of the proposed licensing arrangement. Make necessary checks and records regarding; o ownership of intellectual property (usually copyright & related rights) in the teaching material, including third party contributions. Ownership positions
29
include; sole University ownership, joint ownership with a third party, or sole ownership by a third party. o any restrictions on use of the teaching material in commercialisation, arising from funding used to create it, and the funder’s related funding policies. It is important to make these checks and take necessary action (see note below on obtaining permissions) to avoid possibility of a claim for infringement of rights, or breach of funding contract, against the University in the future. UMIP (the University’s managing agent to advise on and facilitate the protection and commercialisation of IP) is available to advise and assist with this. •
• •
•
• •
Prepare an outline project plan, and forward a copy of this to the Teaching & Learning Manager (Quality), Teaching and Learning Support Office. The TLSO will check that the proposed arrangement satisfies requirements to safeguard the University’s interests, as well as academic standards and that licensing is indeed appropriate. Contact the Director of International Development (first contact Tanya Luff) to start the process of vetting of the proposed licence partner. Start the process of obtaining permissions or licences, for commercial use of copyright or other IP contained in the teaching material, which is owned by 3rd party contributors. It is useful in preparation of your request to a copyright owner, agent or publisher, to set out the intended uses of the teaching material. UMIP is available to assist with this process. In ongoing negotiations with the proposed licensee, keep records of communications, don’t promise terms of the arrangement until; advice has been taken, IP position has been checked and rights to use IP secured (as appropriate), partners have been vetted, and go-ahead has been obtained from school and faculty as appropriate. UMIP is available to assist with advice in this regard and formulation of licence terms. The licence agreement should be drawn up with the assistance of UMIP or the University Contracts Team. The licence should set out how the licensee institution will use the teaching material, and any restrictions on its use. The University requires at least the following provisions to be met in the licence arrangement; o satisfactory description of the course in advertising and appropriate crediting of the University, ensuring no mention is made of the course being ‘delivered by The University of Manchester’, or of validation or accreditation (unless the partner has undertaken accreditation on their own behalf) o language provision in the licensee organisation is adequate for the course to be delivered effectively o at least twice yearly checks by University of Manchester employees are made on how the licensed programme is progressing, and any resulting problems flagged up and addressed
30
o access to University of Manchester websites and online resources are not allowed (since students are not enrolled at the University and copyright in material for University use only may be breached). UMIP is available to take a lead in commercialisation and facilitate the above process, in conjunction with academic originators of teaching material.
31
Annex 2
Collaborative Provision - risk assessment tool
Student language UK or overseas; English first language UK-based: English second language Overseas: English second language
1 2 3
Cultural and educational context UK Commonwealth EU (Socrates/Erasmus) Other European Other
0 1 1 2 3
Partner's status University/polytechnic, UG and PG Polytechnic UG only Publicly-funded FE college Private college/institution
1 2 3 3
Partner's strength Large well-resourced Small well-resourced Any size with limited resources
1 2 3
Role of partner Administrative centre (for distance or e-learning) Learner support centre (for distance or e-learning) Teaching centre (franchised programme) Teaching centre (validated programme)
2 2 3
Partner's expertise in this field Programmes at this level Programmes at lower level No experience in this field
1 2 3
Partner's previous collaboration with UK HEIs At this level At lower level None
1 2 3
1
32
Home School's experience of collaboration Overseas and local 1 Local 2 None 3 Home School's track record on quality Very secure Secure Less secure
1 2 3
Programme Established collaborative programme Established at University only New programme
1 2 3
Credit level Level HE0 Level HE1, HE2 Level HE3, M, D
1 2 3
Add up the individual scores: 1= low risk; 2= medium risk; 3= high risk Assess the overall score as follows: 26 high risk
33
Annex 3
Criteria for approval of prospective partner institutions
The University must be satisfied: 1 with the overall academic standing of the prospective partner institution; 2 with the robustness of its overall quality control and assurance procedures at the institutional level; 3 with the soundness of its quality management at all levels; 4 with the adequacy of its overall administrative support for quality assurance at the institutional level; 5 with the adequacy of its overall provision for academic and pastoral support and guidance; 6 with the adequacy of the overall learning support and infrastructure in relation to the ability to meet requirements for awards; 7 with the adequacy of overall staffing in relation to the ability to meet requirements for awards; 8 that it has experience of delivering comparable programmes at a similar level, or is capable to delivering programmes at that level; 9 that, where appropriate, it has an acceptable record of partnership with other institutions; 10 that the prospective partner institution is financially stable; 11 that the prospective partner institution can contract legally with it. and, in the case of proposed overseas partnerships: 1 that the prospective partner institution has an understanding of the current practices of UK HE, e.g. in connection with external examining, assessment arrangements, and quality assurance arrangements; 2 that it has the capacity to address differences in cultures and expectations between HE systems in such a way as to ensure that the requirements of the arrangement can be met; 3 that, if instruction and assessment is to be in a language other than English, it has the capacity to provide translation facilities to an appropriate standard.
34
Annex 4 1
Areas for agreement with prospective partner Institutions
Regulatory requirements
In many countries, it is a requirement that collaborations and programmes are approved by local regulatory bodies. In such cases, the University requires that partner institutions secure the necessary approval(s) prior to the commencement of the collaboration and the programme(s).
2
Publicity and marketing
Regardless of the type of collaborative provision, the University requires that it should maintain effective control of publicity and marketing materials, especially where these are published by a partner institution. In particular the University seeks to ensure that publicity and marketing materials avoid: 1 inappropriate or misleading comparisons with other providers; 2 derogatory statements about other providers; 3 misleading statements about recognition of awards by public or other authorised bodies; 4 misleading advice about the recognition of awards by professional bodies or bodies in other countries; 5 bringing UK HE into disrepute; The University will then agree with the partner institution whether it will publish all publicity and marketing materials or, if this is to be done by the partner, mechanisms for approval of such materials prior to publication. It is recommended that materials be approved by a nominee of the School quality committee (or equivalent). Publicity must be considered using the guidance in the Collaborative Provision policy.
3
Admissions
In most types of collaborations, admissions are normally the responsibility of the partner institution, although the University may wish to give guidance on acceptable requirements. In other cases, the University may need to ensure that its approved admissions requirements and acceptable entry qualifications are met by entrants to the programme. The delegation for responsibility of admissions must be detailed in the individual agreements.
4
Enrolment and registration
The rights of students studying on collaborative programmes will be defined in the individual agreements. There is a need to agree a mechanism through which a partner can report regularly to
35
the University on the number of students enrolled and registered on the programmes.
5
Information for students and student support
The University needs to ensure that students are given accurate and comprehensive information about the programme which is comparable to the information given to students studying similar programmes at the University. The University requires that information for students on collaborative programmes should include: 1 information about the collaborative arrangement, including the responsibilities of the different parties; 2 information about the status of the student with regard to the University. 3 information on the opportunities for students to use the University's learning and other resources (to be agreed with the University). 4 information about the complaints procedure and how to use it (see 7 below); 5 information about the appeals procedure (see 7 below); 6 the nature of the relevant University award and the information which a successful candidate would expect to be on the certificate or transcript; 7 named contacts at the University and the partner institution. 8 student/programme handbook. 9 programme specification. In the case of articulations, it should also include: 1 information about progression to a University degree, including any relevant terms and conditions; 2 Information about fees and any other expenses payable to the University and when these are to be paid. For overseas partnerships, additional information should include: 1 details of the language of instruction and assessment; 2 details of the recognition of the programme or award in other countries or by public and regulatory bodies in the UK and elsewhere; 3 where appropriate, information about the features of studying in other countries, including costs. The University may supply this information itself, or it may be supplied by the partner institution. In the latter case, the University needs to make the partner institution aware of its requirements and to negotiate a procedure for the approval of information prior to it being distributed to students. This task could be undertaken during an Academic Adviser visit. Appropriate student support must also be in place at the Partner. This must include academic, administrative and pastoral support. Students studying on collaborative provision can expect a comparable experience to University students, although we accept that the scale of provision of services may differ. Where the fee is paid directly to the partner, from the student, the responsibility of providing access to support and
36
resources is delegated to the partner institution.
6
Student progress
In articulations, students are registered with the partner institution and student progress is the sole responsibility of the partner institution, unless the articulation agreement guarantees progression to a University programme. The University is responsible for progression of all students on collaborative provision programmes and needs to maintain up-to-date records on student progression and achievement for review purposes. It therefore needs to negotiate with the partner institution so that the latter informs it regularly of all cases of withdrawal or nonprogression and of the reasons. It is recommended that this is done through examination boards and regular returns to the university.
7
Discipline, complaints and appeals
There needs to be clarity about the responsibilities of the University and the partner institution in matters of student discipline and complaints and appeals procedures. This is the Procedure for hearing appeals or complaints from students registered on validated programmes at partner institutions 1
Partner institution appeals and complaints procedures are approved and reviewed via the procedures for institutional approval and review.
2
Following completion of the partner institution’s procedures, a student may write to the Registrar and Secretary of the University of Manchester in connection with the appeal or complaint if s/he feels that his/her case has not been dealt with appropriately. The University of Manchester must receive a letter from the student outlining why s/he does not believe the case to have been dealt with appropriately within one calendar month of the date on which the partner institution formally notified the student of its decision.
3
On receipt of a letter from the student outlining why s/he does not believe the case to have been dealt with appropriately, the Registrar and Secretary of the University of Manchester (or his/her nominee) will send a copy to the partner institution asking for a copy of the file relating to the case and for their comments on the student’s letter.
4
The Registrar and Secretary (or his/her nominee) will check, on the basis of documentary material, that the investigation was conducted properly and fairly, and that the published procedures were followed correctly but will not reinvestigate the appeal or complaint afresh. However in conducting this investigation the University may, if necessary, seek further information from the partner institution and/or the student as appropriate.
37
5
The Registrar and Secretary (or his/her nominee) will write to the student to inform him/her of the outcome of the investigation and the reasons for the decision, normally within 40 working days of receipt of the appeal.
6
There are no further stages in the appeals or complaints procedure beyond those detailed above. Students who believe that their case has not been dealt with properly by the partner institution or by the University of Manchester or that the outcome is unreasonable may be able to complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) if the complaint is eligible under its rules and once all the above procedures have been concluded. [Note: information about the role of the OIA and the procedure for submitting complaints can be obtained from the OIA website: www.oiahe.org.uk.]
8 Assessment and examinations In order to maintain standards, there must be clarity about responsibility for the setting of assessments and examination papers, about marking, and about the conduct of assessments and examinations. In practice, these will vary according to the type of collaborative provision. The TLSO can provide advice on what is appropriate and will refer to the university's Assessment Framework (as detailed in the Manual of Academic Procedures). Schools must ensure that partners are supported in developing appropriate systems for the collation and storage of assessment data in order to ensure the appropriate conduct of examination boards. Partners also need to be advised on the legal implications of Data Protection and the Freedom of Information Act (guidance available on the TLSO website).
9
External Examining
There must be clarity about the roles of the University and the partner institution with respect to external examining, including the selection and appointment of externals, preparation for external examining, the definitions of their roles, and reporting arrangements. Further information can be found in the Manual of Academic Procedures. 9.1
The selection and appointment of External Examiners
The University is responsible for the selection and approval of External Examiners. The TLSO website offers guidance on how to nominate and appoint External Examiners. With regard to Franchise programmes (see Annex 1 – Typology), it is considered good practice to use the same External Examiner as the internal programme. The University retains overall responsibility for the selection and appointment of External Examiners. In this it uses the same criteria for selection of externals of
38
programmes delivered on campus as set out in its Code of Practice for External Examiners. Additionally, it requires that: 1 prospective External Examiners must have had no recent connections (in the previous five years) with the partner institution; 2 in the case of overseas collaborations, that Externals have a clear understanding of the UK HE system, including the role of Externals; 3 in the case of overseas collaboration where the language of instruction and/or assessment is not English, that Externals have the necessary language skills; The University formally issues contracts to Externals and pays them. Within this overall framework, the University may agree a procedure whereby the partner institution is able to nominate potential Externals. 9.2
The role of External Examiners
External Examiners fulfil the roles set out in the University’s Code of Practice for External Examiners. This Code of Practice should be drawn to the attention of the partner institution, which must agree that the External Examiners will carry out their roles as determined by the University. 9.3 Preparation for External Examining The University retains responsibility for preparing External Examiners to undertake their role. As well as the providing them with the University’s Code of Practice for External Examiners, it is responsible for providing programme specifications, (if appropriate) benchmark information and public and statutory body requirements, and information on the collaborative arrangement. Within this framework, the University may wish to involve the partner institution in the preparation of external examiners, particularly with regard to informing them about the partner institution, and responsibilities in this regard should be clear. 9.4
Reporting arrangements
The External Examiner formally reports to the University, but mechanisms are required for any concerns raised to be transmitted to the partner institution and for a response to be made to the University. Arrangements for dealing with any concerns raised by Externals should be agreed with the partner institution.
10
Quality assurance arrangements
The responsibility for the student learning experience and for the assurance of its quality rests with the University. The University will directly apply its own quality assurance to the provision, including
39
annual monitoring and periodic review, as appropriate. Arrangements for monitoring need to be negotiated with the partner and are dependant on the nature of the relationship. It is expected that all links will be annually and periodically reviewed, together with a periodic review of the institutional relationship. The terms of these processes are detailed in individual agreements. In cases where monitoring indicates that there is a threat to quality and/or standards, the University reserves the right to suspend the collaboration until it is satisfied that faults have been rectified and, if this does not prove to be the case, to terminate the provision subject to safeguards for students on the programme. This needs to be made clear to the partner institution. In all cases, the University will conduct a full review of the provision at the end of the agreement (see Section 8 of these Policies and Procedures above). The partner institution needs to agree to participate fully in such reviews. Where review indicates a threat to quality and or standards, the University has the right not to re-approve the collaboration, and this needs to be made clear to the partner institution. If issues arise that are in breach of the agreement, on Vice-President (Teaching and Learning) for immediate action.
11
Certificates and Transcripts
As the awarding body and being assisted by the partner institution, the University is responsible for ensuring that certificates are accurate and that they are only issued to those who have satisfied the assessment and examination requirements for the award. The University will issue the certificates but it is the responsibility of the partner institution to issue the transcripts. The University will offer guidance on the information required in a transcript of results through the TLSO. Both the certificate and the transcript must record the name of the partner institution and the language of instruction and/or assessment if this is not English. The University will need to be assured that the printing of transcripts will be secure and access will be limited to designated individuals. The partner institution should agree to maintain records of who has been issued with a transcript and to make appropriate enquiries in the event of a request for a duplicate.
12
Mechanisms for managing the programme
There will be instances where the day-to-day management of collaborative provision happens within the University. In this case the Head of School must ensure that there is appropriate academic and administrative support within the school.
40
However, most collaborations will be managed, day-to-day by the partner institution. The University requires that the partner institution should nominate a Programme Director to be responsible for the management of the programme. It also requires that the partner institution nominate a member of staff to liaise with the University, who may be the Programme Director. The partner contact should liaise with the University contact, normally a member of academic staff in the relevant subject area. It is the responsibility of the School to provide a subject expert, who has experience of the University’s teaching and learning processes and programme management within the University. This is a job for an experienced staff member and the TLSO offers advice of an appropriate means of providing this support to our partners. It is suggested that Schools nominate an Academic Adviser, for which, a job description and guidance is available on the TLSO website. The University requires that there must be a Board of Examiners, attended by a member of University staff and that the terms of reference of the Board of Examiners should be the same or similar to those for Boards of Examiners at the University. The External Examiner will also be a member, with additional membership to be agreed with the partner. It is recommended that partners use the Collaborative Partners examination board agenda and guidance, which is available on the TLSO website. Note: the chair of the examination board, if it is to be a member of University staff, must not be the Academic Adviser. Annual Monitoring is conducted by the partners, fed into School quality committees and up through Faculties using the procedure for the processing of annual monitoring (see the Manual for Procedures). It is the responsibility of the School to follow up any actions and for the Faculty to monitor the completion of actions resulting from monitoring. The Faculty provides an overview of annual monitoring issues to the Teaching and Learning Group. Periodic Review is managed by both the Faculties and TLSO using the procedures specified in the Manual of Academic Procedures. Periodic review of collaborative activity must be included in the Periodic review schedule, reported to the Teaching and Learning Group. It is the responsibility of the Faculty to follow up and monitor the completion of any recommendations or conditions following periodic review. Institutional reviews are also managed by the TLSO. The resulting reports are provided to the Faculties for action. The TLSO provides a summary of issues to the Teaching & Learning Group through the annual reporting mechanism. It is the responsibility of the Faculty to follow up an actions/ recommendations or conditions, as a result of institutional review in liaison with the Head of the Teaching and Learning Support Office (or nominee).
13
Language of instruction and assessment
The language of instruction and assessment will normally be English.
41
14
Financial arrangements
Financial arrangements have to be agreed with the partner: 1 which comply with statutory and funding council requirements, including the requirement that overseas provision should not be cross-subsidised by HEFCE funding; 2 which provide for the recording and accounting of all transactions in connection with the transfer of funds between the University and the partner institution; 3 which provide safeguards so that, in the event of changes in the financial environment, academic standards and the interests of students are protected; 4 where appropriate in overseas provision, which cover contingencies for dealing with currency fluctuations, including meeting obligations to students adversely affected by changes. 5 It must be agreed and detailed in the financial schedule of the agreement, who is responsible for expenses, arising from the management of the link.
15
Legal arrangements
The University requires that disputes will be resolved within the jurisdiction of English law, although it reserves the right to take action in any other jurisdiction at its discretion. The partner institution must agree to these conditions.
16
Access to University resources
16.1
Students
The ability to access University resources is dependant on the status of the collaborative student. If students pay their fees directly to the University they are known as ‘registered’ students and are eligible to access all services and resources. This must be considered in the management of the programme and the drafting of the agreement. Where students pay a fee directly to a partner institution, the students are considered to be ‘associate’ students of the University. ‘Associate’ students are not entitled to access online resources and are not entitled to access other resources or services of the University. However, services may be accessible, for a fee, with prior agreement. Any special provision of service offered to ‘associate’ students by the University must be written into the agreements. Where the provision of support and resources is delegated to a partner the University will approve and review the provision as stated above. The University has set out its requirements of partners in the provision of student support in the ‘Policy for Student Support in Collaborative Provision’. 16.2
Staff at partner institutions
Partner staff are not immediately entitled to access University resources, expect those available on the web. Schools with restricted access websites must decide if they will 42
allow their partner to have access to sites. Access to University resources and services may be provided, for a fee, with prior agreement. Any special provision of services offered to partner staff must be written in to agreements. 16.3
Staff development
Partner staff can access staff development courses and training offered through the STDU. Access is dependant on places being available and where courses are offered for free to University staff, there will be no charge to partners. However, partners will be liable to pay any advertised fees as stated by STDU. If a more bespoke course or training need is identified it maybe possible for the STDU to develop something for the partner institution either at the University or at the partner institution (depending on location) In addition, partners will be expected to manage their own programme of staff development and training. The University will approve and review the provision as stated above.
43
Annex 5
Programme proposals
Programmes should be approved through the usual University processes. Refer to the procedure for approving collaborative programmes, ensuring that the following additional information is included: 1 Programme details The NPP1 Proposal should also contain the name of the partner institution. 2 Programme information The programme information should, in the case of overseas collaborations, additionally indicate the language(s) of instruction and assessment. 3 Resource matters Proposals should address the same resource matters as for a University programme, but with additional information about: (a) number of students expected to be admitted to the programme; (b) admissions criteria, including in the case of overseas provision, language requirements; (c) staffing for the programme, including number of staff, qualifications, staff development undertaken, and previous experience of the delivery of programmes at the level of the proposed award; (d) learning infrastructure to support the programme, including library, computing, and where appropriate language facilities; (e) the business case for the programme (f) the proposed financial arrangements.
44
Annex 6
Criteria to be applied by Faculties when approving collaborative programmes
When considering proposed articulations, Faculties have to be satisfied that students who have achieved the qualification/credits at the partner institution will have attained the same standard as students studying the award at the University and entering the same stage of their studies. When considering other collaborations, Faculties must be satisfied that partner institutions will be able to offer students a learning experience comparable to that of students taking the same programme in the University and enabling them to meet the same standards. Where the programme is not taught at the University, the Faculty must assure itself that they meet the normal criteria for the approval in principle of programmes delivered at the University. With these types of collaboration they also have to be satisfied that a proposal demonstrates that: 1 the aims of the proposed programme are comparable to those of similar programmes delivered by the University itself; 2 the appropriate intended learning outcomes/typical output standards are comparable to those of similar programmes delivered by the University itself; 3 these standards are, in principle, achievable over the duration of the programme by students who meet the proposed admissions criteria.
Annex 7 Programme Representative Job Description Purpose 1 To voice student views to university staff involved in programmes 2 To provide student involvement in development and planning of programmes 3 To represent students at the level closest to students Main Responsibilities 1 To attend Staff-Student Liaison Committee or other relevant committee meetings 2 To be available to listen to fellow students’ views, concerns and academic issues 3 To feedback results of representations to fellow students 4 To liaise with other student representatives Skills Development Student Representatives will need, and will develop, the following skills: 1 Active listening 2 Clear presentation 3 Diplomacy
45
4 Assertiveness Main Contacts 1 Student Representation Co-ordinator 2 Programme Director 3 Administration 4 Other Student Representatives 5 Students on your programme Resources Student Representatives will have the following resources available to them: 1 Notice board with contact details and photograph 2 A pigeon hole 3 Timetabled time to meet students face-to-face. Training Training will be provided. Benefits 1 CV enhancement 2 Chance to improve academic standards and teaching that you experience 3 Training and skills development 4 Networking 5 Potential references from partner institution
46
