code of practice for collaborative provision - bangor.ac.uk · 1. the university is responsible for...

Note: In exceptional circumstances, and subject to approval by the Chair of the Senate Regulations and Special Cases

Committee, responsibilities assigned to Schools, Heads, of School, School Officers or School Committees in this Code

of Practice may be assumed by the College, Head of College, College Officers or College Committees respectively, as

appropriate.

Code of Practice for Collaborative Provision

Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01

Effective Date: 1st November 2016

This Code of Practice is for all award-bearing programmes delivered with another institution. It applies to both taught

and research programmes. It applies to whole programmes and parts of programmes (modules). Procedures for

different types of collaborative partnership are summarised in Appendix 8. This Code of Practice should be read with:

Code of Practice for Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review (Code 08)

Validation Manual

Code of Practice for Placement Learning (Code 07)

Definitions

Agreement for Collaborative Academic Programmes: Agreement between the University and the Partner defining the

responsibilities and conditions for the programme(s).

Approved Staff: Staff of the partner organisation who are approved by the University to deliver parts of a programme

and, for research programmes, to supervise and examine students.

Articulation arrangement: An arrangement in which students who successfully complete an approved programme of

study in a partner institution are guaranteed entry on to one of the University’s programmes.

Board of Studies: Committee established in Schools, under the University’s regulations, to oversee the School’s policies

on admission, portfolio and content of courses, methods of teaching, and assessment.

Dual Award: An award given for a programme that is separately and fully approved by the University and the partner

institution. Students receive two awards, one from each institution. Programmes that lead to Dual Awards have

substantial common elements, but can differ between the University and Partner. Programme titles may differ.

Programmes involve credit transfer which may be reciprocal.

Externally validated programmes: An arrangement whereby the University validates programmes designed and

delivered by another institution, under its regulations and procedures as permitted by the Validation Manual, and

leading to an award of the University.

Franchised programmes: Programmes designed and validated by the University and delivered by another institution,

under the University’s regulations, and leading to an award of the University.

Joint Award: An award that is given for a single programme that is jointly approved by a University and a Partner. In

such cases the names of both institutions are listed on the certificate.

Partner: Organisation that delivers or is involved in the delivery of the collaborative provision. This includes other

academic institutions, public sector bodies and private companies. The term ‘partner’ is used throughout this Code of

Practice, however, it is recognised that some partnerships may involve multi-lateral agreements with two or more

partners.

Programme Co-ordinator: A permanent member of staff within the University department engaging in the partnership,

who will undertake overall responsibility for a programme and act as liaison with the Programme Director and the

University department.

Programme Director: The Programme Director will undertake responsibility for all aspects of a programme within the

Partner, and should command sufficient authority within the Partner to be able to implement most decisions regarding

the programme, its staffing, students, progression and resources.

Programme Specification: The details of each programme as approved by the University.

Programme: Programme of study delivered via collaboration between the University and the partner. The programme

can be delivered by the Partner within a specific academic and financial framework and subject to contractual

obligations. Academic responsibility for content, assessment, quality assurance and standards lies with the University.

Regulations: Regulations of the University, including codes of practice, regulations, procedures and guidelines.

School: Academic units within the University that lead the collaboration and which have responsibility for it. Some

partnerships may involve more than one School or may be at University level.


2

General

1. The University is responsible for the academic standards of all awards granted in its name.

2. The academic standards of all awards made under a collaborative arrangement, including dual and joint awards,

must meet the expectations of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education and the Credit & Qualification

Framework for Wales.

3. The University will assure itself that a potential partner institution has the appropriate academic infrastructure

and support services to establish and maintain the required standards of quality management and enhancement.

4. The University will conduct, with due diligence, an independent investigation of the good standing of a

prospective partner organisation, and of their capacity to fulfil their designated role in the arrangement. Where

appropriate this investigation will include the following:

i. The Partner’s financial and academic standing (including, where appropriate, reference to external

databases such as NARIC)

ii. Whether the partner has existing collaborations with other UK or overseas partners

iii. A review of the QAA website to investigate whether there have been reports relating to the partner

iv. In the case of joint awards, confirmation that the partner organisation has the legal capacity to enter into

collaboration with the University

v. For collaboration with an overseas partner, confirmation that the University is legally able to deliver, and if

relevant, award the programme in the partner’s home country.

5. Collaborative arrangements must be negotiated, agreed and managed in accordance with the University’s

policies and procedures. The financial arrangements must also be agreed, including provision for monitoring

and external examining arrangements.

6. Collaborative provision will be subject to the University’s academic regulations or, in the case of validated

programmes, the University’s Validation Manual. Any deviation from the regulations or the Validation Manual

requires approval by the Chair of the Senate Regulations and Special Cases Committee.

7. The Academic Registrar will maintain a publicly available up-to-date and authoritative record of all partnerships,

and a list of all collaborative programmes operated through those partnerships.

8. The University will inform a professional, statutory and regulatory body (PSRB) which has approved or

recognised a programme if there are plans to deliver the programme under a collaborative arrangement. This

will also apply if franchise and distance learning arrangements are developed after a programme has been

approved or recognised. The status of the programme in respect of PSRB recognition must be made clear to

prospective students.

9. Collaborative provision should normally be in a field in which the University has expertise and comparable

programmes, and should involve the relevant School(s) in the University. The programme may also be the

whole or part of one or more of the University’s own approved programmes.

10. Third party franchising is not normally permitted. That is, partner organisations do not have the authority to

offer collaborative provision under serial arrangements with other organisations. Third party arrangements may

be approved by the University under some circumstances, for example if a partner organisation uses specialist

placement locations for parts of collaborative programmes.

11. The language of instruction and of all assessed work shall normally be Welsh or English, except for subjects

where a language is the subject of study.

12. The External Partnerships Scrutiny Group (EPSG) is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the

procedures for approving collaborative partnerships. EPSG is also responsible for scrutinising proposals as

described in this Code of Practice and in the Validation Manual.

13. The Academic Registrar is responsible for ensuring that collaborative partnerships are established and monitored

in accordance with this Code of Practice and the Validation Manual. The Academic Registrar may assign

responsibility to nominees, from the Academic Registry and the International Education Centre as necessary.

The Academic Registrar’s nominee will scrutinise all documentation, advise on procedures, and provide

administrative support to develop and approve each programme.

Establishing a Partnership - Principles

14. The educational objectives of a partner organisation must be compatible with those of the University. Partners

will preferably be an institution of high standing with a proven reputation, particularly in teaching and/or

research. However, the University will also consider partnerships that could play a significant role in

institutional and staff development, particularly in institutions overseas.


3

15. Any partner from the UK must be a recognised Tier 4 sponsor in its own right, in order for the University to be

assured that the partner is in a position to discharge its obligations under the 'Points-Based' visa scheme.

16. The initiative for a programme may come from the University, partner organisation or external agency and may

reflect an institutional need, market forces or educational imperative. Programmes must be compatible with the

University’s aims and must be of strategic benefit to the partner and University. Partnerships should not be

established solely for financial reasons.

17. Information detailing the full process of approving and establishing a partnership must be provided to the

potential Partner at an early stage. Preliminary discussions should not be taken to imply final agreement for a

proposal. Schools and potential Partners are encouraged to discuss collaborative arrangements with staff of the

Academic Registry and/or the International Education Centre, so that they become familiar with the process and

documentation required. A checklist of items to be considered at the exploratory stage is provided in Appendix

4.

18. Establishing and maintaining a collaborative programme is a significant undertaking and Schools should not

embark on this process unless they are able to commit sufficient resources, including staff time, to ensure that

the requirements of this Code of Practice are met.

Scrutiny of Proposals

19. Most proposals (see Appendix 8) are considered by the External Partnership Scrutiny Group. The membership

of the External Partnership Scrutiny Group is:

Director of International Development (Chair for International/EU partnerships)

Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching & Learning) (Chair for UK partnerships)

Chair of the Quality Assurance and Validation Task Group

Academic Registrar or nominee

2-3 senior members of the academic staff of the University, at least one of whom is a Dean not

involved in the proposals under consideration

Regulations, Complaints and Appeals Officer

Quality Assurance Officer (International Partnerships)

20. Representatives from the submitting School may be invited to present their proposals to the Group.

External Validation of Programmes

21. The University will validate programmes designed and delivered by another institution. The University’s

procedures for approving Institutions and validating programmes are based on the expectation that Institutions

will have codified policies and procedures that are consistent with the University’s regulations.

22. The procedures and regulations for the approval and ongoing management of validated programmes are

described in the University’s Validation Manual. As defined by the Validation Manual, the key principles

governing the approval of Institutions to deliver validated programmes are:

The need for appropriate due diligence.

The need to ensure that the Institution’s resources and procedures, especially for quality assurance and

enhancement, meet the University’s requirements.

The need for a two-stage process that approves the Institution and then, subject to a positive outcome

from the first stage, validates specific programmes.

23. The key principles governing the delivery and ongoing monitoring of validated programmes are:

Regular dialogue between the University and the Institution to ensure that emerging issues, problems

or proposed changes are discussed and resolved promptly.

Regular monitoring and reporting, facilitated by University-appointed Moderators, to demonstrate

adherence to the agreed quality assurance and enhancement procedures.

Scrutiny of programmes and students’ work by University-appointed External Examiners to ensure

that standards are comparable with UK expectations.

Articulation Agreements

24. Articulation is the process by which students who have successfully completed an approved programme of study

in a partner institution have guaranteed entry onto a linked undergraduate programme in the University.

Students will typically complete two or more years of study in the partner institution and then transfer to Bangor

to complete the final 2 years of a programme (for example, a ‘2 + 2’ arrangement). Exceptionally, students may

be allowed to directly enter the final year of the University programme.


4

25. When establishing articulation arrangements, it is important to ensure that the course or modules completed in

the partner institution match those that students in the University would complete up to the point of entry. For

certain countries or educational systems, independent evidence may be available that can be used to verify their

academic equivalence in terms of credit and level. Transferable and cognitive skills must be considered as well

as subject specific skills and knowledge, so that students entering the University are not at a disadvantage.

Where the proposed arrangement involves an international partner, the arrangements must also consider how

English or Welsh language requirements will be met. Reference should be made to the programme outcomes

listed in the Programme Specification.

26. The articulation arrangement must also specify how students from the partner institution will be supported

during the transition period and how liaison between the University School and the partner institution will be

maintained so as to ensure that the University’s requirements continue to be met.

27. Those submitting proposals to establish articulation arrangements must complete an Institutional Review and

Due Diligence Report (Appendix 1) and a Risk Assessment Report (Appendix 2). Details must also be provided

to demonstrate how the programme completed at the partner institution (both in terms of credits and level) maps

onto those modules that form part of the Bangor programme. These documents will be considered by the

External Partnership Scrutiny Group which will also approve the Articulation Agreement. Proposals involving

international partners should be discussed with the International Education Centre before they are presented to

the External Partnership Scrutiny Group.

28. The External Partnership Scrutiny Group may approve the proposal, request further information, or reject the

proposal.

29. An Agreement for Collaborative Academic Programmes must be signed between the University and the partner,

setting out the rights and obligations of all parties. The Articulation Agreement will set out the rights and

responsibilities of both partners and include provisions to safeguard students in the event that the arrangement is

terminated.

30. Articulation Agreements must be reviewed every five years by the External Partnership Scrutiny Group.

Taught Programmes (Other than Externally Validated Programmes and Articulation Agreements)

Approval Process

31. Appendix 3 shows the processes involved in developing a collaborative taught programme and indicates the

documentation required at each stage.

32. Where the University engages with a partner to provide a programme of study leading to a dual award, the

University and the partner must have the legal capacity to do so. The academic standard of the programme must

meet the University’s expectations, irrespective of the expectations of the partner’s awarding body.

33. Those submitting proposals to establish a collaborative taught programme must complete an Institutional Review

and Due Diligence Report (Appendix 1), a Risk Assessment Report (Appendix 2), and a business plan (see

Appendix 6). Where external funding is being sought to support a collaborative partnership, the business plan

and programme information may be provided in the grant application. For new programmes, a programme

outline must also be provided (See Code 08). For dual awards, descriptions for each component of the

programme can be provided instead of a programme outline. The documents will be considered by the External

Partnership Scrutiny Group. Proposals involving international partners must be discussed with, and approved

by, the International Education Centre before they are presented to the External Partnership Scrutiny Group.

34. The External Partnership Scrutiny Group may approve the proposal, request further information, or reject the

proposal.

Programme Validation

35. When the External Partnership Scrutiny Group has approved a proposal, the following must be completed:

[i] Identify the Programme Co-ordinator and principal contacts at the partner.

[ii] Notify to the partner that the proposal has been approved.

[iii] Draft an Agreement for Collaborative Academic Programmes for discussion with the partner.

[iv] Discuss the possible start-date, student numbers and funding.


5

Institutional and Course Review Visits

36. For franchised programmes, joint and dual awards, and in existing provision where approval to deliver

programmes in a new subject area is being sought, an Institutional Visit will normally be required. At the

discretion of the External Partnerships Scrutiny Group, the Institutional Visit can be deemed unnecessary for

joint and dual awards involving institutions with a well-established international reputation. The Visit will

normally be held at least one month before a Validation Panel considers the programme. The Visit will normally

be charged to the potential partner separately. This will be a non-refundable charge, regardless of the outcome

of the Visit.

37. The Visit Team will normally consist of the Chair of the Quality Assurance and Validation Task Group (or

nominee) as Chair, two academic members of staff, a representative of the relevant department (other than the

Programme Co-ordinator), an External Assessor and a secretary nominated by the Chair. The Team must satisfy

itself that the partner organisation has sufficient resources, such as laboratory, library and IT facilities, teaching

accommodation, staff, academic support services, welfare services and quality assurance arrangements to

provide the requisite quality of learning opportunities to enable a student to achieve the academic standards and

learning outcomes (Appendix 5). The Team will also seek to establish that there are mechanisms in place to

ensure the health and safety of students on the programme.

38. The Chair will specify, in advance, additional documentation required, the resources the panel will wish to view,

and the teaching staff or senior managers it will wish to meet.

39. The Visiting Team’s recommendation must be ratified by the External Partnership Scrutiny Group.

40. Academic validation of the programme will be through the endorsement of a Validation Panel, following normal

University procedures (See Code 08). At the discretion of the Chair of the Panel, it may not be necessary to

approve programmes that have already been approved by the University. The scope, coverage and assessment

strategy of a collaborative programme should be described in the Programme Specification. In addition to the

programme documentation, the Panel will consider the report of the Visit Team.

In the case of dual awards, credit transfer arrangements must ensure that those courses or modules taken in the

partner that contribute to the Bangor award are at the appropriate level and that students can attain the required

number of credits and all the programme learning outcomes.

The submitting team will be represented by the Principal/Director, the Programme Director and the Heads of the

relevant departments and/or other representatives of the programme development team.

Agreement Documentation

41. An Agreement for Collaborative Academic Programmes must be signed between the University and the partner,

setting out the rights and obligations of all parties. The terms of the Agreement for Collaborative Academic

Programmes will have been discussed and agreed during the programme development phase. The agreement

will be signed on behalf of the University by the Vice-Chancellor (or nominee) and by the Vice-Chancellor’s

counterpart (or nominee) in the partner organisation.

42. The Agreement for Collaborative Academic Programmes will specify the term of the agreement, and the

conditions pertinent to a particular programme, including its aims, academic structure, professional

requirements, resources and staffing. Where the partnership is supported by external grant funding the

agreement may be replaced by the completed grant application signed by both parties.

43. Agreements for Collaborative Academic Programmes will be reviewed every five years by the External

Partnership Scrutiny Group.

44. The Agreement for Collaborative Academic Programmes will contain a financial appendix, providing a detailed

fee schedule.

Termination

45. The Agreement for Collaborative Academic Programmes must specify the conditions under which termination

can occur and the steps necessary to safeguard the interests of existing students including offering alternative

programmes where appropriate.

46. In the event of termination of an agreement, the University and the Partner will enter into a Termination

Agreement which shall set out the responsibilities and rights of both institutions and of students enrolled on

programmes.


6

Programme Management

47. Franchised programmes will be the direct responsibility of a Joint Programme Board, specifically constituted for

each programme (or group of cognate programmes). The Joint Programme Board will consist of:

Chair: School Director of Teaching and Learning (or nominee) or Academic Registrar (or nominee)

Programme Director

One other member of staff involved in delivering the programme in the partner organisation

Programme Co-ordinator

Officer nominated by the Academic Registrar,

Administrative officer from the Partner

The Joint Programme Board may co-opt one or two members to represent users/clients and practice. It is

recommended that the Joint Programme Board also has a student representative. If the Joint Programme Board

does not have a student representative, the Board must have mechanisms to obtain student feedback.

48. All meetings of the Board will be minuted, and a record held by the Bangor University School. Meetings may

be held by video conference. The Terms of Reference for the Joint Programme Board are given in Appendix 7.

The Board will:

[i] Report to the relevant School/Department’s Board of Studies (or equivalent) in each institution.

[ii] Meet at appropriate times during the academic year, and at least 3 times.

[iii] Monitor the Annual and Quinquennial Reviews and the administration of quality assurance procedures.

[iv] Consider all proposed modifications in content, programme delivery, assessment framework, progression

and staffing.

[v] Assist in setting targets for recruitment and in ensuring that student welfare and resource implications are

properly addressed.

49. Joint and dual awards will be managed by Bangor University School Boards of Studies and Boards of Examiners

established and managed as defined by the University’s regulations.

Approved Staff

50. The University must satisfy itself that staff engaged in delivering or supporting a collaborative programme are

appropriately qualified for their role, and that the partner organisation has effective measures to monitor and

assure the proficiency of such staff.

51. Approved Staff may be entitled to borrowing membership of the University Library and access to its other

electronic information sources. Any arrangements to permit access will be discussed and agreed as part of the

agreement between the University and the Partner.

52. The University School responsible for a Programme must verify annually that all members of the partner

institution team who are engaged in delivering or supporting a collaborative programme are suitably qualified,

fully conversant with the operational details of the programme(s) of study, including assessment requirements,

syllabi, timetables, facilities and the style and level of teaching and learning expected on the programme(s). An

up-to-date list of staff approved to teach on the approved programme will be maintained by the University

School. No member of staff may teach on the programme unless approved and formally listed.

Admissions

53. Admission requirements and application procedures will be defined in the programme documentation and follow

recognised national and University procedures as defined in the Code of Practice for Recruitment and

Admissions (Code 09).

54. Admissions arrangements including those for Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL) and Accreditation of Prior

Experiential Learning (APEL), must comply with the University’s regulations. Admissions criteria must be

defined in the Programme Specification.

Assessment of students on Taught Programmes

55. The regulations that apply to each Programme must be defined in the Programme Specification.

56. For taught programmes, other than for credit gained at a partner organisation in dual awards, all forms of

assessment must be conducted as specified in the University’s regulations.


7

57. For franchised programmes, The Board of Examiners will be chaired by the Head of the relevant University

School (or nominee) or by the Academic Registrar (or nominee). The Board of Examiners will also include the

Director, the Programme Co-ordinator, and all members of the teaching team. All assessment results for

progression at Level 4 and Level 5 must be submitted to the Chair of the relevant University Senate Board of

Examiners for approval. All assessment results for final awards at Level 4, 5, 6, and 7 should be reported to, and

considered by, the University School’s Board of Examiners to confirm that students have met the criteria for

University awards.

58. Boards of Examiners for joint and dual awards will be established as defined by the University’s regulations.

Partners should be represented at Boards of Examiners, but, in accordance with the regulations, sub-committees

may be established with representation from the University and partner and with specific responsibility for the

collaborative programme.

Quality Assurance

59. School Boards of Studies are responsibility for the quality and academic standards of collaborative programmes.

60. The University’s internal quality audit process will include scrutiny of collaborative provision.

External Examining Arrangements

61. External examining procedures for collaborative programmes will be consistent with the University’s normal

practices, as set out in the Codes of Practice for External Examiners.

62. The University will be responsible for the appointment, payment and functions of external examiners. The

recruitment and selection of external examiners will be as specified in the Codes of Practice for External

Examiners.

63. External examiners of collaborative programmes will receive briefing and guidance from the University’s

Academic Registry, sufficient for them to fulfil their role effectively.

64. External Examiners for collaborative programmes will report directly to the University. Copies of the External

Examiners’ reports will be forwarded to the partner institution and made available to students.

Programme Monitoring and Review

65. Annual Review: The review will follow the quality enhancement procedures of the University and will be

conducted by the Programme Director who will present the External Examiner’s report and the Annual Review

and Development Plan (QA1 form) to the relevant group (Joint Programme Board or University Board of

Studies). These will also be considered by the University’s Quality Assurance and Validation Task Group.

66. The Academic Registrar (or nominee) will co-ordinate verification that the terms and conditions that were

originally approved have been, and continue to be, met, via scrutiny of the External Examiner’s report, QA1

form, Minutes of Joint Programme Boards, other relevant documentation.

67. Quinquennial Review: Each programme will be reviewed every five years. This will consider the overall

development of the programme, quality of teaching, student demand, application numbers and admission

standards, physical resources, developments in learning resources and strategies, student progression and

employability, staffing and quality of teaching. Quinquennial reviews will be co-ordinated by the Academic

Registry and follow the procedures of the University’s Quality Audits. A report of the review will be considered

by the Joint Programme Board (for franchised provision), the School Board of Studies and the Quality Assurance

and Validation Task Group.

Changes to the Programme

68. No major changes may be made to modules or programmes without the prior approval of the University Board

of Studies. For franchised provision, proposals for such change shall be considered in the first instance by the

Joint Programme Board.

69. Where approved amendments affect students currently enrolled on a programme, the agreement of those students

should be sought prior to implementation of the amendment. Any significant changes to a programme should be

notified to prospective students who have received an offer of a place but have yet to register.

70. Copies of the amended and approved Student Handbook, incorporating all approved changes, must be forwarded

to the University by the partner institution on an annual basis prior to the beginning of the academic year.


8

Collaborative Research Programmes

Principles

71. This section applies to all research programmes that involve collaboration with a Partner. This includes joint and

dual awards. It applies when a student has one or more supervisors that are not employees of the University. It

also applies to arrangements that allow students to access external facilities or resources that are not under the

control of the University but which are required in order for them to conduct their research.

72. Whenever collaborative research programmes are arranged, the University’s academic standards must be

maintained.

73. Potential partner organisation must have the appropriate infrastructure and support services to secure the

required standards of quality management and enhancement and that supervisory and monitoring arrangements

are appropriate. Appropriate consideration must be given to health and safety.

74. When developing collaborative research projects the partners involved must try to anticipate issues that might

arise. In particular, agreement must be sought on the specific roles of the student involved in the project and on

issues relating to intellectual property and/or publication, recognising that contributions may change during the

period of the project.

75. Collaborative arrangements must be documented in a written agreement which is signed by appropriate

authorities of the partners involved. The precise nature of the agreement will vary according to the scale and

nature of the collaboration. The University recognises that research projects may encompass a diversity of

partners and partnership arrangements, and hence there is no one type of agreement that will fit all types of

arrangement.

76. All students studying away from Bangor will be subject to the University’s normal regulations and processes,

including those for assuring quality and standards, supervision, annual monitoring and health and safety.

Students conducting research in other countries or working with overseas collaborators

77. When conducting research in other countries or working with an overseas collaborator, research students must

comply with the legal and ethical requirements defined by the University and in the countries where the research

is conducted. Similarly students based abroad who are enrolled for a research programme of the University must

comply with the UK’s legal and ethical requirements as well as those of their own country.

78. Any plans for students to undertake study overseas must take into account the relevant Foreign and

Commonwealth Office guidelines for travellers abroad and follow the University’s normal health and safety

guidelines.

Collaborative research programmes

79. The University can enter into arrangements with other academic institutions that have powers to award joint and

dual awards.

80. The arrangements must be approved, in advance, by the University’s External Partnerships Scrutiny Group and

cannot be established by an individual member of academic staff. The process for establishing these types of

award is described below.

81. Establishing and maintaining joint and dual research programmes is a significant undertaking and Schools

should not embark on this process unless they are able to commit sufficient resources, including staff time, to

ensure that the requirements set out below are met. The University will not establish joint or dual research

awards for individual research students.

Establishing collaborative research programmes

i. Programmes involving access to external resources

82. Research programmes may require students to make use of resources that are not under the University’s control.

These include, for example, specialist field or industrial sites, library or other information resources. Access to

such resources must be agreed in advance and incorporate consideration of when and how they will be made

available to the student and costs involved. These provisions must be recorded in an agreement between the

student’s supervisor and an appropriate senior authority in the Partner. The form of the agreement will vary

according to the arrangements and may vary between an exchange of correspondence and a short research

contract. A copy of the agreement should be retained in the student’s file.


9

ii. Programmes involving other academic institutions, research centres or industrial partners

83. Full and part-time research students may spend a part of or all of their registration period undertaking study in

another organisation. This may be an academic institution, a research centre or other workplace appropriate for

the study. In all cases the partner must be able to provide a safe working environment in which the student can

conduct their research satisfactorily. Schools and supervisors should maintain regular contact with students

studying in partner organisations, to monitor their progress and welfare and to ensure that, as far as is reasonably

possible, they become and feel part of the School’s research community.

a. Programmes involving an industrial partner

Research programmes involving an industrial partner or a research centre must be established following

the University’s guidelines in the Code of Practice for Placement Learning (Code 07). This includes the

development of a learning contract and, where appropriate, completion of a health and safety checklist.

b. Programmes involving another academic institution, including joint and dual awards

Where it is intended that the collaboration will apply to only one student a standard agreement should be

completed, using a template provided by the Academic Registry. If the collaboration will apply to several

students (either within or across years), or to a dual or joint award, the procedures described in paragraph

84 must be followed.

84. Those submitting proposals to establish a collaborative research programme must complete an Institutional

Review and Due Diligence Report (Appendix 1) and a Risk Assessment Report (Appendix 2). These documents

will be considered by the External Partnerships Scrutiny Group which may approve the proposal, request further

information, or reject the proposal. As part of the process of gathering further information, the External

Partnerships Group may request that a visit is arranged.

Management of collaborative research programmes

85. For each student, the Head of School (or nominee) must approve the programme of study and local supervisor.

The Head of School must consider:

i. Details of the status and location of the organisation where the study will be undertaken

ii. Details of the intended programme of work

iii. The curriculum vitae or details of the relevant qualifications of the local supervisor. In the case of

dual and joint awards the student must have a designated supervisor in each partner.

iv. A statement by the head of the partner, or other person with appropriate authority, confirming that the

student will be provided with necessary facilities as required during the study period

v. Relevant health and safety documentation, approved by the School Health and Safety Co-ordinator.

86. Documents presented to the Head of School must be kept on the student’s file and should be retained by the

School for monitoring and review processes. The names of the supervisors and details of the arrangements must

be recorded in the student’s personal file.

Application and admission

87. The University’s normal regulations for application and admission apply to students on collaborative research

programmes. In the case of joint and dual awards the precise admission requirements must be agreed in advance

and detailed in the partnership agreement.

88. Schools must ensure that requirements or opportunities to undertake study away from Bangor are clearly

identified in publicity material.

89. Students who will be required to undertake a period of research in a partner organisation must be informed of

this at the time when an offer of admission is made. They must receive details of the programme including

financial implications for themselves, where they will be based, the period(s) involved and arrangements for

local supervision.

Supervision

90. All students who spend periods away from Bangor in a partner organisation will normally be allocated two

named supervisors, one in the University and one in the partner. It is expected that the supervisors will have

been identified by the time the offer of admission is made. Regular contact with the Bangor supervisor may be

by e-mail, video conferencing or other electronic means for students based overseas.

91. The supervisor in the partner must be appropriately qualified and have a good understanding of the student’s area

of research.


10

92. Students must be made aware of the standards and procedures for the conduct of research in the Partner. They

must also be made aware of how to seek guidance and assistance where necessary and procedures for reporting

concerns or irregularities.

Generic skills training

93. It is the responsibility of the Head of School (or nominee) to identify the training needs of individual students

and how they are met. Wherever possible, students spending part of their registration period in a partner

organisation should still complete generic skills training in the normal way. Where the length of the student’s

period of study away from Bangor precludes this it is the responsibility of the Head of School (or nominee) to

ensure that equivalent measures are in place.

The study period(s)

94. Students on joint or dual programmes must be fully briefed prior to moving between institutions. This should

include full details of the work the student is expected to complete and local supervisory arrangements. The

briefing should also include details of travel, health and safety arrangements and local cultural or other norms

that the student might be expected to adhere to.

Monitoring arrangements

95. Students on collaborative research programmes are expected to provide written comments on the effectiveness of

the arrangements as part of their normal annual monitoring and review processes. These must be discussed

during the annual supervisory meeting. Any difficulties or remedial actions must be addressed and resolved by

the parties involved. If they cannot be resolved in this way they should be communicated to the Head of School

or the Director of Graduate Studies, who will recommend a course of action.

Examination arrangements

96. Research programmes offered through collaborative partnerships must be examined as specified in the

University’s regulations. This is especially important in the case of dual and joint awards where the procedures

that normally operate in the partner may be different to those that operate in Bangor University. This applies in

particular, to the precise nature of the thesis defence and the procedures to be followed after the examination, for

example in relation to corrections that are required.

Institutional oversight of processes and the maintenance of quality and standards

97. Collaborative research programme arrangements are monitored by:

i. Scrutiny of student’s annual supervisory and monitoring reports. This process is overseen by the

Senate Postgraduate Committee.

ii. Internal quality audits and mid-term reviews. These processes are reported to the Quality Assurance

and Validation Task Group.

iii. Scrutiny of External Examiners’ reports.

98. In addition, the University may conduct specialist audits of particular arrangements, usually prior to an

agreement being renewed, or at other times as required.

Study Abroad

99. The University provides opportunities for students to study abroad, either as a formal part of their programmes

or as additional placements. Where study abroad is part of a programme, the activities must be as defined in the

Programme Specification. As specified in Appendix 8, new exchange partnerships must be approved by the

Director of International Development. For all study abroad placements, the activities (including list of taught

modules where appropriate) must be approved by a student’s School and by the International Education Centre.

All activities must be planned and conducted in accordance with the Code of Practice for Placement Learning

(Code 07). Students must apply for study abroad placements using forms available from the International

Education Centre. Where the study abroad is supported by external sponsorship (e.g. Erasmus), the University

will ensure that it has a record that the student has acknowledged receipt of the grant and full detail of the

placement location and contact details. The International Education Centre is responsible for providing students

with relevant information about study abroad; this must include academic requirements, health and safety,

finance, and cultural assimilation. The University will arrange with the Host Institution for evidence to be

provided for both attendance and achievement.


11

100. Students must submit the following documentation before beginning a period of study abroad:

Confirmation of Personal Details

Erasmus Application Form (if relevant)

Erasmus Grant Agreement (if relevant)

Flight/Travel Details

Health & Safety Checklist

Learning Agreement (for study placements)

Study/Work Abroad Agreement

Training Agreement (for work placements)

Information for Students

101. Students enrolled on a collaborative programme will be provided with information about the procedures for

complaints and appeals, making clear the channels through which they can contact the University.

102. The School will be responsible for monitoring the information given by the partner organisation to prospective

students and those enrolled on a collaborative programme, including information provided in the Student

Handbook and on the partner organisation’s web site and Virtual Learning Environment.

103. Students will be provided annually with a named point of contact within the relevant School at the University.

Appeals, Complaints and Academic Misconduct

104. Appeals must be considered under the University’s appeals procedure. For validated Programmes, the partner’s

appeals procedure must be used, as described in the Validation Manual.

105. Complaints by students about the course, the standard of teaching, facilities or other relevant matter, will be

considered under the University’s complaints procedures, or, for validated programmes, the partner’s procedure.

For all programmes, an attempt must be made to resolve the complaint informally. If a student is unhappy with

the way a complaint has been considered by a partner institution, a complaint can be submitted to the

University’s Academic Registrar.

106. The partner institution must maintain a record of all complaints made by students and of the outcome of each

complaint.

Certificates

107. The University will have sole authority for awarding certificates and transcripts relating to the programmes of

study delivered through collaborative arrangements. The only exception is that partners produce transcripts for

students on validated programmes.

Conferment

108. Partners may make arrangements for a ceremony at which certificates are presented or may decide that students

attend the University’s graduation ceremony.

109. Costs incurred by the University for a partner’s ceremonies and for participation in ceremonies must be included

in the Business Plan.

110. Graduates can wear the appropriate academic dress in accordance with the University’s policies.

111. Students who receive a University award become members of the University Alumni.

Publicity Material

112. The University will ensure that it has effective control over the accuracy of all public information, publicity and

promotional activity relating to its collaborative provision, by requiring all such information etc. to be approved

by the School. The School will be responsible for monitoring such publicity. Where publicity is produced in a

language other than Welsh or English, a translation must be provided to the School.


12

Appendix 1: Institutional Review and Due Diligence Report

Appendix 1

Institutional Review and Due Diligence Report

An Institutional Review and Due Diligence Report enables the University to confirm that the proposed Partner

institution is, prima facie, compatible in mission and sufficiently financially sound to support the collaborative activity.

This is needed for forming the following types of partnerships: MoU, Articulation, Validation, Franchise, Dual or Joint

Degree Programmes.

The following information may be prepared by relevant academic schools or the International Partnership Office (IPO),

and signed by relevant staff in the IEC and relevant Heads of Schools. (Signatures from Schools may not be necessary

if the proposed partnership is at the Institutional level.)

The Report must be submitted to the External Partnership Scrutiny Group (EPSG) together with an Institutional Risk

Assessment Form. A Business Plan (not necessary for Articulations) and a draft Agreement may be submitted at the

same time or at a later stage.

1. Partner General Information

Name of Institution

Address

Website

Partner Academic Unit involved in

this collaboration

Lead contact for this collaboration in

partner institution

Name

Title

Email

Telephone

Address if different from above

Type of Institution (please tick) University

FE College

Other – please specify

Legal Status (please tick) Publicly funded

Private

Charitable

Range of awards offered

(please tick one or more)

Sub Honours degree

Up to Honours degree

Up to Masters degree

Research Degrees

Total student numbers Undergraduate

Postgraduate

Total number of staff

Brief profile of academic staff, e.g.

percentage of Professors, staff with

PhD qualification

Academic

Administration

Existing links and nature of the links

with other UK HEI’s if any

Courses currently offered in the

broad area by the institution

National and international reputation

of the institution

General ranking, subject specific

ranking, QA rating etc. if available


13

2. Resources at Partner Institution

Please list the names and

qualifications of the key staff in the

partner who will be involved in

teaching and assessment in the

programme

This may be provided at a later stage at validation or before final

agreement signing.

Please confirm that the partner has

adequate library, ICT, laboratory and

other physical resources to deliver the

programme

3. Proposed Collaboration

Programme(s)

Type of Collaboration(s)

(please tick one or more)

MoU

Articulation

Dual degree

Joint degree

Validation

Franchise

Other, please specify

Programme(s) Involved

Please specify the name and type of

award

Brief Description of the Proposed

Arrangement.

Please explain how the collaboration

will work

Rationale for the Development

Please explain how the collaboration

fits with the strategic development

plans of the School and how it will

benefit the University and the

partner.

Forecast Number of Students

Proposed Starting Date

Source of Funding

(Please tick one or more)

Fees

HEFCW funded numbers

Other

4. Host School in Bangor

University

Proposing School(s)

Lead Contact(s)

at School(s)

Name

Title

Email &

Extension

Proposed date of first student intake

5. IEC

Lead Contact at

IEC

Name

Title

Email &

Extension

Author of this Report

Date

6. Any Other Relevant Information


14

IEC Signature:

Staff Name:

Title:

Date:

Head of School Signature:

Head of School Name:

School:

Date:

Additional Heads of Schools can be asked to sign if more schools are involved in the partnership.


15

Appendix 2: Risk Assessment of Collaborative Provision

A Risk Assessment Form is a complementary document to the Due Diligence Report which is needed for forming the

following types of partnerships: MoU, Articulation, Validation, Franchise, Dual or Joint Degree Programmes.

The Form may be prepared by relevant academic schools or the International Partnership Office (IPO), and signed by

relevant staff in the IEC and relevant Heads of Schools. (Signatures from Schools may not be necessary if the proposed

partnership is at the Institutional level.)

The Report must be submitted to the External Partnership Scrutiny Group (EPSG) together with an Institutional Review

and Due Diligence Report.

Note: Where an Institutional Agreement already exists with the partner it will not be necessary to complete a new

risk assessment report. It may be necessary, however, to seek confirmation that the existing report is still valid if a

period of 5 years has elapsed since the last risk assessment report.

Partner Institution: University of Cadiz

Proposed Partnership Type:

(If this is a MoU only, please complete form 1, otherwise form 2)

Proposed Programme and Award:

Relevant School(s): Head of School Signature(s):

Author of the Report: Signature:

Date:


16

Form 1

0-5 = Low Risk 6-9 = Medium Risk 10+ = High Risk

Risk Area Criteria Level Score

Partner’s Status University offering taught and research degrees,

international standing

0

University offering taught and research degrees 1

University or College offering taught degrees only 2

Publicly funded FE College 2

Private College or organisation 3

Potential collaboration

projects with BU

(If it is more than one

types of collaboration,

then select the highest

risk level)

Joint research including staff exchange 0

Student exchange and/or study abroad 1

Pathway and/or Articulation 1

Dual degree 2

Franchise 2

Validation 3

Partner’s collaboration

with other UK HEI’s

Partner has experience of collaborating at this level

with research led UK HEI’s

1

Partner has experience of collaborating at a lower or

similar level with new UK HEI’s

2

No experience of collaborating with any UK HEI’s 3

Partner’s resources Large institution (>10,000 students), generally well

resourced

1

Medium or small institution (<10,000 students),

generally well resources

2

Limited resources 3

Total


17

Form 2

12-15 Low Risk 16-22 = Medium Risk 23+ = High Risk

Risk Area Criteria Level Score

Partner’s Status University offering taught and research degrees,

international standing

0

University offering taught and research degrees 1

University or College offering taught degrees only 2

Publicly funded FE College 2

Private College or organisation 3

Role of Partner Support centre only & teaching provided by Bangor

staff

1

Teaching provided by a combination of Bangor and

partner staff

2

Teaching delivered by partner with Bangor staff

limited support

3

Partner’s expertise in this

area

Partner has established programmes at this level of

award

1

Partner has established programmes at a level

immediately below the planned level of award

2

Other 3

Partner’s collaboration

with other UK HEI’s

Partner has experience of collaborating at this level

with research led UK HEI’s

1

Partner has experience of collaborating at a lower or

similar level with new UK HEI’s

2

No experience of collaborating with any UK HEI’s 3

Expertise of staff in the

partner institution

Most of the partner staff who will be involved in the

delivery of the programme have relevant expertise at a

level above the level of award

1

Most of the partner staff who will be involved in the

delivery of the programme have relevant expertise at

the level of award

2

Some of the partner staff who will be involved in the

delivery of the programme have relevant expertise at a

level lower than the level of the award.

3

Staff has little relevant expertise 4

Bangor School’s

experience of

collaborative provision

School has prior experience of collaborative provision 1

None 3

Programme This programme or similar programme is provided by

the Bangor school

1

New programme in an established curriculum area 2

New programme in a curriculum area not currently

available in Bangor

3

Qualification Undergraduate or sub-degree 3

Masters 2

PhD 1

Partner’s resources Large institution (>10,000 students), generally well

resourced

1

Medium or small institution (<10,000 students),

generally well resources

2

Limited resources 3

Professional body

recognition

None 1

Course requires professional body recognition 3

Total


18

Appendix 3: Establishment of Collaborative provision – Flowchart of process

Text in italics is the documentation that is required at each stage of the process. Numbers in parentheses indicate the

appendix in this document where each can be found.

* It is expected that preparatory work on agreements will begin when the External Partnership Group has approved a

proposal (See paragraph 35). Where necessary, agreements can be completed and signed at other times in the process,

subject to a caveat that any such agreements are subject to approval of institutions and /or validation of programmes.

Expression of Interest

Review and Preparation of Proposal

International Education Centre/School/Academic Registry

Institutional Review and Due Diligence Report (1)

Risk Assessment Report (2)

Business Plan (6)

Programme Outline

Reject

External Partnership

Scrutiny Group Reject

Institutional Visit

Programme Approval Panel

Refer Back

Reject

Agreement

Completed and signed*

Establish Joint

Programme Board

Promotion of programme

and recruitment

External Partnership

Scrutiny Group Reject


19

Appendix 4: Checklist for Schools to be used when developing arrangements for collaborative programmes

The following checklist is intended to assist Schools when they are developing arrangements to deliver a programme in

collaboration with a partner organisation. It does not have to be submitted to a University committee. However,

consideration of it will assist Schools when preparing the formal documentation required by the University.

Developing a collaborative programme will normally involve often complex and lengthy discussions with staff at the

partner institutions and within the University. Such discussions should take part prior to the programme being

submitted for approval. Where appropriate consideration has not been paid to academic, financial, operational and

quality assurance issues, a proposal is likely to be referred back to the School for further work.

Schools should also be aware that, once established, the collaborative programme remains their responsibility. Hence,

when considering such arrangements, they must be prepared to commit sufficient time and staff resources to it, to

ensure that quality assurance and enhancement requirements are met.

Programme development

1. What is the rationale for developing this programme?

2. How does it fit with the School’s development plans?

3. How does it fit with the University’s Teaching and Learning Strategy?

4. Have the course and partner been approved by the School Board of Studies or other relevant committee?

5. Does the course require recognition by a professional, statutory or regulatory body? If so which one and how

will recognition be achieved?

6. Is it intended that the course will be accredited and if so by which organisation? By what mechanisms will this

be achieved?

Academic content and delivery

7. Where will the programme be delivered?

8. Is it full time or part time?

9. Is the course new or is it based on a similar programme currently being delivered in Bangor or elsewhere?

10. What parts of the course will be delivered by the staff of the University and by those of the partner?

11. What will the programme consist of e.g. compulsory and optional modules, work placements?

12. Will the course be delivered through the medium of Welsh or English or bilingually?

Admission requirements

13. What will the entry requirements be?

14. How will admissions be processed?

Resources

15. What physical resources are required to run the programme and can they be provided through the proposed

collaboration?

16. Are the teaching rooms suitably equipped?

17. Does the partner have sufficient library, IT and other resources to fulfil their requirements?

18. Are the staff of the partner organisation sufficiently well qualified to deliver assess and monitor the programme?

Course Management

19. Who will be responsible for the academic management of the programme:

a) in the partner,

b) in the University?

20. Which organisation (University or partner) will be responsible for the different functions during the annual life-

cycle of the programme including publicity, selection of students, admission, enrolment and registration,

maintenance of student records, provision of ratified results, issuing of certificates and transcripts?

21. Will the students attend the Bangor University graduation ceremonies?


20

Student support

22. What welfare and other support systems will be available to students on the course?

23. How will students on the course provide feedback to the University School?

Funding arrangements

24. How will funding flow from the University to the partner?

25. What fees will students pay and to whom?

26. What financial support will be available to students on the course?


21

Appendix 5: Partner documentation

Documentation to support the establishment of a collaborative arrangement

Any collaborative arrangement must meet specific programme and validation requirements that are detailed elsewhere

in this Code of Practice. This appendix lists those documents or information that a potential partner is required to

supply in support of the application.

Partner institution information

Institutional aims or Mission statement

Prospectus

Student handbook

Details of collaboration with other UK HEI’s

Regulations, policies and procedures

Procedures for admission and selection of students.

Procedures for detecting plagiarism and for dealing with unfair practice in general.

Academic regulations for the programme(s) under consideration including procedures for assessment, re-

assessment, progression and award.

Procedures for dealing with complaints.

Health and safety policy.

Policies relating to equal opportunities and diversity.

Policies relating to students with disabilities.

Quality assurance and enhancement

Arrangements for Boards of Examiners and External Examining, including procedures for the appointment of

External Examiners and their role.

In the case of taught programmes, procedures for annual module and course review.

In the case of research programmes, procedures for annual monitoring of progress.

Procedures for obtaining feedback from students.

Reports of relevant reviews by external or public sector review bodies.

Professional development opportunities for staff.

Student support services

Student welfare and support services including provision for students with disabilities.

Tutorial or other support systems.


22

Appendix 6: Business Plan

The following list is indicative of the information required for the Business Plan.

1. Funding arrangements (e.g. grant and/or fee income)

2. Is grant funding split with the partner?

3. Is there a minimum income to the University?

4. Other income

5. Projected student numbers

6. External costs (e.g. Board of Examiners or professional body)

7. External Examiner fees and costs

8. Initial and ongoing panel/meetings costs

9. Other Fees/Expenses

10. Indirect Expenditure

School academic and support staff time

Academic Registry staff time

Other University staff time

Other indirect costs


23

Appendix 7: Terms of Reference for the Joint Programme Board

1. To manage the operation and quality of the programme.

2. To oversee applications, admissions and recruitment procedures.

3. To oversee the development of the programme and determine improvements that can be made.

4. To consider end of module reports and determine appropriate actions.

5. To consider an annual review of the programme and periodic institutional reviews of the programme.

6. To make recommendations for minor amendments, as educationally appropriate, to the programme of study.

7. To consider issues raised by student feedback and by the Student-Staff Liaison Committee and to agree

appropriate actions

8. To consider and respond to comments made by External Examiners and agree recommendations for appropriate

action.

9. To consider education and quality issues raised by module teams.

10. To advise the committee(s) that it reports to (in the two institutions) on the above and other matters as applicable.

11. To assure and oversee the immediate quality of the course in terms of teaching and learning, student experience and

outcomes, linking to existing standards for teaching quality in both institutes.

24

Appendix 8: Procedures for different types of partnership

Types of Partnership*1

Approval process Agreement*2 Authorised

signatories

Monitoring &

Institutional

oversight*3

Feedback

mechanisms

Further details

Joint supervision of

research programmes

(where the co-supervisor

is from a partner) and

Research conducted at a

partner (including

research and taught

postgraduate

programmes)

Individual students:

Head of School

approves co-

supervisor.

Groups of students:

EPSG approves

proposal.


School approves

agreement.

Groups of students:

Agreement approved

by Chair of EPSG or

nominee


Head of School

Groups of students:

PVC (T&L) or

PVC (R)

Students reports

to Senate PG

Committee

EE reports to

QAVTG

Annual

monitoring reports

External Examiner

reports


Paragraphs 71-81

Paragraph 83

Groups of students:

Paragraphs 71-81

Paragraph 84

Doctoral Training

Centres involving

partners

EPSG approves

proposal.

Agreement approved

by Chair of EPSG or

nominee

PVC (T&L) or

PVC (Research)

Students reports

to Senate PG

Committee

EE reports to

QAVTG

Annual

monitoring reports

External Examiner

reports

Paragraphs 84

Franchised programmes

(including parts of

programmes)

EPSG approves

proposal subject to

satisfactory Panel

reports.

Agreement approved

by Chair of EPSG or

nominee

PVC (T&L) EE and QA1

forms to QAVTG

Re-approval and

revalidation

reports to EPSG

and QAVTG

IQA and mid-

term review

reports to

QAVTG

Joint Programme

Boards,

School Boards of

Studies,

External Examiner

reports,

Annual

monitoring (QA1)

forms,

Re-approval and

revalidation

reports.

Paragraphs 31-70

25



signatories

Monitoring &

Institutional

oversight*3

Feedback

mechanisms

Further details

Validated programmes

delivered by non-

programme-awarding

bodies.

EPSG approves

proposal subject to

satisfactory Panel

reports.

Agreement approved

by Chair of EPSG or

nominee

Vice-Chancellor EE, Moderator

and annual

monitoring

reports to

QAVTG

Re-approval and

revalidation

reports to EPSG

and QAVTG

Moderator reports.

External Examiner

reports,

Annual

monitoring forms,

Re-approval and

revalidation

reports.

Paragraphs 21-23

Joint Programmes

EPSG approves

proposal subject to

satisfactory Panel

reports.

Agreement approved

by Chair of EPSG or

nominee

Vice-Chancellor

Students reports

to Senate PG

Committee

EE reports to

QAVTG

IQA reports to

QAVTG

Re-approval and

revalidation

reports to EPSG

and QAVTG

Annual

monitoring reports

External Examiner

reports

Re-approval and

revalidation

reports

Taught

Paragraphs 31-70

Research

Paragraphs 71-98

Dual Programmes

(Taught)

EPSG approves

proposal subject to

satisfactory Panel

reports.

Agreement approved

by Chair of EPSG or

nominee

Dual Programmes:

Pro Vice-

Chancellor (T&L)

EE and QA1

forms to QAVTG

IQA and mid-

term review

reports to

QAVTG

Revalidation

reports to EPSG

and QAVTG

Joint Boards of

Studies,

School Boards of

Studies

External Examiner

reports,

Annual

monitoring (QA1)

forms.

Paragraphs 31-70

26



signatories

Monitoring &

Institutional

oversight*3

Feedback

mechanisms

Further details

Dual programmes

(Research)

EPSG approves

proposal

Agreement approved

by Chair of EPSG or

nominee

Dual Programmes:

Pro Vice-

Chancellor (T&L or

R)

Students reports

to Senate PG

Committee

EE reports to

QAVTG

Re-approval

reports to EPSG

and QAVTG

Annual

monitoring reports

External Examiner

reports

Internal quality

audits

Paragraphs 71-98

Collaboration with other

HEI(s) to provide taught

programmes (including

provision in Welsh)

Individual modules:

Whole or

substantive parts of

programmes

‘Umbrella

agreement’ via the

Coleg Cymraeg

Cenedlaethol

Agreement approved

by Chair of EPSG or

nominee

Head of School

Whole

programmes:

Pro Vice-

Chancellor (T&L or

Research)

New module

approval panel

Programmme

validation events

EE and annual

monitoring

reports to

QAVTG

Audit and

revalidation

reports to EPSG

and QAVTG

External Examiner

reports,

QA1 and QA2

forms

Re-approval and

revalidation

reports

Individual modules:

Code 08

Whole or

substantive parts of

a programme:

Paragraphs 31-70

Articulation

arrangements

EPSG approves

proposal.

Agreement approved

by Chair of EPSG or

nominee

PVC (T&L) IQA reports to

QAVTG. Audit

and revalidation

reports

Marks obtained

by students in

Bangor are

considered by

EPSG and

QAVTG

Partner required to

inform BU of any

major changes to

curriculum.

Annual procedure

to check

programme in

partner still meets

university

requirements.

Paragraphs 24-30

27



signatories

Monitoring &

Institutional

oversight*3

Feedback

mechanisms

Further details

Work-based learning

modules

and

Placements

University process

for programme and

module approval.

As defined by Code

of Practice for

Placement Learning

Head of School and

College Director of

T&L

QAVTG

Audit and

revalidation

reports

Boards of Studies,

External Examiner

reports.

Annual

monitoring forms.

PRSB’s where

appropriate

Code 07

Code 08

Study abroad (including

exchanges and student

mobility)

Approval by

International

Education Centre

As defined by Code

of Practice for

Placement Learning

Head of School and

Director of

International

Development

International

Education Centre

Paragraph 99-100

& Code 07

Provision of learning

support, resources or

specialist facilities.

Note:

Generally as a small

module component or

small part of a research

project. For module-

level collaboration and

research conducted at a

partner - see above.

Approval by Head

of School (or

nominee)

Agreement approved

by Head of School

(or nominee)

Monitoring by

annual module

review. Internal

quality audit.

QAVTG

Audit and

revalidation

reports

Annual

monitoring reports

Research students

Paragraphs 71-82

Other students

Procedures as

defined for research

students in

Paragraphs 71-82

*1 Based of the types identified in Chapter B10 of the Quality Assurance Agency’s UK Quality Code (Published December 2012). *2 Agreements have to be proportional to the type of activities. For example, a validatated programme will require an agreement using an approved University template.

An agreememt for a student to use equipment elsewhere can be a concise bespoke document. The agreement of PSRB’s may also be required. *3 Student feedback will also be used for all types of programmes