contents · 1.1.0 introduction to section 1 1.2.0 course planning for home, collaborative and...

University of Gloucestershire: Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook

[BACK TO TOP] 1 | P a g e

Contents

INTRODUCTION: Framework for managing Academic Quality & Standards

0.1.0 Introduction to Academic Quality and Standards

0.2.0 Definitions

0.3.0 Responsibilities, Governance and Management

0.4.0 Academic Quality Assurance Principles

0.5.0 Implementation of Quality Assurance Principles

0.6.0 Academic Standards Principles

0.7.0 Implementation of Academic Standards Principles

0.8.0 Development and Management of Academic Quality and Standards

SECTION 1: Course Development, Validation, Approval, Amendment and Discontinuation

1.1.0 Introduction to Section 1

1.2.0 Course Planning for Home, Collaborative and Franchise Provision

1.3.0 University Approval to proceed to Validation

1.4.0 Award Titles

1.5.0 Course Development and Validation

1.6.0 Amendments to existing courses for Home and Collaborative Provision

1.7.0 The Discontinuation and Phasing-Out of courses

1.8.0 Approval of Off-Campus Delivery

SECTION 2: Assessment Principles and Procedures

SECTION 3: Evaluation of Courses


3.2.0 Course Evaluation and Monitoring processes

3.3.0 Board of Studies

3.4.0 Evaluation of the Student Experience of Modules and Courses

3.5.0 Other Inputs into Course Evaluation

3.6.0 External Surveys

SECTION 4A: Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM)

4A.1.0 Introduction to Continuous Improvement Monitoring

4A.2.0 Monitoring and Review of Home Provision including courses that are Franchised to Collaborative Partners

4A.3.0 Diagram of the CIM Process

4A.4.0 Consideration of CIM by FASQC

4A.5.0 Academic Standards & Quality Committee and Academic Board consideration of CIM

4A.6.0 Roles and Responsibilities within CIM

SECTION 4B: Annual Monitoring (for collaborative partners with validated arrangements only)

4B.1.0 Introduction to Annual Monitoring

4B.2.0 Purposes of Annual Course Monitoring

4B.3.0 Process of Annual Monitoring



4B.4.0 The Annual Monitoring Report (AMR)

4B.5.0 Diagram of the Annual Monitoring Process

4B.6.0 Consideration of AMRs by Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC)

4B.7.0 Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) Annual Report

4B.8.0 Academic Standards & Quality Committee and Academic Board Consideration of Annual Review

SECTION 5: Periodic Review and Revalidation

5.1.0 Introduction to Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR)

5.2.0 Purpose of PRR

5.3.0 Process of PRR

5.4.0 Documentation for a PRR

5.5.0 The PRR Event

5.6.0 Outcomes of PRR

5.7.0 Receipt of the PRR Report by ASQC and Academic Board

5.8.0 Providing timely information, support and guidance to applicants in relation to changes to existing courses for home and collaborative provision

SECTION 6: Externality

6.1.0 Independence of External Participation in Quality Assurance Processes

6.2.0 External Examiners

6.3.0 Appointment of Externals

6.4.0 Briefing and Induction of Externals

6.5.0 Rights and Duties of Subject External Examiners

6.6.0 Rights and Duties of Chief External Examiners

6.7.0 Meeting with Students

6.8.0 Reports

6.9.0 Premature Termination of Contract

6.10.0 Resignation of External Examiners

6.11.0 Externality in Validation and Periodic Review & Revalidation

6.12.0 Other Sources of Externality

SECTION 7: The Role of Students in Quality Assurance

SECTION 8: Internal Quality Audit

SECTION 9: Course Handbooks and Module Guides

9.1.0 Guidance on Course Handbooks and Module Guides

9.2.0 Course Handbooks

9.3.0 Module Guides

SECTION 10: Definitions and Operations of Collaborative Provision

10.1.0 Introduction

10.2.0 Classification of Collaborative Provision

10.3.0 Category ‘A’ – School-based training, clinical and other placements; overseas student exchanges

10.4.0 Category ‘B’ – Outreach Learning Venues and Approved Delivery Locations



10.5.0 Category ‘C’ – Outreach Supported Learning Centres

10.6.0 Category ‘D’ – Credit Rating

10.7.0 Category ‘E’ – Articulation Agreements

10.8.0 Category ‘F’ – Franchise or Validated Provision leading to an Academic Award or Credit (of UoG or of another HEI or awarding body)

10.9.0 Annual Business Review (ABR)

10.10.0 Dual and Joint Awards

10.11.0 Changes to Partnership Category

10.12.0 Termination of Partnership Arrangements

SECTION 11: Partnership Approval and Review, Delivery Approval, Change of Partner Status

11.1.0 Introduction

11.2.0 Partnership and Programme Approval Procedure

11.3.0 Partnership Due Diligence Procedure (Categories C-G)

11.4.0 Process of Approval for a Category B (External Venue/Location of Delivery)

11.5.0 Articulation and Direct Entry Arrangements with Awarding Bodies or Overseas Institutions – CP Category E

11.6.0 Change of Collaborative Partnership Category

11.7.0 Renewal/Review of Partnership

11.8.0 Annual and Periodic Partnership Review


11.10.0 Partnership Review (PR)

SECTION 12: Partnership Liaison and Management

12.1.0 Partnership Liaison

12.2.0 The Academic Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO)

12.3.0 The Partnership Coordinator

12.4.0 Academic Liaison at the course level – Academic Link Tutors (ALTs)

12.5.0 Faculty Administrative Staff

12.6.0 Student Services and Library & Information Services Staff

12.7.0 Academic Registry Staff

12.8.0 Tasks and Responsibilities

12.9.0 Partnership Boards

SECTION 13: Termination of Collaborative Partnerships

13.1.0 Introduction

13.2.0 Terminating Partnerships

13.3.0 Suspension and Discontinuation of courses delivered by Collaborative Partners

13.4.0 Suspension or Discontinuation as an outcome of University Review

GLOSSARY



SECTION A: Framework for managing Academic Quality and Standards


0.2.0 Definitions


0.4.0 Academic Quality Assurance Principles






0.1.1 The University, as a degree-awarding body, accepts corporate responsibility for the academic

standards of its awards and the ways in which those standards are established, maintained and

measured nationally against the awards of other institutions. It also recognises that such

standards can only be established and sustained in a quality assurance environment which is

robust in its judgements, self-critical, open and receptive to external peer review, and supportive

in its commitment to the continuous enhancement of quality.

0.1.2 The purpose of this document is to describe the framework and processes adopted by the

University for the establishment, maintenance, evaluation, and development of academic quality

and standards. It distinguishes between quality assurance (processes) and standards

(outcomes) whilst recognising the essential relationship which exists between them.

0.1.3 It should be noted that this document is intended to cover programmes developed and taught

within the University, or taught and assessed by University staff at approved locations outside the

University; and taught programmes developed or offered in the context of collaborative activities.

0.1.4 The University’s framework for the management of quality and standards is fully aligned with

national guidance including the Quality Assurance Agency’s UK Quality Code for Higher

Education. Each section of the Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook (AQPH) makes

appropriate links to relevant chapters of the Code.

0.2.0 Definitions

0.2.1 Quality Assurance is defined as the culture, based on sound principles and processes, which

creates an environment for the establishment, maintenance and consistent application of

academic standards.

0.2.2 Quality Enhancement is defined as the set of policies and activities by which the University

engages in deliberate improvements to the student experience. The University seeks to ensure

that quality assurance processes support enhancement.

0.2.3 Academic Standards are defined as measures of the absolute performance of students in

assessed work, and the consistency, reliability and external validity of the assessment process,

and of the awards made by the University.

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/quality-code/Pages/default.aspx




0.2.4 This Handbook is designed for application to all taught programmes within the University and for

taught University awards that are undertaken in partnership with others, including taught

elements of doctoral programmes. Arrangements for research degrees are covered in Research

Degrees: A Handbook of Regulations and Procedures.


0.3.1 The University aims to perpetuate a culture which sees quality assurance as a professional issue

and not a management function. As professionals, all staff engage in the process of continuous

reflection and self-assessment which informs the evaluation of academic programmes and

contributes to the maintenance of their academic standards and the enhancement of the student

learning experience. The University takes responsibility for maintaining a central overview of

processes which enables it to identify and disseminate good practice, and to take effective action

where necessary.

0.3.2 The components of the management structure established by the University to assure and

enhance academic quality are as follows:

1. Boards of Studies (BoS) are the primary units of quality assurance in the organisational

framework, and are responsible for the evaluation, review and enhancement of the quality

and standards of modules owned by the course(s);

2. Module Boards of Examiners (MBE) are responsible for ensuring the consistent and

accurate assessment of students on modules owned by a Subject Community;

3. Award Boards of Examiners (ABE) are responsible for the oversight of the work of Module

Boards of Examiners and for decisions, and the consistency of such decisions, on final

awards for students;

4. Faculty Academic Standards and Quality Committees (FASQC) are the responsible

bodies for the monitoring, evaluation and review of all courses in a Faculty, and have

responsibilities for courses franchised to collaborative partners;

5. Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC) provides the University-level

operation and scrutiny of quality assurance processes on behalf of Academic Board;

6. Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) which, on behalf of ASQC, provides the

University with a means of monitoring its approach to the quality and standards of

collaborative provision;

7. Academic Regulations Committee (ARC) reviews and maintains the University’s academic

regulations and procedures on behalf of ASQC;

8. Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC) provides an institutional forum for quality

enhancement and advises Academic Board on policy matters related to the student learning

experience;

9. Academic Board (AB) exercises overall stewardship of quality in the University and has

ultimate responsibility for the assurance of academic standards.

0.3.3 The governance and management structure is supported by:

1. The Academic Quality and Partnerships (AQPO) section of Academic Registry which

provides professional advice and support for academic quality assurance and standards

processes.

https://infonet.glos.ac.uk/departments/registry/researchadmin/Core%20Documents/Research%20Student%20Handbook%202015-16.pdf

https://infonet.glos.ac.uk/departments/registry/researchadmin/Core%20Documents/Research%20Student%20Handbook%202015-16.pdf



2. The Academic Development Unit (ADU) which provides expertise on matters related to

learning and teaching.

0.3.4 Within the governance and committee structures, individual responsibilities for quality assurance

and academic standards are held by:

1. The Dean of Quality and Standards (DQS) who chairs ASQC, has oversight of all quality

assurance procedures, acts as a central source of advice on quality and standards matters

to colleagues both within the University and in collaborative partnerships, and leads the

strategic development of University-level approaches to quality assurance. Assisted by two

Associate Deans, the Dean also has responsibility for the oversight and review of Academic

Regulations for Taught Provision (ARTP) and the development of academic policies.

2. The Academic Registrar and University Secretary who, as well as providing

representation on the University Executive Committee (UEC), directly manages the

Academic Registry and has overall responsibility for ensuring the provision of professional

support to quality assurance activities.

3. The Dean of Academic Development who oversees the ADU, and who is responsible for

supporting the development and implementation of the Academic Strategy, the Learning and

Teaching Strategy and the Research Strategy.

4. Faculty Deans who have an oversight of the efficient operation of Faculty-level committees

including Faculty Development Boards and Boards of Studies (BoS), and who provide

overall academic leadership and have responsibilities for resource provision in each Faculty.

5. Faculty Heads of Quality and Standards (FHQS) who, through chairing the FASQCs, are

responsible for monitoring the quality and standards of the Faculty’s academic provision. As

a member of Faculty Learning & Teaching Committee (FLTC) they foster the link between

quality assurance and quality enhancement activity within the Faculty.

6. The Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP) who has responsibility for the quality

assurance and operational oversight of the University’s provision offered in collaboration with

external partners.

7. Heads of School who have a responsibility for the general academic quality and health of all

programmes located within their School and who are the Chairs of Module Boards of

Examiners for all courses located within the School.

8. Faculty Learning and Teaching Coordinators who Chair Faculty Learning and Teaching

Committees (FLTCs) and who have responsibility for learning and teaching issues at Faculty

level. As a member of FASQC they promote quality enhancement activity within the Faculty,

informed by the outcomes of quality assurance processes.

9. Senior Tutors who are responsible for providing high quality academic advice and student

support for undergraduate and postgraduate students on courses within their School. This is

a shared responsibility and other staff, particularly course leaders, personal tutors and

academic advisers with the Helpzone.

10. Academic Subject Leaders (ASL) who may Chair Boards of Studies, and who are

responsible for the management of the academic quality of courses within their Subject

Community and who present student performance findings to Module Boards of Examiners.

11. Academic Course Leaders (ACL) who may Chair Boards of Studies and who are

responsible for the academic quality of the course, including production of the Course

Handbook and the receipt and analysis of the Annual Course Evaluation (ACE) Survey.

12. Module Tutors who are responsible for the academic quality of the modules which they

manage, the production of Module Guides, and the analysis of student evaluations.



13. Individual Staff who are responsible for academic quality ‘at the closest point possible to

the actual process of teaching and learning’.

14. Students who are partners in the University quality processes and who are entitled to

participate fully in the academic quality assurance, management and development of their

programmes of study, and who provide representatives to sit on Boards of Studies, Campus

Life Groups (CLG) and ASQC.

0.4.0 Academic Quality Assurance: Principles

0.4.1. Oversight of all quality assurance procedures in the University lies within the remit of Academic

Board. Responsibility for aspects of this remit is delegated to a series of sub-committees at

University, Faculty and course level.

0.4.2 Quality assurance procedures are also subject to the general policy statements of the University,

which inform the development, validation, monitoring and review of programmes of study. Of

particular relevance are the following:

The Academic Strategy

Learning and Teaching Strategy

Research Strategy

Sustainability Strategy

0.4.3 The University has a well-established set of principles which form the context within which these

structures and procedures operate. These are:

1. Evaluation of academic quality is owned and takes place at the closest point possible to the

actual process of teaching and learning;

2. Quality assurance in the University operates as a continuous process;

3. Quality assurance in the University is a dynamic and not a static process, and is closely

linked with other internal processes;

4. Quality assurance is proactive and forward-looking rather than retrospective and reactive;

5. Quality assurance and quality enhancement in the University are seen as interrelated and

reciprocal and the University seeks to ensure that quality assurance processes support

enhancement;

6. Quality assurance in the University is responsive to national developments, and in particular

is informed by the QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education, while remaining rooted in the

University’s mission and values.


0.5.1 In implementing these principles, and in acknowledging the importance of externality in

determining the University’s approach to quality assurance, particular emphasis is placed on

the following:

0.5.1.1 The External Examiner (EE) system (see Section 6) and the arrangements which are made for

the:

appointment and induction of examiners;

receipt of and responses to examiners individual reports;

consideration of the reports of Chief External Examiners (CEEs);

https://infonet.glos.ac.uk/staff/vc/Documents/Academic%20Strategy%20-%20Final.pdf

https://infonet.glos.ac.uk/newsandevents/news/PostFiles/Strategy%20Documents/Learning%20and%20Teaching%20Strategy%202011_2015_updated%20Sept%2012.pdf

https://infonet.glos.ac.uk/departments/adu/Pages/default.aspx


http://www.glos.ac.uk/sustainability/Pages/sustainability.aspx




production and consideration of a synoptic cross-institutional report (as part of the ASQC

Annual Report) based on the full range of external examiners’ reports to inform the planning

of quality enhancement activity, and to ensure that any common issues of concern are

rapidly addressed.

0.5.1.2 Other sources of externality, including the involvement of suitably qualified academics from

outside the University and, where appropriate, professional practitioners and/or employers in the

University’s course development, validation and review processes.

0.5.1.3 External calibration and the University’s promotion of activities which contribute to a corporate

judgement of academic quality in a national and international context. This encompasses all

activities which brings University staff into contact with colleagues from across higher education,

industry, commerce and the public sector in contexts where quality, standards and the

comparability of standards may be discussed. Such activities include:

appointment of staff as undergraduate or taught postgraduate EEs, and examiners of

research degrees in other institutions;

staff membership of appropriate professional bodies, including the Higher Education

Academy (HEA), involvement in peer subject networks and consortia, and attendance at

appropriate conferences, seminars and workshops;

involvement of staff in collaborative research, contract research and consultancy;

appointment of staff to positions of editorial responsibility for academic and professional

journals;

appointment of staff by the QAA as institutional reviewers, and staff experience of quality

assurance activities in other institutions such as membership of validation or review panels.

0.5.1.4 The quality of academic staff and the attention paid to their qualifications, for example, to ensure

that staff are normally qualified at or preferably above the level at which they teach. Also the

processes of appointment, induction, mentoring, and continuous professional development and

review of academic staff.

0.5.1.5 Quality enhancement activities which support academic quality including the implementation of

the cross-University Learning and Teaching Strategy, the dissemination of good practice through

the committee structure, the work of the Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC) and of the

Academic Development Unit (ADU).

0.5.1.6 Student involvement in the evaluation of modules and of the student experience as a whole,

effective representation on Boards of Studies (BoS) and on other committees with a quality remit,

and their general contribution to quality assurance and enhancement activities.

0.5.1.7 The regular evaluation and enhancement of quality assurance processes related to the planning,

development, validation, approval, monitoring, review and evaluation of all academic provision.

0.5.1.8 Ensuring that the development of institutional policies is informed by quality assurance

considerations as appropriate.

0.5.1.9 The alignment of quality assurance processes in professional departments with those which

apply to academic activities, so as to provide a unified approach to ensuring the excellence of all

aspects of the student experience.

https://infonet.glos.ac.uk/newsandevents/news/PostFiles/Strategy%20Documents/Learning%20and%20Teaching%20Strategy%202011_2015_updated%20Sept%2012.pdf



0.5.1.10 The consideration of relevant information about the student experience from sources which may

include the National Student Survey (NSS), the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey

(PRES), the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) and internal surveys.


0.6.1 In its consideration of academic standards, the University’s three main principles are as follows:

1. The belief that standards-based quality assurance depends on the formulation of explicit

academic standards referenced to a common national framework;

2. The belief that this common national framework is provided by relevant sections of the QAA

UK Quality Code for Higher Education, which provides the essential underpinning for the

maintenance of academic standards, together with the requirements of external accreditation

bodies;

3. The belief that rigorous assessment procedures are the principal mechanism for the

maintenance of standards appropriate to awards.


0.7.1 In implementing academic standards principles, particular emphasis is placed on a

number of factors:

0.7.1.1 The University adheres to the Expectations and Indicators of the QAA Quality Code for Higher

Education.

0.7.1.2 The University is open to all forms of external scrutiny which may test the University’s corporate

judgement of academic standards and the comparability of the standards of its awards with those

of other institutions. Currently, these forms of external scrutiny include:

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) Higher Education Review;

Ofsted inspections of teacher training programmes;

The accreditation of academic programmes by professional bodies where appropriate;

The mandatory use of external participants at key stages of the University’s quality

assurance processes including the development of a new academic programme, the

approval of a new academic programme, the periodic review and revalidation of an existing

academic programme, and the approval and review of collaborative partnerships.

0.7.1.3 The University places great importance on the role played by external examiners in the rigorous

maintenance of academic standards through their remit to ensure that:

assessment procedures are appropriate;

students’ performance is equivalent to that of their peers on comparable programmes;

standards are comparable with the awards of other institutions.

0.7.1.4 The adoption for all courses of study of appropriate elements of relevant QAA Subject

Benchmarks.

0.7.1.5 The adoption of QAA programme specifications which are in line with national standards for all

programmes leading to final awards of over 60 credits or more.

0.7.1.6 The establishment of University assessment regulations and specific course regulations which

are communicated clearly to staff and students to ensure that they are aware of the expectations

placed upon them.





http://www.qaa.ac.uk/InstitutionReports/types-of-review/higher-education-review/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/Quality-Code-Chapter-A2.pdf





0.7.1.7 The adoption of a framework of award specifications expressed in terms of credits and levels and

consistent with the QAA UK Quality Code Part A: Setting and maintaining academic standards.

0.7.1.8 The achievement of consistency in assessment through the adoption and routine employment of

level descriptors, module descriptors, grade descriptors, and the use of learning outcomes and

the assessment criteria which they generate as measures to ensure that the expectations against

which students’ work will be assessed are transparent and consistently applied.

0.7.1.9 The establishment of consistency in assessment processes by the publication (in the University’s

Assessment Procedures) and application of common procedures for the setting and marking of

assessments and the operation of Boards of Examiners (BoEs).

0.7.1.10 The provision of statistical indicators arising from assessment rounds which enable grades and

marking practices to be compared at course, faculty and institutional level, and permit

appropriate analyses via the Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM) process (see Section

4a) (or Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs) for collaborative partners with validated arrangements

(see Section 4b) and Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR) reports (see Section 5).

0.7.1.11 Attention to employability and graduate skills and the monitoring of employment and progression-

to-further-study rates to ensure that the standards set by the University and achieved by its

students are recognised and valued externally.

0.7.1.12 Ensuring the implementation of rigorous and consistent procedures for the Accreditation of Prior

Learning (APL).

0.7.1.13 Applying a clear and consistent policy to the definition and treatment of assessment offences.


0.8.1 This framework describes the University’s current approach to the establishment, maintenance,

evaluation, and development of academic quality assurance and standards. It is recognised that

this is a continuously evolving area; the University will take every opportunity to participate in

relevant national consultations and discussions and will monitor external developments to ensure

that its policies and procedures remain informed by current best practice.

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Quality-Code-Part-A.pdf

http://www.glos.ac.uk/docs/Pages/default.aspx

https://infonet.glos.ac.uk/departments/registry/apl/Pages/default.aspx

https://infonet.glos.ac.uk/departments/registry/apl/Pages/default.aspx




SECTION 1: Course Development, Validation, Approval, Amendment and Discontinuation




1.4.0 Award Titles


1.5.1 - The Development Team

1.5.2 - The Advisor

1.5.3 - Other consultation

1.5.4 - Validation criteria for a new course from Home and Collaborative Provision

1.5.5 - The Validation process

1.5.6 - The Validation Panel – University Validation Events

1.5.7 – The Validation Panel – FASQC Validation Events

1.5.8 – Documentation

1.5.9 – The Validation Event

1.5.10 – Outcomes of a Validation Event

1.5.11 – Validation of a course with conditions

1.5.12 - Validation of a course with recommendations

1.5.13 – Commendations

1.5.14 – Course not recommended for Validation

1.5.15 – Decision deferred

1.5.16 – Sign-off of Validations

1.5.17 – Following Validation of a new course


1.6.1 – Amendments to an existing course

1.6.2 – Consultation with existing students in relation to course changes for home and

collaborative provision

1.6.3 – Providing timely information, support and guidance to applicants in relation to changes to

existing courses

1.6.4 – Change of course title

1.6.5 – Consultation with existing students and informing applicants in relation to a change of

existing course title

1.7.0 The Discontinuation and Phasing-Out of courses

1.7.1 - Procedures governing the Discontinuation and Phasing-Out of courses

1.7.2 – Suspension and Discontinuation of courses delivered by Collaborative Partners

1.7.3 – Suspension or Discontinuation as an outcome of University Review


1.8.1 – Approval of Off-Campus Delivery of faculty provision

1.8.2 – Work-based and Placement learning

1.8.3 – Off-Campus Delivery by faculty staff (external location)

1.8.4 – Distance Learning


1.1.1 This section presents the arrangements for course planning, validation, approval and amendment

for:



Home provision, i.e. provision for which the University is the degree-awarding body and

that is provided solely by the University of Gloucestershire;

Collaborative Provision, i.e. provision for which the University is the degree-awarding body

but that is delivered, in whole or in part, by another body.

1.1.2 The University’s arrangements for course planning, validation, approval and amendment align

with the QAA UK Quality Code including B1 Programme Design, Development and Approval, B8:

Programme Monitoring and Review and B10: Managing Higher Education Provision with Others.

1.1.3 The validation of collaborative provision can only be achieved on successful completion of the

necessary partnership approval processes that are published in Section 11.


1.2.1 The University has a clear process for the validation of new provision. Determining whether or

not proposals for course development should proceed to validation is the responsibility of

Academic Portfolio Committee (APC). Once APC has given approval for a course development

to proceed to validation a formal validation process will be agreed which usually culminates in a

validation event. A report of the validation event / process is produced which provides a

recommendation regarding the approval of the provision, subject to the meeting of any conditions

set. Once the conditions have been signed off the report is considered by the Academic

Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC) and where appropriate ASQC will, on behalf of

Academic Board (AB), approve the validation of the course, subject to the meeting of any

outstanding conditions.

1.2.2 Important information about each of the steps in this process is set out in the paragraphs below.

Planning Approval for the development of new courses

1.2.3 Home provision: the development of academic provision is informed by the University’s

Strategic Plan, the Academic Strategy and its supporting strategies, and faculty-level plans,

which set out the general direction of development for the institution over a five year time period.

1.2.4 Initial proposals for new courses are usually generated by a faculty and initially considered by the

Faculty Executive. Where the Faculty Executive approves an initial proposal the Faculty Dean,

or their nominee, will inform APC at the October / November meeting that the Faculty will be

developing a proposal in consultation with colleagues from relevant professional departments

and a Planning Approval Form (PAF) will be developed which includes both academic and

resource-related information.

1.2.5 The completed PAF must reflect the outcomes of consultation undertaken with the following

professional departments: Communications, Marketing, Student Recruitment (CMSR), Finance &

Planning (F&P), ICT Services and Estates and Library & Information Services (LIS), even if this is

purely to confirm that in the particular circumstances that pertain to a specific proposal it was

agreed with a professional department that their input was not necessary e.g. consultation with

Estates not being required for a distance learning course.

1.2.6 In May the completed PAF is submitted to the APC officer who uploads it and initiates the

workflow process. Exceptionally some planning approval forms may be accepted at other times

of the year but only if they meet specific criteria which make it important that an alternative

timeframe is agreed, e.g. PSRB requirements.

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/quality-code-B1.pdf




https://infonet.glos.ac.uk/departments/registry/qanda/paf/Pages/default.aspx



1.2.7 The workflow process allows professional leads with responsibility for CMSR, F&P, ICT Services

and Estates and LIS to confirm consultation with their professional areas has taken place and

provide feedback on the proposal in advance of the APC meeting. Their comments inform the

deliberations of APC.

1.2.8 Collaborative Provision: A prospective partner wishing to bring forward a course proposal for

validation will raise this during informal partnership development discussions.

1.2.9 It is possible for the development of a partnership and the development of a course proposal for

validation to proceed conterminously but the validation of the proposed course cannot take place

until the process for the approval of the new collaborative partner is complete. Detailed

information about partnership approval can be found in Section 11.

1.2.9 A new or existing collaborative partner may ask to bring forward a course proposal for validation

by the University. Usually the timing for this will be expected to align with the University’s annual

cycle for the development of course proposals. For prospective partners the University will only

consider such a proposal once University Executive Committee (UEC) has given approval for the

proposed partnership to proceed to the due diligence, the next stage in the process for the

approval of a new collaborative partner (see Section 11).

1.2.10 For existing collaborative partners, the University will only consider a request to bring forward a

course proposal for validation by the University if it is supported by the faculty who will provide

academic oversight of the proposed provision and UEC has approved a proposal to extend the

collaborative partnership (see Section 11).

1.2.11 Existing collaborative partners will usually be expected to align the development of their course

proposals with the University’s annual cycle of Academic Portfolio Review (APR) with initial

proposals being flagged in October and detailed planning approval forms being submitted for

APC approval via the University Faculty who will have academic oversight of the provision in May

and validation events generally taking place in the Autumn term.

1.2.12 The Partnership Coordinator will support the partner in developing a Planning Approval

(Collaborative) (PAC) Form. Support may also be provided by an Academic Link Tutor (ALT).

The completed PAC must be approved and submitted for APC consideration by the Dean of the

Faculty that will have academic oversight of the course.

1.2.13 Franchise Arrangements: A collaborative partner may wish to franchise an existing UoG course

rather than bring forward a new course for validation. In such cases the partner will be required

to complete and submit form CPP (Collaborative Partnership Proposal) (see Section 11), a

request to franchise a UoG Course via their partnership coordinator to the Faculty that has

academic oversight of the course the partner wishes to franchise. If the faculty is prepared to

support the request, the Faculty Dean will present the business case to the UEC.

1.2.14 If UEC is prepared to support the proposed extension to the partnership, the Faculty Dean will

present the proposal to APC. If the request is approved by APC the Partner will need to undergo

a Delivery Approval Event (DAE) to demonstrate their ability to run the course. The DAE

includes the confirmation of a Collaborative Delivery Plan (CDP) for Franchise Provision.


https://infonet.glos.ac.uk/departments/registry/collabprovision/Pages/CPForms.aspx






1.3.1 Planning Approval Forms for home provision (PAFs) and for collaborative provision (PACs) are

considered by Academic Portfolio Committee (APC).

1.3.2 APC uses the University Strategic Plan, the Academic Strategy and its supporting strategies, and

faculty-level plans, as the chief measures for selecting those proposals which should be

approved for development. Relevant UoG staff may be invited to attend for discussion of specific

proposals.

1.3.3 For home provision APC receives PAFs, which are required to make a viable academic case for

the development, to indicate the market for the proposed new course, to provide course set-up

information e.g. for UCAS and to address the likely resource needs.

1.3.4 The PAC for collaborative proposals requires similar details but no financial information because

this is contained in the business case that is approved by University Executive Committee (UEC)

and does not come to APC.

1.3.5 APC may permit a proposal to proceed to the validation stage, refer a proposal back to the

Faculty/Partner for further development, or turn it down if there are concerns about the academic

case or the viability in market or resource terms.

1.3.6 APC minutes are posted on the APC committee homepage and can be accessed by all UoG

Staff who need to be aware of the decisions recorded in the APC minutes.

1.3.7 The Faculty Dean who submitted the PAC on behalf of the Partner will inform the Partnership

Coordinator of any outcomes in relation to PACs submitted. The Partnership Coordinator is

responsible for informing the partner of the outcomes of APC.

1.3.8 No publicity for a proposed course may be issued until the approval of APC for a proposal to

proceed to validation has been obtained. Once approval has been given by APC for a

development to proceed to validation, any publicity must include the note ‘subject to validation’.

This note may be removed once the validation has been successfully completed and all

conditions met and signed off by the chair of the validation panel or, if necessary the Dean of

Quality & Standards.

1.4.0 Award Titles

1.4.1 The award title is as published on the Planning Approval Form (PAF or PAC) that has been

approved to proceed to validation. It should be noted that normally no changes to the award title

as approved by Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) will be permitted in the course of validation,

and that normally applications for changes of title will not be considered until the provision has

run for one full academic year. Changes of titles for existing awards are approved by APC using

form CA (Change of Award form).

1.4.2 Where a change of award title is sought as part of a Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR) a

PAF or PAC will usually be required.


1.5.1 The Development Team



https://infonet.glos.ac.uk/DEPARTMENTS/REGISTRY/QANDA/Pages/AQDocs.aspx



1.5.1.1 Once a course proposal has been approved to proceed to validation, for Home provision it is the

responsibility of the Faculty, led by the Dean and the relevant Head of School, to ensure that the

development progresses.

1.5.1.2 The designated leader of the development team should already have been identified via the

Planning Approval Form; the School should identify further members of the team, which should

normally consist of no fewer than three people. Where the development team leader has little

previous experience of course development or quality processes, a more experienced member of

staff should be added to the team.

1.5.1.3 It is the responsibility of the Faculty to provide administrative support for the development

process (for the minuting of development team meetings, preparation of documentation, etc.).

1.5.1.4 For collaborative provision it is the responsibility of the Partner, supported by the Partnership

Coordinator (PC) or Academic Link Tutor (ALT) to establish an appropriate development team

and to ensure the development progresses to agreed timescales.

1.5.1.5 The Partner will need to provide appropriate administrative support for the development process

for collaborative provision (for the minuting of development team meetings, preparation of

documentation, etc.).

1.5.1.6 Relevant templates may be found on the Academic Quality Guides, Forms and Templates

webpage. They include:

A template for Programme Specifications

A Module Descriptor template

Course map templates for undergraduate and postgraduate provision delivered full-time,

part-time and in fast-track mode

1.5.2 The Advisor

1.5.2.1 For Home provision the Faculty Head of Quality & Standards (FHQS) or their nominee will act as

Advisor to the development. Where a Faculty Academic Standards & Quality Committee

(FASQC) validation is planned it is not appropriate for the FHQS to act as the Advisor, since s/he

will be chairing the FASQC validation panel which makes a judgment on the proposal. Where a

FHQS has a potential conflict of interest in relation to a particular course proposal another FHQS

may be asked the chair the FASQC validation panel.

1.5.2.2 For collaborative provision the Partnership Coordinator (PC) and / or the Academic Link Tutor

(ALT) will be the Adviser for any course development undertaken by a Collaborative Partner.

1.5.2.3 Whether the Advisor attends development team meetings on a regular or occasional basis, or

operates by reading and commenting on paperwork, is negotiable between the Advisor and the

team.

1.5.2.4 The Advisor should report briefly to FASQC/Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) at suitable

intervals as to the progress or otherwise of the development. Where progress is slow, the

FHQS/Director of Collaborative Partnerships should bring this to the attention of the Faculty

Dean and Head of School / Lead representative of the Partner.

1.5.3 Other Consultation

1.5.3.1 The development team must provide evidence of consultation with at least one appropriate

external academic and it is also expected that appropriate external professionals will also be





consulted. Students should be involved in discussions on proposed developments e.g. via

agenda items raised at cognate Boards of Studies (BoS).

1.5.3.2 Development teams, in the course of a development process and preferably at an early stage,

are required to consult with the Faculty Head of Quality & Standards (FHQS), the Associate

Dean of Quality & Standards (ADQS) (responsible for Academic Regulations for Taught

Provision), the Academic Development Unit (ADU), Library and Information Services (LIS) and

Information Communication Technology (ICT) (where this is appropriate). In some instances it is

appropriate for a development team to agree with a professional department that consultation is

not required, in which case this agreement should be recorded.

1.5.4 Validation Criteria for a New Course for Home and Collaborative Provision

Validation Criteria

The validation documentation for this

provision provides the necessary

reassurance that the course:

When reading the validation documentation

the Validation Panel will be seeking evidence

that:

1. Demonstrates academic coherence o the course is underpinned by a suitable level

of scholarly activity

o that the programme specification and

accompanying rationale demonstrates

constructive alignment

o The course is in accordance with current

practice in the relevant profession or area of

employment

2. Enables students to achieve the

appropriate academic level;

The academic level and demands of the course

are appropriate for the awards to which it will

lead, in accordance with the QAA UK Quality

Code for Higher Education

3. Complies with the University’s

Academic Regulations for Taught

Provision (ARTP);

The proposed course is entirely consistent with

the University’s Academic Regulations for Taught

Provision.

4. Gives due regard to relevant QAA

Benchmark Statements or other

external requirements (for example,

those of professional bodies);

The proposed course content is explicitly

informed by the appropriate QAA

Benchmark Statement(s) and other external

requirements

5. Has been informed by careful

consideration of external academic and

professional feedback provided during

the development process;

The validation document reflects the development

teams’ consideration of and response to the

feedback on the course proposals provided by

external academic and professional advisers.

6. Has been developed with due regard to

relevant University policy statements

and strategies; [Collaborative partners

will want to demonstrate alignment with

the policies and strategies of their own

institution as well as those of the

University.]

The provision has been informed by relevant

policy and strategy documents including the

University Strategic Plan, the Academic Strategy

and its supporting strategies such as the Learning

& Teaching Strategy, the Research Strategy,

Equality Scheme and Sustainability Strategy;

7. Will be taught by staff who hold

qualifications that are, at the least,

equivalent to the level of the award;

The CVs of all staff who will be teaching on the

course have been provided and contain evidence

of their qualification being at least equivalent to

the level of the award.

http://www.glos.ac.uk/docs/download/Business/academic-regulations-for-taught-provision.pdf




http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/subject-guidance/Pages/Subject-benchmark-statements.aspx

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/subject-guidance/Pages/Subject-benchmark-statements.aspx



8. Definitive documentation complies with

standard University formats

See validation documentation templates and style

guide available from the Academic Quality

Guides, Forms and Templates webpage

9. Where the course is to be delivered

wholly or in part by flexible or distance

learning, sufficient learning materials

are made available in a finished form

for a judgement to be made as to the

ability of the provision to enable

students to meet the programme

outcomes.

An agreed sample of distance learning materials

should be provided and a demonstration of the

virtual learning environment (VLE)

Delivery Approval: For collaborative partner validation events the following additional

validation criteria must be met:

10. The Partner has demonstrated their

readiness to deliver the course

[resources and capacity]

A completed Collaborative Delivery Plan for

Validated Provision that has been signed off by

the Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP)

or her nominee.

1.5.5 The Validation Process

1.5.5.1 The University uses an event-based approach to the validation of new provision. The process

may be managed centrally by the University, or locally via the relevant Faculty Academic

Standards & Quality Committee (FASQC), depending on the nature and scale of the

development.

1.5.5.2 The decision as to whether a validation should be a FASQC or a University process will be taken

by the Chair of Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC) in consultation with Faculty

Head of Quality & Standards (FHQS), triggered largely where the changes required to current

provision will go beyond the remit of a Programme Change Approval Process (PCAP) but are

insufficient to warrant a full re-validation or where a new course was small in terms of credit size.

1.5.5.3 Consideration of the most appropriate type of event may initially take place at APC, which may

recommend a FASQC validation process as apposite.

1.5.5.4 The Academic Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO) in liaison with the Dean of Quality and

Standards (DQS) will ensure the administrative arrangements for the validation event are

completed (University or FASQC validation). These include the arrangements required to ensure

a validation panel is appropriately populated.

1.5.5.5 For home provision the officer will undertake all the arrangements for the event including

provision of an agenda, room bookings, hospitality and any accommodation required for the

external panel member.

1.5.5.6 For collaborative provision, the validation event will take place at the partner’s premises and

the officer will need to liaise with the partnership coordinator and the partner staff member

nominated to provide support for the event to ensure that appropriate room bookings and

hospitality are in place. The officer will produce the agenda and provide support for the

organisation of travel arrangements for university staff and external panel members traveling to

validation events at partner institutions.





1.5.5.7 For university or FASQC validation events, and whether events are for home or collaborative

provision the documents, one correctly sequenced PDF document should be forwarded to AQPO

a minimum of 15 working days before the scheduled date of the validation event. Where

documentation comes in later than this, the event may be delayed.

1.5.5.8 If the material appears to be complete, then a validation event will go ahead. If the

documentation does not appear to be complete the officer should draw this to the attention of the

Chair of the Validation Panel who may decide, in discussion with the Dean/Associate Deans

Quality and Standards (ADQS); and the Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP) for

collaborative events, that the validation event should be deferred.

1.5.6 The Validation Panel – University Validation Events

1.5.6.1 On receipt of the Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) minutes the Validation and Review

Schedule is updated and the Academic Quality & Partnerships Administration Officer allocates an

officer who supported by senior members of the Quality & Standards Team arranges a validation

panel for each proposal.

A Chair to be drawn from a faculty different to that bringing forward the proposal

At least one external academic/professional member;

The Chair of the relevant Faculty Academic Standards & Quality Committee (FASQC) or

their nominee

One other internal University member, normally drawn from a different School to the Chair

and to the faculty bringing forward the proposal.

1.5.6.2 The membership of a validation panel can be varied for good cause, although the categories of

membership given above are considered as standard. All panels will be subject to final approval

by Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC).

1.5.7 The Validation Panel – FASQC Validation Events

1.5.7.1 In the case of a FASQC validation, the panel would normally comprise:

the Chair of the relevant FASQC (or nominee, normally another Faculty Head of Quality &

Standards (FHQS);

two other members of staff (one of whom must be drawn from outside the Faculty);

an external panel member, to be approved by the FHQS in consultation with the Dean of

Quality and Standards (DQS).

1.5.7.2 The membership of a validation panel can be varied, for good cause, although the categories of

membership given above are considered as standard. In particular the FHQS and DQS will

decide whether an External Panel Member (EPM) is required in view of the nature of the

proposal and the nature and extent of external consultation that has taken place by the

development team. Where an EPM is required they are likely to be invited to operate by

correspondence.

1.5.8 Documentation

1.5.8.1 It is the function of the Development Team to work towards the completion of a standard set of

documentation by which the validation panel may form a judgement as to the readiness of the

course for final approval.

1.5.8.2 The first six of the listed items listed below constitute the set of definitive documents for the

course:



a) The completed Planning Approval Form (PAF) for home provision or a Planning Approval

Form (Collaborative) (PAC) for collaborative provision.

b) The completed Programme Specification (a template is available from the Academic Quality

Guides, Forms and Templates webpage).

c) The completed course map (a template is available from the Academic Quality Guides,

Forms and Templates webpage). It should be noted that the course map should be

accompanied by a statement of any changes to other course maps consequent on this

validation.

d) A statement indicating that Library & Information Services (LIS) has been appropriately

consulted in the course of the development. This statement should be ‘signed off’ by the

Head of LIS (or nominee) member of the development team.

e) The definitive set of module descriptors (a template is available from the Academic Quality

Guides, Forms and Templates webpage).

f) An overview document which sets the context for the course. Normally this would cover the

following:

a rationale for the structure and level of the course, demonstrating the alignment between

content, structure, delivery methods and methods of assessment and indicating the

nature and extent of the research and scholarly activity which underpins the teaching;

evidence that appropriate external consultation has been carried out, with a summary of

the development team’s response to any external advice received;

alignment with the University Strategic Plan, the Academic Strategy and its supporting

strategies such as the Learning & Teaching Strategy, the Research Strategy, Equality

Scheme and Sustainability Strategy; [Note: collaborative partners should demonstrate

alignment with the equivalent strategy and policy documents for their own institution.

short CVs (to a common format) of all staff who will be involved in the delivery of the

provision.

g) A listing of all delivery methods, and any locations outside University campuses for which

approval is sought. This should also be reported in the Programme Specification.

Processes for the approval of delivery at external locations managed by collaborative

partners may be found in Section 11.

1.5.8.10 For collaborative provision only, a completed Collaborative Delivery Plan for validated provision

is required.

1.5.8.11 For Home provision only following Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) approval for a

development to proceed to validation, Academic Registry (Student Records) will notify the

Development Team Leader of a code for the new course. Development teams must use this

code in preparing module descriptors, course maps etc.

1.5.9 The Validation Event

1.5.9.1 This event is organised by the Academic Quality and Partnerships Office (AQPO). The important

stages are as follows.

1.5.9.2 Membership of the panel is agreed as specified in 1.5.6 and 1.5.7.

1.5.9.3 The validation document and accompanying papers are circulated to panel members normally 15

working days before the date of the event by AQPO.



Academic%20Quality%20Guides,%20Forms%20and%20Templates%20webpagehttp:/insight.glos.ac.uk/departments/registry/Quality/Pages/QualityAssuranceHandbook.aspx

Academic%20Quality%20Guides,%20Forms%20and%20Templates%20webpagehttp:/insight.glos.ac.uk/departments/registry/Quality/Pages/QualityAssuranceHandbook.aspx

http://insight.glos.ac.uk/departments/registry/Quality/Pages/QualityAssuranceHandbook.aspx







1.5.9.4 Approximately five working days prior to the event the nominated Registry officer will convene a

meeting of internal panel members, including the Chair. Panel members, including the external

panel member who is not expected to attend this meeting, are required to forward initial

comments to the officer for this meeting. On the basis of comments and discussion, a draft

agenda will be compiled.

1.5.9.5 The final programme for the event is decided by the Validation Panel Chair in consultation with

AQPO. The programme should reflect the issues raised by Panel members in their initial

responses to the validation document. A typical programme might be:

Panel meeting to confirm agenda

Meeting with Senior Managers of the Faculty (or collaborative partner)

Meeting with Development Team and Head of School

Panel meeting to summarise main points, recommendations, etc.

Oral feedback to the Development Team

1.5.9.6 Essential criteria for validation as outlined in 1.5.4.

1.5.9.7 Accreditation by a Professional, Statutory, Regulatory Body (PSRB) may take place

contemporaneously with the University procedures, possibly in a joint validation event, or

following successful validation.

1.5.10 Outcomes of a Validation Event

1.5.10.1 The validation panel can make one of the following recommendations to Academic Board via

Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC):

a) Approval without conditions or recommendations.

b) Approval with conditions and/or recommendations.

c) Not recommended for approval.

d) Decision deferred.

1.5.10.2 In the case of decisions (a) or (b), an outcomes report of the event prepared by the Officer and

approved by the Chair of the validation panel will normally be circulated to the Development

Team Leader and to panel members no later than three working days after the event and a final

report will normally be circulated to the Development Team Leader and to panel members no

later than 10 working days after the event. In the case of decisions (c) or (d), a full report will be

provided detailing the reasons for the decision, and the steps which would need to be taken to

ensure a successful outcome should the proposal be re-presented.

1.5.10.3 Where accreditation by a PSRB takes place contemporaneously with the University procedures,

the proposal must comply with both the University regulations and procedures and those of the

PSRB. The report of any PSRB assessment of University provision must be first received at

Faculty Academic Standards & Quality Committee (FASQC) and then reported to ASQC.

1.5.11 Validation of a course with Conditions

1.5.11.1 Conditions are defined as matters that the validation panel believes have the potential to put

academic quality and/or standards at risk if they are not addressed prior to delivery of the course.

Accordingly, preventive or corrective action is required.

1.5.11.2 Where a course is validated with conditions, it is the responsibility of the Development Team to

respond within the time limits set by the validation panel. It is the responsibility of the Academic

Quality and Partnerships Office (AQPO) to co-ordinate responses to conditions, to forward such

responses to the Chair of the Panel for approval on the requisite form, and to inform the



Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC) and the Development Team when

conditions have been met. The Chair of the Panel may wish to take advice from a panel

comprised of Academic Quality and Partnerships senior members of staff that may include the

Dean, and the Associate Deans of Quality and Standards (ADQSs); and for collaborative events

the Director of Collaborative Partners (DCP), to confirm that conditions have been met.

1.5.11.3 Courses cannot start until conditions have been met. The date for fulfilment of any conditions will

be set at the validation, and the Chair of the validation panel will be required to provide written

notification on the requisite form to AQPO that the conditions have been met before delivery of

the provision may commence and before the ‘subject to validation’ clause can be removed from

any marketing material.

1.5.12 Validation of course with Recommendations

1.5.12.1 Recommendations refer to matters that do not materially affect the quality or the academic

standards of the course, but which would, from further consideration, have the potential to

improve the quality and/or further secure the academic standards of the course.

1.5.12.2 For collaborative partners with validated provision a response to all recommendations must be

included in the first Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) following approval although, where

necessary, an earlier response may be required.

1.5.12.3 For home provision recommendations should be added into the Action Log of the Continuous

Improvement Monitoring (CIM) Process so that any action required can be undertaken and

reported on.

1.5.12.4 Technical amendments to the documentation may be identified during the validation but

execution of these amendments would not normally constitute a formal condition of validation.

Examples requiring technical amendment might be inconsistencies between module titles in

various sections of the document; use of incorrect nomenclature for University posts and

committees; errors in terminology in programme specifications, etc. These should be addressed

by the development team as soon as possible after the event and prior to any part of the

definitive documentation being published or given to students. Advice on dealing with technical

amendments is available from the Quality & Standards Manager.

1.5.13 Commendations

1.5.13.1 The Panel may wish to draw attention to features of good practice. These can be defined as

features of provision which have the capacity to make a particularly positive contribution to a

course’s management of academic standards and/or the enhancement of its educational

provision.

1.5.14 Course not recommended for Validation

1.5.14.1 Where a course is not recommended for validation, it is the responsibility of the Development

Team in consultation with the Faculty Head of Quality & Standards (FHQS) and where

appropriate the Director of Collaborative Provision (DCP) to analyse the reasons for the decision

and to present to the relevant Faculty Dean or principle officer of a collaborative partner a

recommendation as to whether the Course should be further developed and re-submitted for

validation.

1.5.15 Decision deferred

1.5.15.1 This decision should be used sparingly and with a clear rationale for deferring a decision rather

than recommending or not recommending a course for validation. Where a deferral decision is



made, the Chair should agree a timescale with the Development Team to allow major issues to

be addressed. The validation panel should then reconvene to reach a final decision, after which

a report will be produced as outlined above.

1.5.16 Signing-off of Validations

1.5.16.1 Final agreement that any Conditions have been met will be given by the Chair of the Panel may

wish to take advice from a sub-group comprised of Academic Quality & Partnerships senior

members of staff that may include the Dean, and the Associate Deans of Quality and Standards

(ADQSs); and for collaborative events the Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP), to

confirm that conditions have been met.

1.5.16.2 The ‘subject to validation’ clause in publicity materials may only be removed from any marketing

material relating to a course once all conditions have been met and formally signed off by the

Chair of the validation panel or senior Academic Quality & Partnership staff.

1.5.16.3 Once approval has been confirmed, one electronic copy of the final version of the definitive

documentation must be submitted to the Academic Quality & Partnerships Office.

1.5.17 Following Validation of a new course

1.5.17.1 The Academic Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO) is responsible for saving the definitive

electronic documentation for new courses and modules in the Continuous Improvement

Monitoring (CIM) Evidence Store (Course History) or the equivalent Collaborative Partner

document store (Course History) that can be accessed by Student Records and other colleagues

in faculty and professional departments.

1.5.17.2 The programme specification, in the form of the course map includes a list of all modules

validated. The course map should be accompanied by a statement, supplied by the development

leader of any changes (additions, amendments and deletions) to existing course maps which

follow from the validation of the course. For Home provision Academic Registry (Student

Records) will refer to this to update module descriptors and course maps in the SITS record.

1.5.17.3 For Home provision Academic Registry (Student Records) is responsible for publishing

programme specifications and course maps on the University website.

1.5.17.4 Final reports of validations are received by Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC)

which, on behalf of Academic Board, approves the new course(s). ASQC has the right to review

the decision of the panel and may wish to raise additional matters including with regard to the

University’s management of quality and standards.

1.5.17.5 On receipt of the validation report ASQC will note any outstanding conditions and an action

arising from the meeting will require the Chair of the validation panel to provide confirmation to

ASQC once the conditions have been met. ASQC will not recommend approval of the provision

until confirmation that the conditions have been met has been received. The course must remain

‘subject to validation’ until all the conditions have been signed off and the course cannot

commence until this process has been completed.

1.5.17.6 On an annual basis ASQC will receive an overview report and evaluation of the validations which

have taken place in the preceding academic year.




1.6.1 Amendments to an existing course

1.6.1.1 The preferred method for signalling proposed amendments to existing courses is via the Annual

Monitoring Report (Collaborative Provision) or Continuous Improvement Monitoring process

(Home Provision) since the need for amendments and the nature of the amendments required is

likely to arise from consideration of the evidence presented and considered during the course of

monitoring activity. Proposed changes should be highlighted for the attention of Faculty

Academic Standards & Quality Committee (FASQC). In cases where the proposal involves

substantial change to the course, then the recommendation will be that the course should

undergo a Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR). Otherwise the following processes shall be

followed.

1.6.1.2 Amendments to an existing course include:

additions of new modules;

deletions of modules;

adoptions of existing modules onto another course map;

dropping of modules from a course map (but not deletion from all maps);

changes of status of modules (Core, Compulsory, Option);

changes to module code, module title, pre/co-requisites, learning outcomes, or assessment

pattern;

significant changes to description, content or delivery (including a marked shift to distance

learning).

1.6.1.3 Where minor changes are required to description, content or delivery, or to indicative resources

or module tutor, these can be made through the process of minor updating. For changes to an

award title, see paragraph 1.6.2.

1.6.1.4 Amendments to an existing course are developed by Boards of Studies or the equivalent Board

for collaborative provision validated courses. The Board develops a package of materials, using

proformas and guidance notes published on the Academic Quality Guides, Forms and Templates

webpage. The package should include all changes being brought forward for implementation in

the following academic year, and should be submitted in hard copy to a FASQC Programme

Change Approval Panel (PCAP) by the date(s) which will be published annually by the Academic

Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO). All changes to existing collaborative partner validated

provision are dealt with via the FASQC PCAP process.

1.6.1.5 The package of proposed changes should include:

the completed PCAP form (available from the Academic Quality Guides, Forms and

Templates webpage);

a rationale for all changes, including any implications for the Subject Communities and/or

Course’s overall academic coherence (e.g., learning outcomes, and teaching, learning and

assessment strategy, as given in the Programme Specification), and supported by evidence

from the Annual Monitoring or the Continuous Improvement Monitoring process (statistical

data, student feedback, etc.) where appropriate;

a summary of all changes since validation or revalidation to include: changes (additions,

deletions, adoptions, de-adoptions) to the list of modules on the course map between that

date and the map proposed for the year in question; changes to the Level requirements (i.e.

compulsory or core modules); and any significant changes to the overall experience of the

course as a result of changes within individual modules;

evidence of external consultation, normally from the course external examiner (the

FASQC Panel will advise if further consultation is needed);







evidence of consultation with any current students who may be negatively affected by

a proposed change (e.g. deletion or dropping of a module from the course map or changes

to the status of modules i.e core/compulsory/option), being informed in a timely way, and

being advised how to make their views known to the Board of Studies;

the minute(s) of the Board of Studies where the proposals were agreed (these should

make it evident that student representatives have been consulted, either through their

attendance at the Board or via correspondence);

a copy of the original, all subsequent and the existing course map for the course,

marked up with the proposed changes;

a signature (or evidence of their email submission of the PCAP documentation) of the

Faculty Dean (or nominee) or equivalent for a collaborative partner confirming that

resources (including staff and LIS resources) will be made available to support the changes.

1.6.1.6 Academic Course Leaders (ACLs) should consult the relevant Faculty Head of Quality and

Standards (FHQS) if the number or type of changes proposed via this amendment process result

in a substantial change to the aims, outcomes or learning, teaching and assessment strategies.

Support for collaborative partners engaging with this process will be provided by the Partnership

Coordinator (PC) or Academic Link Tutor (ALT). If the proposal involves what is judged to be

substantial change to the Course, then the Course will need to undergo PRR (see Section 5).

1.6.1.7 ACLs are responsible for consulting other ACLs if proposed changes will affect their Course

maps or (in the case of adoption or de-adoption) recruitment onto their modules. They are also

responsible for obtaining Head of School approval for the changes requested.

1.6.1.8 Programme Specifications will be reviewed and, if necessary, changed as part of this programme

change process. If the changes to maps and/or module descriptors have an impact on the

contents of the Programme Specification, a new version must be submitted with this paperwork.

1.6.1.9 Faculty PCAPs are a sub-panel of FASQCs. Membership is as follows:

Faculty Head of Quality & Standards (Chair);

Vice-Chair, or an experienced member, of FASQC;

Associate Dean of Quality and Standards (ADQS);

Student Records Officer (Academic Registry)

FASQC Officer (Academic Registry).

1.6.1.10 PCAP meetings are held twice a year. The major meeting is held in January and deals with any

changes to course maps (e.g., module additions, deletions, adoptions and de-adoptions;

changes to level requirements; and changes to assessment patterns), required at this time to

allow students to have comprehensive timetable information in preparation for the next academic

year. A follow up meeting is held in July and addresses more minor changes including

amendments to learning outcomes and assessment formats.

1.6.1.11 In exceptional circumstances chair’s action can be taken by the Faculty Head of Quality and

Standards (FHQS) to approve changes to course maps or module descriptors outside this

standard timetable. There are only three criteria permitting chair’s action to be taken:

a change to professional body (PSRB) requirements with immediate effect, requiring

changes to be made to the course which cannot be addressed within the validated map and

module descriptors;

a significant problem has arisen as a result of changes to staff availability. Note, however,

that the validated course aims and learning outcomes as given in the Programme



Specification must continue to be addressed, ensuring that student expectations continue to

be met;

a significant problem which potentially threatened the reliability and validity of the

assessment process arose in the conduct of assessment completed after the Panel

meetings, which cannot be addressed by making adjustment to the content and conduct of

the validated assessment diet.

1.6.1.12 Exceptionally there is scope to hold an Institutional PCAP where there is a need to consider any

proposals referred for clarification or further work by the Faculty Panels. Membership is as

follows:

ADQS (Chair);

FHQS with proposals under consideration;

a member of Academic Registry (Student Records) staff who will record changes on SITS;

a representative from Academic Registry (who will officer the meeting);

Representatives from a course may be invited to attend a panel meeting to present the

changes.

1.6.1.13 All proposals for implementation in the following academic year must be submitted to the meeting

of the relevant Faculty Panel. Proposals are approved or rejected, or referred for clarification or

further work.

1.6.1.14 Where a proposal has been referred for clarification or further work, the ACL should submit a

revised package of proposals to the Faculty Panel. Proposals are approved or rejected.

1.6.1.15 For Home Provision following approval, ACLs should provide Academic Registry (Student

Records) with electronic copies of the approved new module descriptors. Collaborative partners

should submit the equivalent set of information to the Academic Quality & Partnerships Office

(AQPO). The approved proposals will form the basis for updating course and module details with

SITS or the equivalent platform for the partner’s institution and on relevant University web pages.

1.6.1.16 Where a proposed change is dependent on a proposal being brought forward by another course,

or on a new course validation which is scheduled to take place after the meeting of the

institutional Panel, this should be signalled in the rationale. The panel can approve a proposed

change to the course subject to successful completion of the other validation.

1.6.1.17 The decisions of the Faculty PCAP event will be reported to the relevant FASQCs. Decisions of

the Institutional Panel will be reported to relevant FASQCs.

1.6.1.18 Beyond the changes requiring approval by the PCAP, minor changes to module descriptors

comprising updating of the description, content or delivery sections, or changes to indicative

resources or module tutor, can be made in either January or July. A Module Tutor can change

indicative resources directly via OPAC; other minor changes can be made by submitting a

request to [email protected].

1.6.1.19 As the Programme Change process feeds in to a number of further processes, including updating

of web-based information for students and timetabling, it is essential that the deadlines

associated with this process are strictly adhered to.

1.6.2 Consultation with existing students in relation to course changes for home and

collaborative provision

mailto:[email protected]



1.6.2.1 Change to existing course provision that potentially has a negative impact on the student

experience should be avoided wherever possible, e.g. by phasing in a change, but sometimes

such a change is unavoidable. It is a requirement that ACLs consult with all existing students

who may be negatively affected by a proposed change to existing course provision. Such

changes include, but are not exclusive to, the deletion or dropping of a module from the course

map or changes to the status of modules (core/compulsory/option). It is important that existing

students understand how they can make their views on the proposals known to the Board of

Studies, which is required to discuss all PCAP proposals. Where a student is unhappy with a

proposed change to their course and the change is approved, appropriate guidance and support

should be offered to the student.

1.6.3 Providing timely information, support and guidance to applicants in relation to changes

to existing courses for home and collaborative provision

1.6.3.1 Aspiring students who have submitted an application to a course may also be negatively affected

by a change to existing course provision. Where such a change is necessary it should be

undertaken in a timely way and ACLs, supported by Communications, Marketing & Student

Recruitment (CMSR) and Admissions (home provision) or the partner (collaborative provision),

should inform any applicants as soon as possible and in writing of the change that has been

agreed. This communication should include, as appropriate, any alternative options for study at

the University / partner. It should also include an opportunity for individual support and guidance

should an applicant feel this would be helpful. In some cases it may be appropriate for the

University / partner to provide advice and guidance in relation to alternative options for study with

other higher education providers.

1.6.4 Change of course title

1.6.4.1 If a Course Board of Studies wishes to change the title of a validated award, it may do so only by

submitting an application using the appropriate pro forma (form CA) to Academic Portfolio

Committee (APC).

1.6.5 Consultation with existing students and informing applicants in relation to a change of

existing course title

1.6.5.1 The agreement of all currently registered students must be obtained in writing if a change to an

existing course title is proposed. This applies for both home and collaborative provision. It is the

responsibility of the ACL to obtain this agreement. Where there are current applicants for the

course who have not yet enrolled at the University, all such applicants must be informed in

writing of the change.

1.7.0 The Discontinuation and Phasing-Out of Courses

1.7.1 Procedures Governing the Discontinuation and Phasing Out of Courses

1.7.1.1 Terminology: the following terms should be used in respect of closure of provision:

A course is said to have suspended recruitment when no further students are being admitted.

Where recruitment has been suspended, but students remain registered on the course, it is

said to be phasing out.

Teaching out refers to the practice of teaching those students who are registered on a

course that is phasing out and who are entitled to appropriate support to enable them to

complete their intended award.

When no registered students remain on the course, it is closed.

1.7.1.2 For procedures governing the discontinuation and phasing out of courses run by collaborative

partners please see 1.7.2.




1.7.1.3 Home Provision: Moves to discontinue provision may be initiated by the relevant Faculty or may

arise from consideration by senior management of the University’s portfolio and strategic

direction. Wherever possible this decision should be made and implemented in a timely way so

that no applicants are in the admissions process. Where this is not possible it is important that

the decision is made and communicated in writing to applicants by Communications, Marketing &

Student Recruitment (CMSR)/Admissions as soon as possible in order to mitigate the impact on

those who have applied to the course. Any such applicants will need to be given guidance and

support to find other study options either at the University or elsewhere.

1.7.1.4 Whether the moves for discontinuation have arisen at faculty or central level, the proposal will be

discussed at University Executive Committee (UEC), which makes a decision whether or not to

suspend recruitment to the provision. This decision cannot be made at a local (School or

Faculty) level – only UEC can authorise a suspension of recruitment. The decision will be

reported to Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) for note, in order that relevant areas of the

University (Communication, Marketing & Student Recruitment; Academic Registry, Student

Services, Timetable, Library & Information Services, and relevant Heads of School, Academic

Subject Leaders (ASL) and Academic Course Leaders (ACLs)) may be informed.

1.7.1.5 Suspension may be permanent or temporary for one year, where there is some possibility that

recruitment may be re-started. If there is no recruitment for two consecutive years, then the

provision will be deemed to be closing, and recruitment may not recommence without formal

approval from ASQC, normally involving a Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR) to ensure

that the curriculum remains current.

1.7.1.6 Where a decision is taken to suspend recruitment to a course that is franchised by a collaborative

partner, the partner should be notified immediately so that discussions can be facilitated on the

viability of the partner delivery. These discussions should be reported in the Board of Studies

minutes for home provision and in the Partnership Board minutes for franchised provision. If the

outcome of these discussions results in parallel requests to discontinue or suspend recruitment,

the same process must be followed for the partner course.

1.7.1.7 If suspension of recruitment is permanent and modules on the course are used by other courses,

the ACL will need to ensure timely discussions are held with the ACLs of course(s) that adopt

modules from the course. The outcomes of these discussions could include another course(s)

taking over the full management of the adopted module(s).

1.7.1.8 Once suspension of recruitment is confirmed as permanent, if there are students still registered

on the course, then phasing out arrangements will be required in order to safeguard the quality of

the student experience.

1.7.1.9 The University’s procedures to cover the phasing out of discontinued courses ensure that such

courses are supported, that registered students are not disadvantaged, and that quality and

academic standards are maintained at an acceptable level. Faculties wishing to phase out

provision in specific areas are required to submit a completed phasing out pro-forma to FASQC

for the maintenance of the quality of the student experience during the phasing out period to

FASQC, in June each year for approval. The precise phasing out arrangements will be

monitored by FASQCs and, via minutes, reported to ASQC which will maintain oversight of

procedures.



1.7.1.10 When the last registered student has completed (or transferred/withdrawn), the course is

classified as ‘closed’ and will be removed from the University’s database of ‘live’ courses. The

Finance and Planning representative will report this action to ASQC.

1.7.1.11 Where a validated course has never recruited, and thus the course code has never been used,

the course and its code will be removed from the database of courses by Finance and Planning.

Again, this action will be reported to ASQC.

1.7.2 Suspension and discontinuation of courses delivered by collaborative partners

1.7.2.1 For resource or other reasons a partner institution might take the decision to suspend

recruitment to a course in a particular year. Equally, the University might require suspension of

recruitment. Wherever possible this decision should be made and implemented in a timely way

so that no applicants are in the admissions process. Where this is not possible it is important

that the decision is made and communicated in writing to applicants by the partner as soon as

possible in order to mitigate the impact on those who have applied to do the course. Any such

applicants will need to be given appropriate guidance and support to find other study options

either at the partner institution, the University or elsewhere.

1.7.2.2 Courses should not normally be suspended for a period of more than two academic years. At the

end of the second academic year of suspension, the course(s) in question must be re-launched

or be withdrawn. For franchise provision, reintroduction will depend on the course’s University

validation status. For validated provision, partners will need to seek re-approval via the relevant

Faculty Dean(s) and a proposal to the Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) supported by the

Partnership Coordinator

1.7.2.3 It if is intended to discontinue a validated course delivered at a collaborative partner, the

principal of the partner institution (or nominee) should notify the Partnership Co-ordinator who will

ensure that the decision is recorded at the relevant Partnership Board. In turn, the Partnership

Co-ordinator should notify any University Academic Link Tutors and the Director of Collaborative

Partnerships.

1.7.2.4 For franchise provision, the decision should be noted at relevant Boards of Studies (using the

appropriate template) and recorded in the relevant Faculty Academic Standards & Quality

Committee (FASQC) minutes. For validated provision, partners should record discontinuation of

courses in the Annual Partnership Monitoring Report. This should then be recorded at

Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) and notified to the APC which has oversight of the

University’s portfolio of validated awards.

1.7.2.5 Wherever a course is to be withdrawn, the partner, in consultation with the Partnership Co-

ordinator, will be responsible for preparing a plan for the maintenance of the quality of the student

experience during the period of phasing out. The ‘phasing out’ plan will be approved and

monitored by the Partnership Board. FASQCs and CPC (for franchise provision) and CPC only

(for validated provision) will maintain oversight of phasing-out arrangements.

1.7.2.6 It is recognised that the plan for safeguarding the quality of provision during the phasing-out

period may require a review and limited extension of the period of validation. This should be

negotiated by the Partnership Coordinator with Academic Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO)

who will report any change to the Director of Collaborative Partnerships.

1.7.3 Suspension or discontinuation as an outcome of University Review



1.7.3.1 It is possible that the Periodic Review and Revalidation of a course or a Partnership Review

could reveal concerns about the quality and/or standards of specific provision. In such cases,

Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC) could make a recommendation for action,

which might include suspending further recruitment to, or terminating, the provision. In such

cases, University Executive Committee would need to approve the recommendation which would

then be reported to Academic Board.

1.7.3.2 In such a case, the University’s processes for oversight of provision that is phasing out will come

into operation to safeguard the quality of the experience of students remaining on the course(s).


1.8.1 Approval of off campus delivery of faculty provision

1.8.1.1 This section provides guidance on quality assurance of off campus delivery of faculty provision.

It has been developed with reference to Section B3 of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education

on Learning and Teaching.

1.8.1.2 Approval of locations of delivery for collaborative provision is covered in Section 11.

1.8.1.3 There are a number of situations where University credits can be gained through learning which

takes place off-campus. Section 11 describes those arrangements which apply to collaborative

provision (franchise, validated, and articulation agreements). This chapter describes further

potential off campus delivery arrangements, for which other quality assurance measures are in

place as appropriate.

1.8.2 Work-based and placement learning

1.8.2.1 This refers to a planned period of learning outside the University, where the learning outcomes

are an intended part of the course. University staff remain responsible overall but other staff in

the location (e.g. in a school, for education courses) may play a mentoring role, for which they

are trained and supported by University staff. The course is approved through the University’s

normal processes.

1.8.3 Off campus delivery by Faculty staff (External Location)

1.8.3.1 This refers to a situation where University staff delivers a University award, or credits towards a

University award, at a location not owned or controlled by the University, whether in the UK or

overseas. The approval mechanism for the mode of delivery (the course itself having been

approved in usual way), is outlined in Section 11.

1.8.3.2 Academic Subject Leaders (ASLs) are responsible for completing the ‘Application for the

approval of a new Venue/Location’ which includes a business case and sending this to the

Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP). This application must be signed by the Dean of

Faculty to confirm that there are appropriate resources in place to support delivery at the

proposed venue and that they support the development.

1.8.3.3 The Application Form should include the following information:

the proposed location, address, website

key contact personnel

the rationale for off-campus delivery

awards to be delivered

overview of physical resources

health & safety considerations





1.8.3.4 The DCP will arrange a formal ‘panel’ to complete the ‘Location of Delivery’ visit in consultation

with the host Faculty.

1.8.3.5 The approval panel will normally consist of:

A senior member of staff with QA experience, from outside the faculty responsible for the

provision (Chair);

A colleague from Library and Information Services, where appropriate

An Academic Quality & Partnerships Officer, where appropriate.

1.8.3.6 Recruitment of the panel members identified and visit arrangements will be undertaken by the

Academic Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO).

1.8.3.7 Following the visit, the chair of the panel will produce a report and complete a Health and Safety

checklist designed to ensure that the venue is suitable for University students. The Health and

Safety checklist and insurance documents will be attached to the report for consideration at the

Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC).

1.8.3.8 Location of Delivery Reports are received at the Collaborative Partnership Committee for

recommendation and approval by Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC). The

approved Location is then entered onto the Collaborative Provision Register and Student

Records are informed of the new venue. Programme specifications are updated /revised to

include the new location.

1.8.3.9 To be classified as off campus delivery by faculty staff (CP Category B), all the modules must be

led, taught and assessed by staff employed by the University. If there is any delegation to a third

party for delivery, assessment or local support of students, then the arrangement would be

considered as collaborative provision and would require the approvals set out in Section 11.

1.8.4 Distance learning

1.8.4.1 Distance learning is defined as courses which can be undertaken without requiring attendance at

classes but where all teaching, support and assessment are provided by the University at a

distance. These courses are approved through the University’s normal processes for Course

Planning, Validation and Approval.





SECTION 2: Assessment Principles and Procedures

2.1.0 Assessment

2.1.1 All University awards, whether they are part of home or collaborative provision are required to be

compliant with the University’s Academic Regulations for Taught Provision (ARTP)

Home provision, i.e. provision for which the University is the degree-awarding body and that

is provided solely by the University of Gloucestershire


but that is delivered, in whole or in part, by another body

2.1.2 This section of the AQPH presents the University’s principles for assessment with links to further

information about each principle and any supporting procedures. This guidance applies in full to

home provision. In relation to collaborative provision with it is understood that they may have

different processes in place that have been discussed and approved as part of the original

Partnership Approval and / or any subsequent Partnership Review and which will be documented

within the Partnership Audit Document and the Collaborative Delivery Plan.

2.1.3 The University’s arrangements for course planning, validation, approval and amendment align

with the QAA UK Quality Code including B6 Assessment of Students and Recognition of Prior

Learning

2.1.4 The academic guidance on assessment has been designed to provide clear and authoritative

information to ensure that assessment processes can be managed confidently and consistently

by colleagues in the University and, where appropriate, colleagues within collaborative

partnerships.

2.1.5 These pages provide information on all areas of assessment and related special procedures.

They do not include detailed information on the theory of assessment practice, such as which

assessment methods are appropriate for given tasks, how to write questions or assignments, or

how to ensure assessment promotes learning. You can learn more about such topics by

contacting colleagues in the Academic Development Unit (ADU).

2.1.6 Supporting information about the University’s assessment processes can be found in:

Academic Regulations for Taught Provision (ARTP), (ARTP) especially section 6.

The QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education.

2.1.7 A summary of information available from the Assessment webpages:

Approval of an examination or Assessment Brief

Preparing written examinations

Preparing coursework Assessment Briefs

Overview of marking and moderation (internal boards)

Overview of confirmation of marks and awards (external and awards boards)

Principles for Boards of Examiners

Principles for Marking

Principles for Mitigating Circumstances

Principles for Assessment of Disabled Students

Principles for Academic Appeals








http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuringstandardsandquality/quality-code/Pages/default.aspx



Principles for Assessment Offences

Principles for Setting and Running Assessment

Principles for Electronic Submission

2.1.8 For Home provision support on assessment issues will be provided by the Associate Deans

Quality and Standards (ADQS) and the Faculty Heads of Quality and Standards (FHQS).

Collaborative partners requiring further support should contact their Partnership Coordinator or

the appropriate Academic Link Tutor who will liaise with the Director of Collaborative Partners,

ADQS and FHQS as required.



SECTION 3: Evaluation of Courses




3.3.1 – The role of Board of Studies

3.3.2 – Terms of Reference

3.3.3 – Membership

3.3.4 – Meeting arrangements

3.3.5 - Agendas

3.3.6 – Minutes

3.3.7 – After Meetings

3.3.8 - Boards of Studies for franchised collaborative provision



3.6.0 External Surveys


3.1.1 This section presents the arrangements for the evaluation of courses for:

Home provision, i.e. provision for which the University is the awarding body and that is

provided solely by the University of Gloucestershire



3.1.2 The University’s arrangements for the evaluation of courses align with the QAA UK Quality Code

including B1 Programme Design, Development and Approval, B5: Student Engagement, B8:


3.1.3 With respect to collaborative provision, partners are expected to align to the principles of the

University’s approach to the evaluation and monitoring of courses.


3.2.1 The University implements a number of processes that combine to ensure the effective and

systematic evaluation and monitoring of courses. These include Boards of Studies which

consider and respond to Mid-Module Evaluation (MME), Annual Course Evaluation (ACE); the

Student Representation Scheme (course representatives and school representatives) which

ensures the student voice is elicited, heard and responded to; the active engagement with a

number of external surveys the outcomes of which provide valuable insights into the student

experience of the University’s taught provision, e.g. the National Student Survey (NSS), The

Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) and the International Student Barometer (IBS).

The core purpose of all evaluation and monitoring of courses is the enhancement of learning

opportunities for students.

3.2.2 For home and franchise provision the processes described in this section align with the process

for the Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM) that is described in Section 4a of the AQPH.

For other collaborative provision the processes described in this section are aligned with the

process for Annual Monitoring also described in Section 4b of the AQPH.









3.2.3 The University’s collaborative partners are expected to follow University guidance on evaluation

and monitoring of courses.


3.3.1 The role of the Board of Studies

3.3.1.1 The Board of Studies is the primary unit of academic quality assurance at course level and has a

clear responsibility for continuous evaluation of the course and the actions which result from it.

Such evaluation should involve every member of the Board including student representatives.

3.3.1.2 Evaluation is intended to be continuous rather than an annual special task and should therefore

be a matter of regular report and discussion at the Board of Studies. In particular, the Action

Plan developed as part of the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR), or from 2014/15 for home and

franchise provision, the Action Log which forms part of the Continuous Improvement Monitoring

process is intended to serve as a mechanism for tracking and evaluating actions taken as a

consequence of evaluation, and as such should be considered and updated at every meeting of

the Board of Studies.

3.3.1.3 It should also be noted that Board of Studies are expected, not only to take remedial action when

deficiencies in provision have been identified, but also to be pro-active in planning and executing

enhancements to the provision.

3.3.1.4 The Board of Studies provides students with a forum for academic feedback and representation.

Non-academic aspects of the wider student experience can be addressed via the Campus Life

Groups (CLGs), information on which is available via the Students’ Union website.

3.3.2 Terms of Reference

3.3.2.1 Boards of Studies are responsible to the relevant School for the operation, development and

quality of Course provision including the awards which may be achieved through it. In particular,

the Board of Studies of Studies will:

take responsibility for the currency of the curriculum and the overall academic health of the

course(s);

ensure that course provision meets its aims and that assessment procedures are properly

carried out within the University’s Academic Regulations for Taught Provision (ARTP);

develop proposals for the addition, deletion, amendment and deletion/adoption of modules

as well as any other proposed changes to the course(s);

monitor and evaluate each module offered;

consider and respond to the Annual Course Evaluation (ACE)

review the course(s) annually and periodically and report to the relevant Faculty Academic

Standards & Quality Committee (FASQC) or Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC);

provide students with a regular and reliable means to provide feedback on their course;

act as a channel of communication between the University and course staff and students;

monitor actions and outcomes relating to the Board’s action plan or action log;

make proposals for external examiner appointments and for the appointment of external

panel members for validation and periodic review;

consider and respond to external examiner reports, ensuring that students have the

opportunity to see such reports.

http://www.yourstudentsunion.com/representation/campuslife/





3.3.2.2 For Home provision the Board of Studies reports to the FASQC via the Continuous Improvement

Process (CIM). For Collaborative provision with validated arrangements the Partner’s Board of

Studies (or equivalent) reports to CPC via the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR).

3.3.2.3 Courses within a Subject Community may hold joint or separate Boards of Studies. That is,

depending on size, complexity and variety of provision within a Subject Community, the decision

may be taken to hold common Boards or a Board for an individual course.

3.3.2.4 Similarly, the nature of some provision – for example, that which is work-based, delivered at an

off-campus location or via distance learning, or that which needs to cover undergraduate and

postgraduate provision – may require Boards of Study to be flexibly organised, perhaps via the

University’s video-conferencing facilities.

3.3.2.5 However Boards of Study are organised, business needs to be conducted entirely in line with the

guidance in this Section.

3.3.3 Membership

3.3.3.1 Membership will normally comprise the following:

Academic Course Leader (ACL) (Chair) but this role may be taken by the Academic Subject

Leader (ASL) where a joint board operates

Academic Subject Leader

One course representative, nominated from the student body, for each level of each course

represented on the Board of Studies

All Module Tutors for modules owned by the Subject Community

A representative from Library and Information Services (LIS)

Where the Subject Communities operates a joint Board all ACLs within the Subject

Community (with one to be appointed Vice-Chair)

Where appropriate a Technical Services Manager

One or more representatives from Employer(s) and / or Professional Bodies

The Faculty Administrative Manager (FAM) will oversee arrangements for the officering of Boards

of Studies.

3.3.4 Meeting arrangements

3.3.4.1 The Chair should:

operate the Board of Studies in accordance with these University guidelines;

schedule meetings at a time which facilitates the attendance of students and part-time

academic staff;

ensure that students attending the Board, and new staff members of the Board, are

appropriately briefed;

alert student representatives to the training offered by the Students’ Union;

organise agendas effectively so that items of particular interest for students are discussed

early in the meeting.

3.3.4.2 The Officer should liaise with the Chair to should ensure that adequate notice of the timing and

location of meetings is given to all members and that ample opportunity exists for them to submit

agenda items. It is expected as good practice that each substantive agenda item is covered by a

prepared paper circulated with the agenda.

3.3.5 Agendas



3.3.5.1 As the activities of the Board of Studies form an integral part of the academic evaluation process,

normally at least three meetings are held annually. The routine business of a Board of Studies

may include:

Welcome and Apologies

Changes to membership and confirmation of quoracy

Minutes of the meeting held on dd mmm yyyy

Matters Arising

Course Representative Feedback

Progress on Continuous Improvement Monitoring (applicable to home and franchise provision

only)

o Academic Health Check

o Evidence Store - Student evaluation

o Evidence Store - Other evidence available for consideration

o Action Log

o Summary of Good Practice

Enhancement

Course Development (including any planned curriculum changes)

Academic Subject Leader Report

Course Business

o Franchise Matters (standing item if the course is franchised)

Library and Information Services Report

Technicians’ Report (where appropriate)

Placement Report (where appropriate)

Assessment Scrutiny Panels

Any Other Business

Date of Next Meeting

3.3.6 Minutes

3.3.6.1 The minutes of a Board of Studies act as the formal record of its activities during the year and

should be thorough, accurate and produced in the agreed University format and style as detailed

in the Committee Handbook (available on the University’s Committee webpages).

3.3.6.2 Minute-takers are appointed from within the faculty. The Chair should work closely with the

appointed officer to ensure that the minutes are an accurate record of the business of the

meeting, and that any identified actions are followed up. Minutes should be circulated in a timely

manner to all members including the Head of School who is responsible for oversight of progress

against actions. Minutes must also be made available to all students electronically, e.g., via the

CIM Evidence store and Moodle.

3.3.6.3 Minutes should also be circulated to staff who may not be members of the Board, for example

tutors contributing to Subject Community modules. Minutes should also be circulated to

collaborative partners and external examiners so that they can keep abreast of how issues they

have raised are being addressed.

3.3.7 After meetings

3.3.7.1 Following the Board of Studies, the Chair should take particular action on those issues which the

Board wishes to be addressed by another member of University staff (for example, the Faculty

Dean) or another University unit or committee (for example, Library and Information Services).

3.3.8 Boards of Studies for franchised collaborative provision

https://infonet.glos.ac.uk/departments/registry/committees/Pages/default.aspx



3.3.8.1 Boards of Studies for provision franchised to collaborative partners must evaluate delivery of

every run of the module at every location of delivery.


3.4.1 One of the main sources of information available to the Board of Studies is the students’

evaluation of their experience of individual modules and of their course.

3.4.2 It is very important that feedback is gathered and responded to on a continuous basis. To

achieve this most effectively an ongoing dialogue should be established between tutors on a

module and the student cohort. In addition to this conduit for informal feedback and response the

following formal evaluation processes should be implemented.

3.4.3 Mid-Module Evaluation (MME) is a structured approach to obtaining data to support curriculum

development. In addition mid-module evaluation should identify effective practice and any issues

which may require immediate attention.

3.4.4 Mid-module evaluation will usually take place at around the mid-point of the module run so that

there is time, where it is agreed it is necessary, for action to be taken to develop the experience

for the existing module cohort.

3.4.5 The Module Tutor, in consultation with relevant staff, will determine the method for obtaining

feedback through mid-module evaluations. Methods for conducting mid-module evaluations

could include, for example: focus groups; discussions led by colleagues or student

representatives; paper-based questionnaires.

3.4.6 A record of the process; the percentage student participation and agreed outcomes should be

presented to the Board of Studies; and any actions being undertaken in response to the feedback

received should be recorded by the Board of Studies. Any raw data generated through the

process should be retained by the module tutor.

3.4.7 It is important that any feedback is responded to by the Module Tutor, so that students are aware

that the feedback has been received, acted upon and/or responded to. This could be done

during the face-to-face sessions or via other methods such as the module’s Moodle site.

3.4.7 The Module Tutor, in consultation with relevant staff, will also determine the areas of discussion.

The following discussion areas are indicative and are provided to support the planning for mid-

module evaluation:

The organisation of the module

The effectiveness of the teaching and learning methods used in terms of the achievement of

the module learning outcomes.

The extent to which the module has stimulated interest in the subject.

The clarity of the assessment information, including the assessment criteria.

The availability and usefulness of support and advice from staff.

The accessibility of learning resources (e.g. books and journals - online or paper-based, IT,

Moodle) in relation to the needs of the module.

Consideration of the most useful aspects of the module to date.

Consideration of the ways in which the module could be improved in the future.

3.4.8 Annual Course Evaluation (ACE) is an online, centrally coordinated approach to gathering data

on the student experience of their course that is instigated towards the end of Semester II. The



University implements ACE for all Home taught provision and collaborative partner franchise

taught provision at Levels 4 – 7 but will not include students who will be undertaking the National

Student Survey (NSS) in any given year.

3.4.9 The unit of operation for ACE will be the Board of Studies and ideally the process will be

completed in time for the outcomes to be considered at the third meeting of the Board of Studies.

The data is collated centrally and a set of reports created for Faculties and Schools. These are

sent to Faculties via Faculty Administration Managers (FAMs) who will coordinate the uploading

of the reports onto the CIM Evidence Store for each Board of Studies.

3.4.10 The Chair of the Board of Studies, usually the Academic Course Leader (ACL), is responsible for

the analysis of the outcomes of ACE and will ensure that the Board of Studies receives a full

report of the outcomes so that the a discussion of the outcomes and the necessary actions

required in response can take place at the meeting. The Academic Subject Leader has oversight

of this process

3.4.11 ACE includes a core set of questions that require students to consider their experience in terms

of teaching, support for learning, assessment etc. across all the modules they have studied and

their wider experience of their course. Students also have an opportunity to comment on

individual modules their have studied during the current academic year. Finally ACE contains a

small number of questions that may change on an annual basis to enable the university to

understand the student experience of different initiatives and interventions.

3.4.12 The role of ACLs and their teams is particularly important in both providing a designated

opportunity, where possible within a session, for students to undertake the ACE online survey

and by encouraging them to participate by making current cohorts aware of the impact of

previous rounds of ACE on the enhancement of learning opportunities on the course.

3.4.13 Course Handbook and/or Module Guides should routinely provide evidence of the impact of

student evaluation on the development of courses, in the form of specific examples of changes

which have resulted from student feedback.

3.4.14 It is important that the formal analysis of student evaluation is considered by the course as soon

as possible. Module teams should attempt to address issues raised during the course of the

module itself. Analysis of all student evaluation from mid-module evaluations (MME) and ACE,

indicating the issue and response, should be presented to the next available Board of Studies.

The timing of Boards of Studies during the academic year is expected to reflect the receipt of

such evaluation to ensure a speedy consideration and response.

3.4.15 It is acknowledged that for some academic areas, the nature of the provision – for example,

where it is work-based or delivered at an off campus location – will mean that evaluations may

need to be conducted differently. Whatever the medium however, module evaluation must take

place utilising a transparent process which responds clearly to actions and reports outcomes.

3.4.16 Collaborative Partners will be required to demonstrate an equivalent process for the evaluation of

modules and courses.


3.5.1 In maintaining a broad perspective on evaluation, the Board of Studies is expected to take into

account a range of other inputs to assist in its work. Amongst these are External Examiners’



Reports. As one of the major roles of an external examiner is to ensure that the course is

maintaining standards comparable to peers elsewhere in higher education, such reports should

be thoroughly considered with all Board of Studies members, including students, having the

opportunity to read them in full. A response resulting from analysis of the external examiner’s

report should be agreed at the appropriate meeting, presented within the minutes, and included

in either the Annual Monitoring Report (Collaborative Partners with arrangements other than

franchise) or considered as part of the Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM) process.

Academic Subject Leaders (ASLs) and Academic Course Leaders (ACLs) are reminded that,

whilst these reports may raise issues which have implications for course design and delivery, it is

not the role of the external examiner to decide what changes should be made as a result. This

remains the clear responsibility of the Board of Studies.

3.5.2 In addition to more informal evaluation opportunities, staff feedback is gathered through their

membership of and contribution to, the Board of Studies.

3.5.3 It is considered good practice for a Board of Studies actively seeking the opinion of appropriate

externals such as employers to appoint such individuals to full membership of the Board of

Studies. In particular, advice on the continuing relevance or updating of the curriculum in relation

to the working sphere of the practitioner should be carefully considered. Practitioners may also

wish to become involved in other ways, such as observing the workings of the teaching and

administration of the course, or by membership of any development teams set up to consider

changes to the course.

3.6.0 External surveys

3.6.1 The University engages in a number of external student surveys which make a valuable

contribution to the evaluation process. External surveys provide a means by which the University

can benchmark performance and identify areas for improvement. Surveys undertaken include

the National Student Survey (for undergraduate programmes), the Postgraduate Taught

Experience Survey (for taught postgraduate programmes), and the Postgraduate Research

Experience Survey, as well as surveys targeted at specific groups of students such as overseas

entrants - International Student Barometer (ISB). Boards of Studies will consider the outputs of

such surveys as part of their routine evaluation processes; this consideration should be reflected

in the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process or Annual Monitoring Report as appropriate

(Section 4a or Section 4b).

3.6.2 The National Student Survey (NSS) takes place during the spring of each year and the

University is informed of the initial outcomes at the beginning of August. By September each

course team will have carefully considered the outcomes of NSS in relation to their course and

the academic context in which their course operates; and will be ready to actively participate in

the professional conversations around the enhancement of the provision. The NSS intervention

programme includes:

Meetings between senior managers and all Academic Course Leaders (ACLs), with the

Deputy Vice-Chancellor leading meetings where courses have achieved less than 75% or

more than 90% student satisfaction scores;

Detailed analysis of the outcomes, the identification of action required and the development

of action plans which are carefully monitored;

Commitment to a set of 15 actions for different role holders across the institution all designed

to enhance the student experience;

Visits to other institutions with experience of driving up NSS scores.



3.6.3 From 2015/16 onwards this activity will fall within the auspices of the revised approach to annual

monitoring review process (the continuous improvement monitoring process).



SECTION 4A: Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM)

4A.1.0 Introduction to Continuous Improvement Monitoring

4A.2.0 Monitoring and Review of Home Provision including courses that are Franchsed to

Collaborative Partners

4A.2.1 – Principles of CIM

4A.2.2 – The CIM process

4A.3.0 Diagram of the CIM Process

4A.4.0 Consideration of CIM by FASQC

4A.5.0 Academic Standards & Quality Committee and Academic Board consideration of CIM

4A.6.0 Roles and Responsibilities within CIM

4A.6.1 – Responsibilities of the Academic Course Leader

4A.6.2 – Responsibilities of the School Representative

4A.6.3 – Responsibilities of the Academic Subject Leader

4A.6.4 – Responsibilities of the Faculty Head of Quality & Standards

4A.6.5 – Responsibilities of the Faculty Learning & Teaching Coordinator

4A.6.6 – Responsibilities of the Head of School/Institute

4A 6.7 – Responsibilities of the Dean

4A.1.0 Introduction to Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM)

4A.1.1 This section presents the arrangements for Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM). Home

provision (i.e. provision for which the University is the awarding body and that is provided solely

by the University of Gloucestershire) and collaborative provision (for which franchise

arrangements are in place) will be monitored via the CIM process detailed in this section.

4A.1.2 Section 4b details the arrangements for Annual Monitoring which is the process used to monitor

courses run by collaborative partners for which Validation and Joint Venture arrangements are in

place.

4A.1.3 The University’s arrangements for the monitoring of course provision align with the QAA UK

Quality Code including B1 Programme Design, Development and Approval, B8: Programme

Monitoring and Review and B10: Managing Higher Education Provision with Others.

4A.2.0 Monitoring and Review of Home Provision including courses that are Franchised to Collaborative Partners

4A.2.01 The Responsibilities of Academic Course Leaders for Courses that are Franchised

It is the responsibility of the Academic Course Leader for a course that is franchised to a

collaborative partner to ensure that the extended course team is given the opportunity to engage

fully with the Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM) process.

4A.2.02 Additional Requirements for collaborative partners with franchise provision

Note that this section describes the process for annual monitoring of an individual course or of an

agreed group of courses. An annual Institutional Monitoring Report at institutional level (IMR) is

also required: the process for this is described in Section 11.

4A.2.03 Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM)

The University is responsible for the academic standards and the quality of the learning

opportunities of the programmes it offers and the qualifications and credit it awards. This









responsibility is exercised through the initial validation process (Section 3) and through Periodic

Review and Re-validation (PRR) (Section 8). In addition to these important processes the

Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM) process enables the university to ensure within the

annual academic cycle that the learning opportunities presented to students are enabling them to

achieve the learning outcomes of the programme; and to evaluate students’ attainment of the

academic standards. Continuous monitoring allows the university to confirm both the internal

alignment of the programme and also its alignment with the strategic aims of the University’s

academic portfolio.

4A.2.1 Principles of Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM)

4A.2.1.1 The Continuous Improvement Monitoring process:

a) Enables the university to maintain oversight of the academic standards and quality of the

learning opportunities for all its programmes within the annual academic cycle;

b) Is forward-looking with a focus on action planning and the enhancement of provision;

c) Makes timely use of relevant data to inform the development of provision;

d) Is relevant and responsive to the needs of students and course teams ;

e) Is a transparent process with the evidence base, decisions taken and progress achieved,

accessible to the extended course team and other stakeholders ;

f) Privileges evidence-based professional discussion over extended report writing at course

level;

g) Has an appropriate balance of accountability and empowerment;

h) Facilitates the identification and dissemination of good practice;

4A.2.2 The Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM) process

4A2.2.1 Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM) is based around the concept of the timely

consideration of relevant data inputs leading to prompt intervention to address issues and to

enhance provision. Continuous Monitoring will operate at two levels. Firstly the CIM process is

focused on action to enhance the learning opportunities available to the students that enable

them to meet the programme outcomes. Course teams will be directed to use the data available

to them to identify key enhancement goals, to plan carefully for and then work steadily towards

their achievement. Secondly, CIM is designed to meet the needs of course teams to receive,

consider and respond to the range of sources of data pertaining to the provision received during

the year rather than waiting until the autumn to consider and plan a response to all the data

received in the previous academic year. CIM offers the significant advantage that students may

benefit personally from a course team responding to feedback within the current academic year.

4A.2.2.2 Data pertaining to taught provision becomes available at a number of different points throughout

the year. All data is placed on the CIM Evidence Store on the CIM SharePoint site. The

Academic Course Leader (ACL) reviews the data / evidence as it becomes available and

proposes amendments to the course action plan in the light of this. The review of all the new

pertinent data received prior to a Board of Studies (BoS) is presented to the BoS and the

proposals for the updating of the action plan are amended / agreed. Collaborative Partners

should be invited to BoSs where courses are delivered in a franchise arrangement and any

issues should be raised under the standing item on the agenda relating to partnerships. The BoS

agrees the wording for a minute that records either their satisfaction or a particular cause for

concern in relation to the ongoing health of the course and that notes the updating of the action

plan in terms of the addition of new activity and particular progress or the completion of other

activity.

4A.2.2.3 CIM is an enhancement-led process and while the consideration of data leads to action to

enhance the course; on its own this is more likely to result in incremental rather than



transformational change, By requiring course teams to plan for and undertake an annual larger

scale enhancement event or activity, usually towards the end of the Academic Year, CIM

empowers course teams to reflect upon where they are now and to plan for a leap forward. In

preparing for the enhancement event course teams, supported by their Academic Subject

Leader, will ask themselves what it is that would take the course from being satisfactory / good /

great to being good / great / outstanding. The answer to this question needs to be worked up to

provide the focus for the enhancement event. The outcomes of the enhancement event,

including any actions agreed, will be reported to the next BoS and will inform the CIM process.

4A.2.2.4 CIM is achieved via three academic health checkpoints (AHC) which run as panel events and

take place after each BoS. The membership of the AHC Panel is as follows:

Head of School (Chair)

The relevant Academic Subject Leader

The Faculty Head of Quality & Standards

The Faculty Teaching and Learning Coordinator

The School Representative

4A.2.2.5 Every ACL will be required to attend a minimum of one AHC meeting per year; where the course

is new or there are concerns either about the alignment of the data with the minute and / or

updating of the action plan an ACL may be required to attend additional AHC meetings during the

year. In advance of each meeting the data for each course is reviewed and the course action

plan and BoS minute re the ongoing academic health is considered. If the panel consider good

progress is being made they may decide there is no need for the ACL to attend the panel

meeting to discuss their course. If there are concerns or if it is the one meeting per year when an

ACL is required to attend, the ACL will attend the panel meeting ready to actively engage in a

professional, evidence-based discussion about the ongoing development and enhancement of

the course.

4A.2.2.6 A record of the AHC will include a statement confirming the academic health or otherwise of the

course; and include a summary of things that are going well, things that need to be addressed

(recorded on the CIM action plan) and any examples of good practice. The AHC report will be

presented to Faculty Academic Standards Committee (FASQC) and Faculty Development

Boards (FDB) where any issues that cannot be addressed at the level of the course will be

considered or escalated to another fora e.g. Academic Standards and Quality Committee

(ASQC), University Executive Committee (UEC) for action. The BoS will receive a copy of the

record of the AHC for the course. Collaborative Partners will also receive a record of the AHC

which will be monitored (and actioned where necessary) at Partnership Boards.

4A.2.2.7 Examples of good practice from all the courses considered will form a separate output from the

AHC. This will take the form of a log that will be monitored by Faculty Learning and Teaching

Committees (FLTCs) to ensure the systematic and considered dissemination of good practice.

Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) will also receive a copy of this log.

4A.2.2.8 CIM delivers timely reporting to ASQC and Academic Board. ASQC will receive a full report on

the academic health of all the courses in each faculty in September and ASQC will report to

Academic Board in October. ASQC will also receive two other AHC reports from each FASQC

during each academic year so more regular reporting to Academic Board can be facilitated if

required.



4A.2.2.9 In 2014/15 CIM was implemented with home and franchised provision only so that the

experience gained in the first year of operation could be used to inform the development of an

equivalent process for collaborative partners with validated provision.

4A.2.2.10 A range of stakeholders have be given access to the CIM SharePoint Site, including:

Current staff (including Partnership Coordinators and Academic Link Tutors)

Current students

External Examiner(s);

4A.3.0 Diagram of the Continuous Monitoring (CIM) Process

4A.3.1 The CIM Process Map

4A.4.0 Consideration of the outcomes of the Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM)

by FASQC

4A.4.1 Where, on the basis of the Academic Health Check (AHC) outcomes, Faculty Academic

Standards and Quality Committee (FASQC) has serious concerns about the academic health

and/or the standards achieved by a course, it may recommend to Academic Standards and

Quality Committee (ASQC) that the University should conduct a further review of the course.

Normally this would be a Periodic Review and Revalidation (Section 5), though the precise

process and timescale of the review will be determined by ASQC to meet the needs of the

individual case.

4A.4.2 FASQC collates from the AHC outcomes all unresolved issues requiring action beyond the level

of the course. Typically these may require a response from the university or possibly the

appropriate representative of the collaborating institution where there is an issue relating to

franchise provision.

4A.4.3 FASQC decides to whom the various issues should be addressed and forwards these

accordingly, requesting a response to be received in time for inclusion in the report to ASQC. Any

requests to collaborative partners should be made via the Partnership Coordinator. Where action

can be taken immediately by the recipient to resolve the issue, this should be reported directly to

the course concerned. Where issues remain unresolved, these are considered by ASQC and the

Faculty, via the FASQC report on the AHC outcomes, in order to decide what further action is to

be taken.

4A.5.0 Academic Standards and Quality Committee and Academic Board consideration of

Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM)

4A.5.1 On receipt of the FASQC report, the Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC)

consider and take action on those issues of common concern which require a response at

University level. This consideration is carried out at a scheduled meeting of the committee and

its decisions are thus recorded as a normal part of its minutes. Faculty Heads of Quality &

Standards (FHQS) and the Director of Collaborative Partners as members of the ASQC, are

responsible for ensuring that the decisions and responses made are reported to Faculty

Academic Standards and Quality Committee (FASQC) and Collaborative Provision Committee

(CPC) respectively.

https://infonet.glos.ac.uk/departments/registry/course_monitoring/default.aspx



4A.5.2 The ASQC provides Academic Board with a synopsis of the outcomes of CIM either on an annual

basis or more regularly if this is required which enables the Board to maintain its overall

stewardship of quality assurance and to respond to issues which require a University-wide

consideration. In keeping with these principles, the purpose of the report is thus:

to comment on the general operation of CIM in the period since the last report;

to report progress made on issues arising from the previous CIM report considered by

Academic Board;

to place before Academic Board any issues which have arisen from the present CIM round

and which require discussion and/or action, or which might form the basis for an Internal

Quality Audit.

4A.6.0 Roles and Responsibilities within Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM)

4A.6.1 The Responsibilities of the Academic Course Leader (ACL)

Academic Course Leaders will be expected to:

a) Undertake the timely review of the required data set talking to colleagues as appropriate;

b) Make an initial assessment of the action required and update the action plan;

c) Chair the evidence-based discussion about the data at the BoS, ensuring student members

of the Board of Studies (BoS) are fully involved and agree any action required, recording this

on the action plan;

d) Work with the Academic Subject Leader to identify the focus and undertake the planning for

the larger scale enhancement event / activity;

e) Ensure the activity to enhance the course is planned, implemented and evaluated in a

systematic and deliberate way to facilitate the ongoing development of the course;

f) Attend and engage in an objective evidence-based discussion at any Academic Health

Check (AHC) meetings they are required to attend, ensuring the outcomes are reported to

the next BoS and any required actions are undertaken.

4A.6.2 The Responsibilities of the School Representative

School Representatives will be expected to:

a) Seek feedback from Course Representatives in relation to the alignment of the BoS minute,

course action plan and the data sources considered;

b) Attend the School AHC meetings ready to represent the views of course representatives and

engage fully in the professional, evidence-based discussion of the courses in the School /

Institute;

c) Be fully engaged in the discussion around the prioritisation of enhancement themes and the

development and implementation of plans for these to be addressed.

4A.6.3 The Responsibilities of the Academic Subject Leader (ASL)

Academic Subject Leaders will be expected to:

a) Prior to each AHC meeting review the data, action plans and BoS minutes for the courses in

their subject community and make recommendations regarding the ACLs who will be

required to attend AHC meetings;

b) Attend and actively engage in evidence-based discussion at all the AHC meetings for

courses in the subject community;

c) Monitor the completion of any activity required by the AHC meeting;

d) Provide support for the identification of the focus and the planning for the larger scale

enhancement event / activity;

e) Monitor the ongoing activity of the course team in relation to the enhancement of the course.

4A.6.4 The Responsibilities of the Faculty Head of Quality and Standards (FHQS)



Faculty Heads of Quality and Standards will be expected to:

a) Prior to each AHC meeting review the data, action plans and BoS minutes for the courses in

the faculty and make recommendations regarding the ACLs who will be required to attend

AHC meetings;


courses in the faculty;

c) Via FASQC monitor the completion of any activity required by the AHC meeting;

d) Report on the outcomes of AHC to ASQC.

4A.6.5 The Responsibilities of the Faculty Teaching and Learning Coordinator

Faculty Teaching and Learning Coordinators will be expected to:

a) Prior to AHC meeting review the data, action plans and BoS minutes for the courses in the

faculty;


courses in the faculty;

c) Via FTLC actively progress faculty-wide enhancement themes facilitating course, School and

Faculty enhancement events as appropriate;

d) Report on the outcomes of AHC to Faculty Learning & Teaching Committee (FLTC) and

Learning & Teaching Committee (LTC), particularly in relation to good practice; identified

through the CIM process so that FTLC and LTC can oversee the systematic dissemination of

good practice across the Institution.

4A.6.6 The Responsibilities of the Head of School (HoS)

Heads of School / Institute will be expected to:

a) Have oversight of the smooth running of the CIM Process within the School / Institute

b) Report on the outcomes of AHC to Faculty Development Board (FDB) and by exception to

Faculty Executive, flagging any particular action required;

c) Ensure the outcomes of the CIM process inform the faculty annual academic portfolio review

process and feed into course development and enhancement activity within the School /

Institute.

4A.6.7 The Responsibilities of the Dean

Deans will be expected to:

a) Have oversight of the smooth running of the CIM Process within the Faculty

b) Ensure important issues and concerns arising from AHCs are adequately addressed by

Faculty Executives;

c) Report to University Executive Committee (UEC) any exceptional resource issues emerging

from Continuous Improvement Monitoring

d) Work with Heads of School / Institute to review the outcomes of CIM and identify faculty

enhancement themes;

e) To champion the planning, implementation and evaluation of the impact of creative activity to

address faculty enhancement themes in order to enrich the student experience of studying in

the faculty.



Section 4B: Annual Monitoring (for collaborative partners with validated arrangements only)






4B.6.0 Consideration of AMRs by Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC)


4B.8.0 Academic Standards & Quality Committee and Academic Board Consideration of Annual

Review


4B.1.1 Section 4a set out the arrangements for the Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM) process

being implemented from 2015 for Home provision, i.e. provision for which the University is the

awarding body and that is provided solely by the University of Gloucestershire and collaborative

provision for which franchise arrangements are in place will be monitored.

4B.1.2 Section 4b presents the arrangements for Annual Monitoring which is the process used to

monitor courses run by collaborative partners for which collaborative partnership (CP) validation

arrangements are in place.

4B.1.3 The University’s arrangements for the monitoring of course provision align with the QAA UK

Quality Code including B1 Programme Design, Development and Approval, B8: Programme

Monitoring and Review and B10: Managing Higher Education Provision with Others.

4B.1.4 Note that this section describes the process for annual monitoring of an individual course or of an

agreed group of courses. An Annual Partnership Monitoring report at institutional level (APM) is

also required: the process for this is described in Section 11.


4B.2.1 All courses undergo a process of annual monitoring on an annual basis even when a Periodic

Review and Revalidation (PRR) process is to be undergone later in the academic year. The PRR

process is described in Section 5.

4B.2.2 Annual monitoring of validated provision is conducted within and by the partner organisations in

relation to the courses they are delivering which carry University credit.

4B.2.3 Franchised provision is monitored via Faculty Academic Standards and Quality Committees

(FASQCs) as part of the Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM) of the University’s Home

provision. Partner staff may be asked to contribute to reports by faculty staff, or to supply key

information to add to the faculty course perspective. This is of particular significance when

comparing delivery of the same course both at the University and at a partner institution:

similarities in the student academic experience can be recorded and any discrepancies noted.

4B.2.4 Due regard is taken of existing internal monitoring procedures at partner institutions, and of the

monitoring requirements of external bodies. However, partners are expected to abide by the









University’s principles of quality assurance and the specifications in the Collaborative Partnership

Agreement.

4B.2.5 The purposes of annual monitoring are as follows:

a) to ensure that the quality of learning opportunities offered by courses or groups of courses,

and the academic standards achieved, are being regularly evaluated and developed in

order to generate quality enhancement;

b) to provide an opportunity for staff responsible for course delivery to review developments

over the previous academic year, identify actions to be taken in the coming academic year

to maintain and improve the academic health of the provision, and highlight any

amendments which require approval through the programme change approval process,

(PCAP) see Section 1;

c) to ensure that key documentation is up-to-date (notably Programme Specifications, Course

Maps and associated Module Descriptors);

d) to identify good practice relating to teaching, learning and assessment, and to quality

assurance and enhancement, for dissemination within the University and to partner

institutions;

e) to alert the management of the partner institution, and of the University, to any actions

required on their part to maintain and enhance the quality of the provision;

f) to ensure appropriate levels of student representation within committee structures and

robust systems for collecting and responding to student feedback.


4B.3.1 Acting on behalf of the University Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC), the

Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) instigates and manages the annual monitoring of

validated collaborative courses. It also oversees Annual Partnership Monitoring (see 4.0).

4B.3.2 Annual monitoring of franchised provision takes place under the auspices of Faculty Academic

Standards & Quality Committees (FASQCs) which, in turn, report to ASQC. Monitoring of the

collaborative partner’s delivery of franchised courses also takes place via the Partnership Co-

ordinator’s report and Annual Partnership Monitoring.

4B.3.3 The annual monitoring process focuses on the collation of key information from a range of

sources which provides the context for the development of a sound course action plan. Each

course is required to produce an action plan in order to record the steps it is taking to maintain

and enhance the quality of its provision. The plan should be developed at the start of the

academic year and be regularly, formally reviewed and updated at Boards of Studies during the

year.


4B.4.1 For both validated and franchised collaborative provision the report is normally produced by the

Academic Course Leader (ACL). Where a group of courses is to be considered, the agreement

of the Director of Collaborative Partnerships must be sought prior to submission; in such cases

the report would be produced by the equivalent of the Academic Subject Leader at the partner

institution. The report should be produced using AMR report template which contains additional

guidance on the requirements for each section and details regarding the submission of the report

but the key elements are listed below.

4B.4.2 The report must include the following:




a) A contextual statement which offers a succinct overview of the course, including:

confirmation of award title(s);

closing or phasing out courses;

modules not running;

any changes to the Programme Specifications and Course Maps, with accompanying

documentation appended;

methods used to obtain, discuss and disseminate student evaluation of modules and other

course feedback;

details of meetings and outcomes of the Assessment Scrutiny Process to approve all

assessments.

b) The updated action plan of the previous academic year which reviews the progress

made on the various actions that were identified to be taken.

c) The action plan for the forthcoming academic year which indicates the actions which are

to be taken during the year. This must identify:

the specific matter to be addressed;

the source of each matter (e.g. External Examiner’s report, student module evaluation,

statistical data, Board of Studies minutes, feedback from CPC on the previous year’s report,

National Student Survey, etc.);

the action to be taken;

the person(s) responsible for taking the action;

the timescale for completion of the action;

the process by which the action will be monitored and evaluated.

During the course of the following year, the plan should be updated to note which actions have

been successfully completed, evaluating their impact, and to note which are ongoing and why.

Additional issues arising through the year may be added to the action plan. Thus, at the end of

the academic year, the final version of the plan included in the AMR should show the progress

made in addressing all the issues and concerns.

Any issues which remain ongoing should be carried forward to the next action plan. However,

unresolved concerns which, in the judgement of the Board of Studies, can only be progressed by

action being taken at a higher level, should be highlighted ‘for the attention of ‘CPC’ in the

updated action plan.

d) Details of significant developments during the year which constitute evidence of good

practice in:

learning and teaching

assessment

quality assurance and enhancement

e) A list of any amendments to the course(s) for which approval will be sought via the

programme change approval process (PCAP), (see Section 1) during the coming

academic year. The list should be accompanied by a rationale for change, referenced in the

action plan and evidenced in the accompanying documentation.

f) The following should be attached to the report as appendices:

the Annual Partnership Monitoring proforma;



all relevant External Examiners’ reports;

minutes of all meetings of the Board of Studies; evidence of discussion of External

Examiners’ reports and of module evaluations should be in the minutes, as should evidence

of student representation and feedback and responses to any issues raised;

the Partnership Co-ordinator’s report (see template).

4B.4.3 The draft Annual Monitoring Report should be presented to the first Board of Studies of the

academic year for approval. The final version should be submitted electronically to the

Collaborative Partnerships team ([email protected]) by the scheduled date in

the first week of November. It should be copied to:

the External Examiner(s);

the Head of the collaborating institution

the Academic Link Tutor(s) and Partnership Coordinator(s)

the Director of Collaborative Partnerships


Evidence Gathering (Module Evaluations; Course Statistics; Examples of Good Practice, Student

Course Feedback; External Examiner Report(s); Board of Studies minutes, Assessment Scrutiny

Panel outcomes)

Preparation of Contextual Statement

Draft Action Plan Drawn up by Course Team

Draft Report presented to Board of Studies for approval

Final Revisions Made and Appendices Attached and final draft sent to Partnership Coordinator

for review prior to the completion of their report.

Submission of Reports (Annual Monitoring Report, Annual Partnership Monitoring) by Collaborative

Partner to Academic Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO)

Consideration of Annual Monitoring Reports and Annual Partnership Monitoring Reports by

Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC)





Written feedback from CPC Panel Meeting minutes sent to Partner Institutions for discussion and

action as required by AQPO copying in Partnership Coordinators.

4B.6.0 Consideration of Annual Monitoring Reports (AMR) by the Collaborative Provision

Committee (CPC)

4B.6.1 The procedure by which CPC consider Annual Monitoring Reports (AMR) is determined by the

need to achieve an adequate level of independent input into the review process, and consistency

of practice across all courses within the remit of the CPC. Cross-institutional membership serves

the objective of consistency whilst, in addition, operating as a mechanism for the dissemination of

good practice.

4B.6.2 CPC will appoint a panel to consider AMR. Membership of the panel should be approved by

CPC and reported to ASQC via the CPC minutes.

4B.6.3 The membership of the CPC panel should include:

Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP) (Chair);

Faculty Head of Quality and Standards (FHQS)

Associate Dean Quality and Standards (ADQS)

At least three other members of Collaborative Provision Committee (nominated by CPC);

Officer provided by Academic Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO).

4B.6.4 The DCP receives copies of all reports from the Collaborative Partnerships (CPO) section of the

Academic Quality & Partnerships Office. If it is felt that a report does not meet University

requirements, the DCP should return the report to the collaborative partner, indicating where the

report needs to be improved. S/he then allocates each Annual Monitoring Report to a first and a

second reader, drawn from the membership of the panel. The report is sent electronically to the

first reader, together with a template for the reader’s comments. The first reader considers the

report and records his/her comments on the template; s/he then forwards the report and template

to the second reader, who moderates these comments. The completed template is then returned

to CPO who will copy to all panel members in advance of the meeting of the panel.

4B.6.5 The CPC Panel convenes to discuss the written reports. The Panel has the discretion to meet

with any Collaborative Partner or other representatives of the course where there is cause for

concern, where major changes have been requested, or where there are other external factors

which suggest that a meeting would be helpful (for example, a forthcoming professional body

accreditation). Partnership Coordinators (PCs) and Academic Link Tutors (ALTs) will be invited to

attend panel meetings to discuss the AMR for their partner(s).

4B.6.6 The purposes of the meeting are to:

discuss the reports in detail, ensuring that University guidance has been followed, and

examining any areas where clarification is required;

make a recommendation as to the academic health of each course;

test the robustness of the action planning process;

consider any proposals for change;

note any areas of good practice and highlight for appropriate dissemination;

identify any unresolved issues requiring action beyond the level of the course or group of

courses.



4B.6.7 Having considered each report, the panel will make a recommendation as to the academic health

or the course or group of courses.

4B.6.8 Minutes of the CPC Panel meeting are received by CPC, which agrees the written feedback to be

provided to the Board of Studies. This may include identification of additional good practice in

the course and / or issues on which CPC requires a response from the Board of Studies, together

with a timescale for receipt of that response.

4B.6.9 Where, on the basis of the CPC Panel minutes, CPC has serious concerns about the academic

health and/or the standards achieved by a course, it may recommend to ASQC that the

University should conduct a further review of the course. Normally this would be a Periodic

Review and Revalidation (Section 5), though the precise process and timescale of the review will

be determined by ASQC to meet the needs of the individual case.

4B.6.10 CPC collates from the CPC Panel minutes all unresolved issues requiring action beyond the level

of the course. Typically these may require a response from the university or the head of the

collaborating institution:

4B.6.11 CPC decides to whom the various issues should be addressed and forwards these accordingly,

requesting a response to be received in time for inclusion in the CPC Annual Report (see below).

Where action can be taken immediately by the recipient to resolve the issue, this should be

reported directly to the course concerned. Where issues remain unresolved, these are

considered by ASQC and the Faculty, via the CPC Annual Report, in order to decide what further

action is to be taken.

4B.6.12 Minutes of all meetings of the CPC Panel, copies of their written feedback and responses from

Boards of Studies, should be lodged with appropriate CPO administrative staff.


4B.7.1 Following the meeting of the CPC Panel, the Director of Collaborative Partnerships will draft the

annual CPC report to Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC), which should include:

Summaries of the outcomes of the annual monitoring carried out by CPC, including

recommendations of confidence in the academic health of all courses run by collaborative

partners under validated arrangements, and any recommendations for courses to be subject

to a University-level review.

the identification of any issues which require an immediate University response;

The identification of any thematic issues relating to the University’s management of the

quality and standards of its collaborative provision;

Examples of good practice in relation to quality assurance and enhancement processes.

Examples of good practice in relation to teaching, learning and assessment.

4B.7.2 This report will be considered by CPC at its January meeting and submitted for consideration to

the February meeting of ASQC.

4B.7.3 The examples of good practice identified at 7.1 above should be discussed with the Academic

Development Unit (ADU) which, in conjunction with the Learning and Teaching Committee, will

agree the action needed to consolidate and disseminate the good practice.

4B.7.4 The Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM) Process (see Section 4a) will cover courses

which are franchised to collaborative partners, should identify issues relating to franchise delivery



at specific locations. Outcomes should be reported to the Director of Collaborative Partnerships

and fed in to the CPC Annual Report.

4B.8.0 Academic Standards and Quality Committee and Academic Board consideration of

Annual Review

4B.8.1 On receipt of the Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) report, the Academic Standards and

Quality Committee (ASQC) considers and takes action on those issues of common concern

which require a response at University level. This consideration is carried out at a scheduled

meeting of the committee and its decisions are thus recorded as a normal part of its minutes.

The Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP), as a member of the ASQC, is responsible for

ensuring that the decisions and responses made are reported to CPC.

4B.8.2 The ASQC then provides Academic Board with a synopsis of the annual review round for

collaborative partners with validated arrangements which enables the Board to maintain its

overall stewardship of quality assurance and to respond to issues which require a University-wide

consideration. In keeping with these principles, the purpose of the report in relation to

collaborative provision is thus:

to comment on the general operation of the most recent round of Annual Monitoring;

to report progress made on issues considered by Academic Board during the last Annual

Monitoring round;

to place before Academic Board any issues which have arisen from the present review round

and which require discussion and/or action, or which might form the basis for an Internal

Quality Audit.



Section 5: Periodic Review and Revalidation


5.2.0 Purpose of PRR

5.3.0 Process of PRR

5.4.0 Documentation for a PRR

5.5.0 The PRR Event

5.6.0 Outcomes of PRR


5.8.0 Providing timely information, support and guidance to applicants in relation to changes to

existing courses for home and collaborative provision


5.1.1 This section presents the arrangements for Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR) for:



Collaborative Provision, i.e. provision for which the University is the awarding body but that is

delivered, in whole or in part, by another body

5.1.2 The University’s arrangements for PRR align with the QAA UK Quality Code including B8:


5.1.3 The PRR of provision that is franchised by collaborative partners is undertaken as part of PRR

process for the home course, and there is a requirement that all partners who franchise the

course will be involved in the process.

5.2.0 Purpose of Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR)

5.2.1 All academic provision will be reviewed and revalidated at least every five years, within a context

of continuous evaluation and improvement. For collaborative provision that was developed by a

partner and validated by the University an annual monitoring report will be required in a year

when provision is scheduled for PRR. For home provision, including that franchised to

collaborative partners, PRR will be implemented alongside Continuous Improvement Monitoring

(CIM).

5.2.2 While the process of PRR has similarities with that of initial validation, its purpose is different in

that it reviews the past operation of the provision and prepares for its future delivery. It provides

the Course team with an opportunity to reflect on the operation of the provision over the period

since the initial validation or previous PRR, and to plan for the future on the basis of that

reflection. It also allows the University to satisfy itself that its provision remains current, relevant

and in line with good practice elsewhere in the sector, and to become aware of any matters

affecting the successful operation of the provision which need to be addressed centrally.

5.2.3 Specifically, PRR is intended to provide the Course team with an opportunity to:

assess the continuing currency, academic coherence and relevance of the provision;







review the cumulative effect of incremental changes within the provision since the previous

Periodic Review, noting amendments consequent on Programme Change Approval Panels

(PCAP);

evaluate the impact of staff and physical resources on the effective operation of the

provision;

ensure that the provision adheres to the most recent versions of subject benchmark

statements, the QAA UK Quality Code, and other relevant external reference points;

evaluate data relating to student recruitment, progression, performance and achievement.

5.2.4 For Home provision the default unit of review will be the Course or the Subject Community, as

defined by faculties, though other units may be agreed by negotiation between the Faculty Dean

and the Dean of Quality & Standards (DQS), with the approval of the Academic Standards and

Quality Committee (ASQC).

5.2.5 For Collaborative Provision (other than franchise arrangements) the default unit of review will be

the course or a cognate group of courses but other units may be agreed by negotiation between

the Partnership Coordinator, the Director of Collaborative Partnerships and the DQS.

5.2.6 Reviews may take place outside the normal five-yearly cycle if:

the provision is undergoing major change and therefore the faculty or partner requests an

earlier review date, or:

the faculty or partner requests a variation of the cycle to accommodate requirements of an

external accrediting body, or:

questions concerning the academic standards or quality of the provision, or the currency of

the curriculum are raised by external examiners, by external accrediting bodies, or by the

faculty or partner as a result of the process of Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM) or

Annual Monitoring (for collaborative partners with validated provision.

5.2.7 Decisions as to whether an early PRR is required will be taken by the DQS.

5.2.8 Successful completion of the PRR will act as a recommendation to Academic Board for

revalidation of the provision, normally for a further five years.

5.3.0 Process of Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR)

5.3.1 Periodic Review and Revalidation will be undertaken through:

the submission of prescribed documentation

an event including face-to-face meetings with staff and students

5.3.2 For home provision it will be necessary for a Planning Approval Form (PAF) to be presented to

Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) where it is anticipated that the PRR will result in one or

more of the outcomes listed 3.4 below.

5.3.3 For collaborative provision the collaborative version of the Planning Approval Form (PAC) will

need to be submitted to APC where it is anticipated that the PRR will result in one or more of the

outcomes listed 3.4 below, but it will need to be preceded by University Executive Committee

approval of a request to extend or indeed reduce the extent of the partnership (Section 11).

5.3.4 One or more of the following anticipated changes resulting from a PRR will require the

submission of a PAF or PAC to APC:

A change of award title

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/subject-benchmark-statements

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/subject-benchmark-statements




A significant to course content to such an extent that the marketing of the course will be

affected

A significant change to the anticipated student numbers

A significant change to the resources (pay and / or non-pay) required to support the course

e.g. new staff or physical space

5.3.5 Where courses, or Subject Communities respond to review methods imposed by external bodies,

due consideration will be given to the form of review already undertaken to avoid unnecessary

duplication of material.

5.4.0 Documentation for a Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR)

5.4.1 For home provision preparations for the review will normally be led, and the documentation

compiled, by the Academic Course Leader (ACL) or Academic Subject Leader (ASL), as

determined by the Head of School. Where the course is franchised to partners, the partners will

be consulted throughout the process.

5.4.2 A lead contact for the PRR process, often the ACL, will be identified by the partner. This

individual will be supported by the partnership coordinator and / or the academic link tutor as they

lead on the preparations for the review, including the development of the documentation.

5.4.3 The partner will also identify a contact person for the administrative arrangements who will liaise

with the Partnership Coordinator (PC) and Academic Quality & Partnerships Officer for the event

as appropriate.

5.4.4 One element of the document should be an evaluative review of the operation of the provision,

reflecting on progress since the initial validation or the last PRR and proposing the direction of

future development for the provision. The review should draw on the following sources of

evidence, all of which should be included in the evidence base:

The outcomes of Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM) for home and franchised

provision and for other collaborative provision Annual Monitoring Reports covering the

review period; including the reports of external examiners;

The report of the last PRR or validation;

The statistical data provided for annual monitoring, including particularly retention,

progression and completion data.

Where available the outcomes of relevant surveys e.g. the National Student Survey (NSS) or

the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) for the subject area under review.

Student feedback from module evaluations and any other internal surveys which have been

conducted.

Outcomes of any professional accreditations which have taken place since the last PRR

(where appropriate).

5.4.5 Where the provision is franchised to one or more of the University’s collaborative partners, the

PRR will consider delivery at those partners and will involve partners in the course review

through attendance at planning meetings, feedback from CIM and the opportunity to contribute to

course design and redesign. Partnership involvement at Boards of Studies will facilitate much of

the discourse.

5.4.6 The review should in particular address the following points:



The rationale for the academic content of the course or courses, and for the academic

synergies that exist within a Subject Community. This should include a list of the major

changes that have occurred through the course and module amendment process since the

date of the last review, and a summary of the cumulative impact of those changes on the

currency and coherence of the curriculum.

A clear statement of any changes which it is proposed should be validated as part of the

PRR process, including a rationale showing how these changes emerge from the evaluative

review. In particular, if there is any change to the mode of delivery, for example to distance

learning, this should be addressed here. Where changes to existing modules are required or

where new modules are to be approved, these should be included using the template

provided for the standard Programme Change Approval Panel process.

A review of assessment strategy and outcomes, including comment on any anomalies in

results for modules or for the provision as a whole.

A commentary indicating how information from the National Student Survey and from other

external and internal sources of student feedback has been addressed during the review

period, and has informed the development of the provision.

An indication of the research and scholarly activity base which underpins the teaching and

delivery of the course, or Subject Community, and the ways in which that aligns to the

University’s Academic Strategy and its underpinning strategies for Learning and Teaching;

and Research.

An indication of any issues which the ACL or ASL feels have impacted significantly upon the

quality and delivery of the academic programme.

An evaluation of the way in which action planning has impacted upon the development of the

course, or group of courses.

5.4.7 The second element of the PRR comprises documentation for the revalidation of the courses in

question.

5.4.8 The following documentation should be supplied to Academic Quality and Partnerships Office

(AQPO) at [email protected] in electronic form with sufficient hard copies for the panel

(usually five) 15 working days prior to the event.

5.4.8.1 In the main document:

An evaluative review addressing the information and questions in 4.4 and 4.6;

Current course map(s)(i.e., for the next delivery) for the course, or for each course within the

Subject Community, indicating clearly changes that have occurred to the map(s) since the

previous validation or PRR;

Current or proposed (i.e., for the next delivery) Programme Specifications for the course, or

set of courses;

A full set of module descriptors;

A list of all professional accreditations, indicating the period of accreditation, and any

renewals approved or pending;

Current versions of staff CVs;

Access to examples of any distance learning provision (where relevant);

For home provision confirmation from the Dean of Faculty that adequate resources remain in

place to deliver and sustain the programme; that any issues pertaining to resource provision

will elicit appropriate response; and that course developments are in line with the Academic

Strategy and consequent faculty and university planning. The Dean should also provide any

contextual information relating to the school and faculty which may be helpful to the PRR

Panel;




For collaborative provision (other than franchise which will be addressed via the bullet

above) confirmation from the Partner that adequate resources remain in place to deliver and

sustain the programme; that any issues pertaining to resource provision will elicit appropriate

response; and that course developments are in line with the University’s Academic Strategy.

The Partner should also provide any contextual information relating to the partner institution

which may be helpful to the PRR Panel including a draft collaborative delivery plan;

A brief statement from the external examiner(s) commenting on any proposed changes;

For home provision and collaborative provision a statement from the University’s Library and

Information Services (LIS) confirming that learning resource requirements are being met,

and/or highlighting any areas of deficiency.

5.4.8.2 Appendices to include:

The current Course Handbook;

Examples of distance learning provision (if applicable);

A sample of current module guides;

Samples of assessment, to include assignment briefs, exam papers and feedback to

students;

Continuous Improvement Monitoring outcomes (home provision only) and / or Annual

Monitoring Reports for the previous 4 years;

Access to the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Action Plan and Evidence Store (for

home and franchise provision) and for other collaborative provision the current year’s

updated Action Plan, Boards of Studies minutes and any external examiner reports.

5.4.8.3 Where the provision is franchised to one or more of the University’s collaborative partners, the

documentation must include evidence from those partners.

5.4.9 Once prepared the PRR documentation should be approved by the relevant Board of Studies or

the equivalent for a collaborative partner as an agenda item. It may be necessary to plan a

specific, single item Board to discuss the submission of the PRR documentation.

5.4.0 For home (and Franchise provision) it is the Academic Subject Leader’s responsibility to ensure

that the full set of documentation, in electronic format with sufficient hard copies for the panel

(usually five), is forwarded to AQPO at [email protected].

5.4.11 For other collaborative provision it is the responsibility of the lead contact for the PRR event to

ensure that documentation is ready and that time has been allowed for the partnership

Coordinator or Academic Link Tutor to read the documentation and for the partner to develop the

documentation in response to the feedback these colleagues provide. The partnership-based

lead for the PRR event will then ensure the full set of documentation, in electronic format with

sufficient hard copies for the panel (usually five), is forwarded to the AQPO at

[email protected], copied to the Partnership Coordinator / Academic Link Tutor.

5.4.12 To give panels time to read documentation, produce initial views and compile agendas,

documents will be required a minimum of 15 University working days before the scheduled date

of the PRR event. Where documentation comes in later than this, the event may be delayed and

this may have an impact on any proposed start date for the provision.

5.5.0 The Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR) Event





5.5.1 The Academic Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO) will set up a panel to conduct the PRR

event. The panel will normally consist of:

A senior member of staff from outside the faculty (Chair);

The Chair of the relevant Faculty Academic Standards & Quality Committee (FASQC) (or

nominee);

One other internal University member, drawn from a different School to that of the proposal;

An external panel member with subject expertise (nominated by the Course Team and

approved by the Dean / Associate Deans of Quality & Standards on behalf of ASQC);

A student representative (nominated by the SU) (Home provision only);

Officer to be provided by Academic Registry.

5.5.2 Membership of the panel will be approved by Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC).

5.5.3 Chairs of PRR panels are drawn from a list of appropriately experienced staff, maintained by

AQPO. New members are added to the list from time to time; Faculty Deans and Heads of

School are encouraged to make recommendations via Faculty Heads of Quality & Standards

(FHQS).

5.5.4 Members of university staff on a teaching and research; or a teaching and scholarship contract

may be invited to be an internal member of a PRR Panel. In addition it may be appropriate to

invite other staff members with particular, relevant expertise to become an additional internal

member of a validation panel.

5.5.5 The external member of the PRR panel is contracted formally and remunerated by the University.

The general considerations in relation to externality, as specified in Section 6, apply to these

appointments. Faculty staff proposing external panel members should check the relevant criteria

prior to sending the form to AQPO. Appointments will be approved by the Dean / Associate

Deans of Quality and Standards on behalf of ASQC, and recorded at ASQC.

5.5.6 The PRR documentation is circulated to panel members normally no less than 15 working days

before the date of the event by AQPO. In addition to reading the main document, panel

members may each be allocated a section of the appendices to focus on.

5.5.7 One week prior to the event the nominated Registry officer will convene a pre-meeting of internal

panel members, including the Chair. Panel members are required to forward initial comments to

the officer for this meeting. On the basis of comments and discussion, a draft agenda will be

compiled.

5.5.8 The final programme for the event is decided by the Chair of the Review in consultation with

AQPO. The programme should reflect the issues raised by Panel members in their initial

responses to the documentation.

5.5.9 One full day should normally be allocated to the event. PRRs for collaborative partner courses

will normally take place at the partner institution. PRRs for courses which are franchised will

normally take place at UoG Whether the PRR is taking place at UoG or a Partner institution the

timetable for the day is likely to entail:

A meeting with a representative group of students from the course, or from the group of

courses, which allows a consideration of all levels of delivery;



A meeting with representatives from managerial and administrative staff who oversee

delivery of the programme(s);

A meeting with Academic Course Leaders (ACLs), Academic Subject Leaders (ASLs),

representatives from the teaching staff, and a representative of LIS / or equivalent for a

partner with subject expertise in the appropriate area. Where the provision is franchised to

one or more of the University’s collaborative partners, the Academic Subject Leader will be

responsible for ensuring that partner staff are available to meet with the panel.

5.6.0 Outcomes of Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR)

5.6.1 The PRR panel is asked to arrive at an overall judgement on the quality and standards of the

provision, informed by their reading of the documentation and discussions which have taken

place during the visit. The panel should also make one of the following recommendations to

Academic Board via Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC):

i Revalidation of the courses without conditions or recommendations;

ii Revalidation of the courses with conditions and/or recommendations;

iii Decision deferred.

5.6.2 The panel will also identify commendations of good practice. All outcomes will normally be

reported to the Course team or Subject Community at the close of the PRR event.

5.6.3 Confirmation that any conditions set by the panel have been met will be provided when a PRR

report is presented to ASQC.

5.6.4 For home provision in the case of decisions (i) or (ii), an outcomes report of the event prepared

by the Officer and approved by the Chair of the PRR panel will be circulated to the Academic

Course Leader (ACL), Academic Subject Leader (ASL), Head of School and Dean of Faculty,

and to panel members, no later than two working days after the event, with a final report following

within 10 working days.

5.6.5 For collaborative provision in the case of decisions (i) or (ii), an outcomes report of the event

prepared by the Officer and approved by the Chair of the PRR panel will be circulated to the lead

for the PRR at the partner, the Partnership Coordinator, the Academic Link Tutor, Academic

Subject Leader, Head of School and Dean of Faculty, and to panel members, no later than two

working days after the event, with a final report following within 10 working days.

5.6.6 In the case of decision (iii), the report provided will detail the reasons for the decision, and the

steps which would need to be taken to ensure a successful outcome should the provision be re-

presented.

5.6.7 Courses may be revalidated with conditions. Conditions are defined as matters that the PRR

panel believes have the potential to put academic quality and/or standards at risk if they are not

addressed prior to the enrolment of the next cohort. Accordingly, preventive or corrective action

is required.

5.6.8 Where a course is revalidated with conditions, it is the responsibility of the Course Team or

Partner to respond within the time limits set by the panel. It is the responsibility of the Academic

Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO) to co-ordinate responses to conditions, to forward such

responses to the Chair of the Panel for approval, and to inform ASQC and the Course Team



when conditions have been met. The Chair of the Panel may wish to take advice from the Dean,

and the Associate Deans, of Quality and Standards to confirm that conditions have been met.

5.6.9 Courses cannot enrol a next cohort until conditions have been met. The date for fulfilment of any

conditions will be set at the PRR, and the Chair of the PRR panel will be required to provide

written notification to AQPO that the conditions have been met before delivery of the provision

may commence.

5.6.10 Courses may be revalidated with recommendations. Recommendations refer to matters that do

not materially affect the quality or the academic standards of the course, but which would, from

further consideration, have the potential to improve the quality and/or further secure the

academic standards of the course.

5.6.11 A response to any such recommendations must be included within Continuous Improvement

Monitoring (CIM) for home provision (including provision that is franchised) or for other

collaborative provision in the first Annual Monitoring Report following revalidation although,

where necessary, an earlier response may be required.

5.6.12 Panels may choose to make recommendations to course teams, schools, faculties, the University

or a Partner. These will be noted by ASQC which will also monitor progress against actions.

5.6.13 The Panel may wish to draw attention to features of good practice. These can be defined as

features of provision which have the capacity to make a particularly positive contribution to a

course’s management of academic standards and/or the quality of its educational provision.

Features of good practice should normally be matters worthy of wider dissemination within the

school, faculty and University.

5.6.14 Where a group of courses is undergoing PRR, it may be that different judgements will apply to

courses within the group. Where this is the case, it will be clearly indicated, and the reasons for

the distinction will be made explicit in the final report of the event.


5.7.1 The final reports will be received by Faculty Academic Standards & Quality Committee (FASQC)

and also Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) (for collaborative provision other than that

which is franchised) and by Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC), and in the case

of a recommendation for revalidation, normally for a further five years for University provision and

for collaborative provision, will be forwarded to Academic Board.

5.7.2 Where conditions are not met, the courses cannot enrol a next cohort. In such instances, the

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) in consultation with the Dean of Quality & Standards and the

Dean of the relevant faculty will arrive at a recommendation for action, which may include

suspending further recruitment to, or terminating, the provision. This recommendation will be

approved by Academic Board. In such a case, the University’s processes for oversight of

provision which is phasing out will come into operation to safeguard the quality of the experience

of students remaining on the course(s).

5.7.3 Similarly, in extreme cases where a PRR gives rise to serious concerns which would place the

academic standards of the provision and/or the quality of the student experience in immediate

jeopardy, the review panel may recommend that the steps outlined under paragraph 7.2 are

instigated immediately.



5.8.0 Providing timely information, support and guidance to applicants in relation to

changes to existing courses for home and collaborative provision

5.8.1 Aspiring students who have submitted an application to a course may also be negatively affected

by a change to existing course provision resulting from a PRR. Where such a change is

necessary it should be undertaken in a timely way and ACLs, supported by Communications,

Marketing & Student Recruitment (CMSR) and Admissions (home provision) or the partner

(collaborative provision), should inform any applicants as soon as possible and in writing of the

change that has been agreed. This communication should include, as appropriate, any

alternative options for study at the University / partner. It should also include an opportunity for

individual support and guidance should an applicant feel this would be helpful. In some cases it

may be appropriate for the University / partner to provide advice and guidance in relation to

alternative options for study with other higher education providers.



Section 6: Externality



6.3.0 Appointment of Externals

6.4.0 Briefing and Induction of Externals

6.5.0 Rights and Duties of Subject External Examiners

6.6.0 Rights and Duties of Chief External Examiners

6.7.0 Meeting with Students

6.8.0 Reports

6.9.0 Premature Termination of Contract

6.10.0 Resignation of External Examiners

6.11.0 Externality in Validation and Periodic Review & Revalidation

6.12.0 Other Sources of Externality


6.1.1 This section presents the arrangements externality for:

Home provision, i.e. provision for which the University is the degree-awarding body and

that is provided solely by the University of Gloucestershire



6.1.2 In monitoring and assuring the quality of its programmes and the academic standards of its

awards, the University makes extensive use of external peers in its validation and review

procedures The University’s arrangements for externality align with the QAA UK Quality Code

including B1 Programme Design, Development and Approval, B7: External Examining; B8:

Programme Monitoring and Review; and B10: Managing Higher Education Provision with Others.

6.1.3 As well as ensuring that every subject area and module has suitable external examiners, the

University employs external panel members on the following quality assurance processes:

Validation of programmes

Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR)

Internal Quality Audits (IQAs)

Partnership Approvals

Partnership Reviews

6.1.4 In order to ensure that external participants are able to bring an independent perspective to the

University’s work, the following principles will be applied in consideration of a nominee. They will

not:

have served as an external examiner at the University for a period of at least five years;

be currently sitting on the University Council or any of its sub committees or acting as a

consultant to the University;

be a graduate of the University;

have been in paid employment with the University for a period of at least five years;

have been personally or corporately associated with the sponsorship of students;

be known to relevant employees of the University in a personal capacity;

be known to relevant employees of the University in a professional capacity to an extent

which might prejudice their independence (for example, via involvement in recent or current









collaborative research activities with a member of staff involved in delivery and/or

assessment of a course).

6.1.5 Nominees will:

have had sufficient experience in quality assurance to enable them to discharge their role

effectively;

and current or recent experience of developing, delivering and assessing courses in UK

higher education providers to a level equivalent to the provision under review or examination;

or, in the case of professional courses, appropriate professional expertise and experience in

relation to the relevant academic area;

and, where relevant, specific experience for the particular form of review; for example,

experience of teaching an assessing postgraduate research students, or experience of

managing collaborative arrangements.


6.2.1 The role of external examiners is central to the maintenance of standards. It is vital that their

appointment and briefing is conducted in an efficient manner and that their reports are fully

considered and used to assist in maintaining the standards of the assessment of students.

6.2.2 The University operates a two tier system of formal meetings to agree assessment outcomes.

The first tier, or Module Board of Examiners (MBEs), confirms marks and awards credit at

module level for all students studying the modules in its subject area, regardless of which named

award the students may be registered upon. The second tier, the Award Board of Examiners

(ABEs), uses those confirmed marks to make recommendations for awards, including

classification of award, and make decisions about the progression of students.

6.2.3 The University has two distinct roles for external examiners. One is in relation to support of the

duties of MBEs; the other is in relation to support of the duties of ABEs. Those acting in the

second role are described as ‘chief external examiners’. A module will normally have only one

external examiner; an external examiner may, and normally shall, be associated with many

modules. External examiners may be associated with modules at all levels of provision, i.e. both

undergraduate and postgraduate. A named award must have at least one Chief External

Examiner (CEE).

6.2.4 The sections below deal with the following topics:

Appointment

Stages in the appointment of an external examiner

Briefing and induction

Rights and duties of Subject external examiners

Rights and duties of Chief external examiners

Meetings with students

Reports

Premature termination of contract

Resignation of external examiners

6.3.0 Appointment of externals

6.3.1 Normally external examiners are appointed to courses. However, a single external may be

appointed to cover a group of cognate courses, or to cover a set of modules which are delivered



across more than one course. Where externals are appointed to courses and modules

franchised to one of the University’s collaborative partners, they will have a responsibility for each

location of delivery.

6.3.2 Chief External Examiners (CEEs) are appointed to a faculty and will normally have responsibility

for either all its undergraduate awards or all its taught postgraduate awards. Where necessary a

chief external examiner may be asked to deputise for another chief external who is,

exceptionally, unable to attend a Board. CEEs may be appointed from the bank of existing

subject externals but the competencies required mean that they are likely to be appointed without

holding a post as a subject external examiner at the University.

6.3.3 Stages in the Appointment of an External Examiner

6.3.3.1 The Academic Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO) maintains a record of the University’s

external examiners, by course and institution, and will notify the appropriate Faculty Head of

Quality & Standards (FHQS) or the Director of Collaborative Partnerships when nomination of a

new, or replacement, external examiner is required. Nominations should be made using Form

EE1 (Application for the Approval of an External Examiner) or Form EE2 (Approval for Extension

or Amendment of Duties), copies of which are available via the External Examiner Resources

page. In order to ensure smooth and continuous external examining arrangements, it is essential

that courses begin to seek nominations for replacement examiners well in advance of the

termination date of the current external examiner. The Dean of Quality & Standards (DQS) will

be responsible for the nomination of Chief External Examiners. Ideally, all external examiners

should be appointed prior to the final ASQC of the academic year.

6.3.3.2 Schools and collaborative partners may have their own internal procedures for the identification

of potential external examiners. Academic Subject Leaders (ASLs), and for collaborative

arrangements, Partnership Coordinators (PCs), are responsible for ensuring the appropriateness

of nominations.

6.3.4 Criteria for external examiners

The following criteria should be applied in the consideration of proposed external examiners -

the notes beneath each criterion provide a checklist of the issues that need to be considered.

6.3.4.1 An external examiner's academic/professional qualifications should be appropriate to the

course to be examined.

Both the level and the subject of the examiner's qualifications must at least match course to be

examined. In particular, externals should have awareness of current developments in the design,

delivery and assessment of relevant curricula.

6.3.4.2 An external examiner should have appropriate standing, expertise and experience of

sector agreed reference points for the maintenance of academic standards and quality,

enabling them to attest to the comparability of standards.

Standing, expertise and breadth of experience may be indicated by:

the present (or last, if recently retired) post and place of work;

the range and scope of experience across higher education or the professions – where an

external proposed for a professional course has limited experience of higher education, a

second external may be appointed;

current and recent active involvement in research, scholarly, or professional activities in the

area of study concerned;

https://infonet.glos.ac.uk/departments/registry/qanda/Pages/EEResources.aspx

https://infonet.glos.ac.uk/departments/registry/qanda/Pages/EEResources.aspx



meeting applicable criteria set by Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs).

6.3.4.3 An external examiner should either have enough recent external examining, or

comparable related experience, to indicate competence in assessing students in the

subject area; or, if the proposed examiner has no previous external examiner experience

at the appropriate level, the application should be supported by either:

other external examining experience;

extensive internal examining experience;

other relevant and recent experience likely to support the external examiner role.

Proposed examiners without experience will normally join an experienced team of external

examiners operating in a cognate group of courses. Whilst the University is committed to

providing the induction and mentoring necessary to increase the national pool of suitable external

examiners, care should be taken in appointing a nominee with no previous external examining

experience to an area where there is only a single examiner; in such a case appropriate

mentoring should be considered. In supporting a nomination, the Academic Subject

Leader/Partnership Coordinator should identify a named external examiner from among the

faculty’s existing appointees who will act as a mentor to the newly-appointed external; the

agreement of the proposed mentor should be obtained before the EE1 form is submitted to the

Quality & Standards Manager.

Mentors to a newly appointed external examiner should normally have:

been in post for at least one year so that they will have become familiar with the University’s

regulations & procedures;

submitted a satisfactory report;

gone through the University’s external examiner induction process;

been an External Examiner for provision within the same Subject Community and for

provision at the same level (i.e., undergraduate, postgraduate).

Academic Subject Leaders (ASLs) are responsible for putting the mentee in touch with the

named mentor. It is expected that the mentor and the mentee should initially liaise before the

assessment round.

6.3.4.4 External examiners can be drawn from a variety of institutional or professional contexts

and traditions in order that the course benefits from wide-ranging external scrutiny.

In the interests of independence, and to encourage the concept of wide-ranging scrutiny, there

should not be:

more than one examiner from the same institution in the team examining cognate courses;

reciprocal external examining between the University and institutions from which nominees

are drawn, in the same or similar subject areas, or management units;

replacement of an external examiner by an individual from the same institution.

6.3.4.5 Examiners should not be over-extended by their external examining duties.

As an indication, the examiner should not hold more than the equivalent of two substantial

external examiner appointments including the proposed University appointment.

6.3.4.6 External examiners must be impartial in judgement and should therefore not have

previous close involvement with the University which might be perceived as

compromising their objectivity.

Further guidelines on the interpretation of ‘independence’ are contained in section 1.



6.3.5 Nomination and any accompanying papers must be forwarded to the Quality & Standards

Manager which has delegated authority from Academic Standards & Quality Committee, and

Academic Board to approve external examiner appointments.

6.3.6 Chief External Examiners

6.3.6.1 Chief External Examiners (CEEs) may be nominated by Faculty Heads of Quality and Standards

(FHQS), the Dean of Quality and Standards (DQS) or the Associate Deans of Quality and

Standards. Nominations must be approved by Academic Standards & Quality Committee

(ASQC). In addition to the criteria above (except that which relates to specific subject

experience), Chief Externals should have recent and relevant experience of managing academic

regulations and procedures, or quality assurance procedures, at a national (e.g., QAA),

institutional or faculty level.

6.3.6.2 To meet Home Office requirements on preventing illegal working, the University is required to

establish that all employees have the right to work in the UK. Therefore, nomination forms must

be accompanied by a photocopy of the nominee’s passport page showing their photograph and

passport number, and of any documentation proving their right to live and work in the UK if they

are not holders of a UK or EU passport. Any subsequent appointment will be made conditional

upon the Faculty, or in the case of chief externals, the Academic Quality & Partnerships Office

(AQPO), having sight of the original documents.

6.3.6.3 External examiners are normally appointed for four academic sessions. Notification of the

acceptance of an external examiner nomination is sent by the Quality & Standards Manager to

the Faculty Administrative Manager (FAM), the appropriate Faculty Head of Quality & Standards

(FHQS), Academic Course Leader (ACL), Academic Subject Leader (ASL), and Academic Link

Tutor (ALT) and Partnership Coordinator (PC) (if relevant). Notification regarding a Chief

External Examiner is sent to the Chair of the FASQC and the Dean of Faculty. At this point the

briefing procedure described below begins.

6.3.6.4 Where the application for appointment of a subject external examiner is not approved at any

stage during the process described above, the decision is referred back to the appropriate FHQS

or the Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP) who will inform the nominee, indicating the

reasons for rejection. Where the application for appointment of a Chief External Examiner is not

approved, the DQS will inform the nominee.

6.4.0 Briefing and induction of externals

6.4.1 Once approved, a University briefing pack is sent to the external examiner by the Academic

Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO). This contains:

links to the Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook (AQPH);

the University’s Academic Regulations for Taught Provision;

the template for annual reports;

a copy of an exemplar report;

details of the University’s scale of expense payments together with forms for claiming

expenses and fees;

Details of web links to the Academic Strategy, Learning and Teaching Strategy, and

Assessment Procedures.

6.4.2 The briefing pack also informs the external examiner that s/he will be contacted by the Academic

Course Leader (ACL) (or in the case of Chief External Examiners, the Dean of Quality &


https://infonet.glos.ac.uk/staff/vc/Lists/Related%20Resources/AllItems.aspx





Standards (DQS) with more specific information. It is the responsibility of the ACL (or the DQS)

to make this contact as soon as possible after being notified that the nomination has been

approved. For subject externals, the detailed briefing by the ACL should involve the appropriate

Faculty Head of Quality and Standards (FHQS) and Head of School, and/or for collaborative

partnerships, the Partnership Coordinator and the relevant contact at the collaborative partner,

and should cover:

the dates of all meetings of the Module Board of Examiners (MBEs) for the first year of

appointment;

information on the role of the examiner in the examining team as a whole and, where there is

a team of examiners, those areas of the course for which the examiner will take specific

responsibility;

the objectives of the course, its syllabuses and learning and teaching methods;

the assessment methods and marking schemes of the course and its constituent parts;

provision and explanation of the outgoing external examiner’s last report and the response;

the University’s Academic Regulations for Taught Provision;

and for collaborative arrangements, the specific organisation of the partnership.

6.4.3 For Chief Externals, the detailed briefing by the DQS will cover dates of all meetings of the Award

Board of Examiners (ABEs) for the first year of appointment, the previous chief external

examiner’s last report and the response, and the University’s assessment principles and

procedures.

6.4.4 Newly appointed external examiners will be invited to a centrally-organised induction event. This

involves an introduction to the University’s quality assurance processes, academic regulations

and related policies and procedures, together with an introduction to the specific course which is

organised by the relevant FHQS or Director of Collaborative Partnerships, and ACLs. Chief

External Examiners will be additionally briefed by the DQS and the relevant FHQS.

6.4.5 Where a new external examiner has no previous external examining experience, the Academic

Subject Leader (ASL) is responsible for implementing the mentoring arrangements agreed at

appointment.

6.5.0 Rights and duties of subject external examiners

6.5.1 The term of office for external examiners is normally four years.

6.5.2 External examiners have particular responsibility for ensuring that standards and comparability

are maintained and that justice is done to individual students, and for judging whether students

have fulfilled the objectives of the module and reached the required standard.

6.5.3 External examiners are primarily concerned with the modules which contribute to the final

qualifications of students and will not normally be involved with the preliminary parts of a

student's programme (generally level 4 of undergraduate courses). External examiners are

expected to play a full role in the later stages of a student's programme through the scrutiny of

assessment requirements, coursework assignments and examination papers, and by

membership of Module Boards of Examiners (MBEs) which agree marks.

6.5.4 To carry out these responsibilities, external examiners are expected to:

monitor the form and content of coursework assignments and examination papers in respect

of those modules under their responsibility, and scrutinise students’ work arising from those

assignments and examinations. This is to ensure that all students are assessed fairly in






relation to each module syllabus, objectives or learning outcomes, that marking standards

are consistent and appropriate, and that students have reached the required standard for the

module;

satisfy themselves that assessments are conducted in accordance with the University’s

Academic Regulations for Taught Provision (ARTP) and related procedures;

attend the relevant Module Board of Examiners at which marks are confirmed and help to

ensure, and sign to confirm, that marks have been achieved by fair means according to the

University's requirements and normal practice in higher education. If this duty cannot be

discharged for some unavoidable reason, then the examiner shall communicate his/her

views in writing to the Chair of the MBEs before the Board takes place.

6.5.5 It is not expected that an external examiner should scrutinise all individual assessments of

students but that he/she should adopt the broader role of assuring Academic Board that

assessment procedures are appropriate and maintain a proper and rigorous control of standards.

Hence, it is important that the Academic Course Leader (ACL) discusses with the external

examiner his/her requirements in terms of the maintenance of assessment standards and the

judgement of students' work, including agreement on the composition of the sample of work to be

scrutinised.

6.5.6 In respect of modules for which they are responsible external examiners have the right:

to be notified, on appointment and annually thereafter, of the modules for which they are

responsible (typically, in the form of the Course Handbook, which should include the name of

the external examiner) and ensure that they receive, in respect of each module for which

they have responsibility, the module assessment strategy and its relationship to the learning

outcomes of the module(s). If this information is unchanged since the Examiner last

received it, it will suffice for the ACL to confirm that information;

to be consulted regarding the form and content of coursework, examination papers and all

other forms of assessment;

to see the work of all students being assessed or an agreed sample, and to comment on the

standards of marking. Externals may not, however, alter individual marks awarded by

internal markers; nor are they to be used as a ‘third marker’ in the case of disagreement

between first and second internal markers but they may recommend adjustments of the

marks for the cohort on the basis of the sample;

to be consulted on proposed changes to assessment of modules in the course, and on

proposed changes to the curriculum;

to receive a response to comments made in their reports, normally via the annual monitoring

report for the course which must respond to each recommendation raised by the external

examiner.

6.5.7 In respect of modules for which they are responsible external examiners have the duty:

to report back to the University on the effectiveness of the assessment process and any

lessons to be drawn from it. To this end, external examiners are expected to provide an

Annual Report. Where an external examiner’s duties encompass more than one course, the

report should include specific reference to any issues relating to individual courses. Where

the same module or course is delivered in more than one location, for example, via

franchised collaborative arrangements, the report should include reference to, and

comparison of, each site of delivery. This should include, where applicable, matters of

serious concern arising from the assessment process which put at risk the standards of the

University;

to attend the MBEs meeting for the modules to which they have been appointed;




to sign the pro forma confirming agreement with decisions taken at the Module Board of

Examiners, and indicating that processes have been carried out in accordance with the

conventions of the University;

to, exceptionally, report in confidence, directly to the Vice-Chancellor, as Chair of Academic

Board if they have significant concerns about matters relating to assessment, standards or

procedures and are not willing to endorse the mark sheet. In such cases, the Vice-

Chancellor will nominate a senior member of Academic Board to investigate the external

examiner’s concerns, and report accordingly.

6.6.0 Rights and duties of chief external examiners

6.6.1 The term of office for chief external examiners is normally four years.

6.6.2 The overall role of the chief external examiners is to ensure that standards and comparability are

maintained across the University’s awards, and that justice is done to all students.

6.6.3 In addition to the rights and responsibilities of external examiners, Chief External Examiners have

the following rights and responsibilities. In respect of awards for which they are responsible

external examiners have the right:

to be notified on appointment of the provision for which they will have responsibility;

to receive copies on appointment of the University’s Academic Regulations for Taught

Provision (ARTP), Assessment Procedures, and Academic Quality and Partnerships

Handbook. Chief external examiners shall also have access to the Programme

Specification, grade criteria and any programme specific regulations in respect of each

programme for which they have responsibility;

to be consulted by the University on any appropriate regulatory issues.

6.6.4 Chief External Examiners have the right, exceptionally, to report in confidence, directly to the

Vice-Chancellor if they have significant concerns relating to assessment, standards or

procedures of the courses within their remit.

6.6.5 In addition to the rights and responsibilities of external examiners, Chief External Examiners have

the following rights and responsibilities. In respect of awards for which they are responsible

external examiners have the duty:

to attend the relevant Award Board of Examiners (ABEs) at which decisions on awards and

progression are made, and to help ensure that those decisions have been reached by fair

means according to the University’s academic regulations and procedures. In so doing, they

will ensure that the standard of awards is maintained at a level comparable with that of

similar awards elsewhere in the United Kingdom. If the chief external cannot attend for

some unavoidable reason then the examiner shall communicate his/her views in writing to

the Chair of the ABE;

to respond to requests for advice on individual cases;

to sign a pro forma confirming agreement with decisions taken by the ABE, and indicating

that the processes have been carried out in accordance with the regulations and conventions

of the University;

to, exceptionally, report in confidence, directly to the Vice-Chancellor, as Chair of Academic

Board, if they have significant concerns about matters relating to assessment, standards or

procedures and are not willing to endorse the awards sheet. In such cases, the Vice-

Chancellor will nominate a senior member of Academic Board to investigate the chief

external examiner’s concerns, and report accordingly;

http://insight.glos.ac.uk/departments/registry/Quality/Pages/AcademicRegulations.aspx

http://insight.glos.ac.uk/departments/registry/Quality/Pages/AcademicRegulations.aspx

http://insight.glos.ac.uk/departments/registry/Quality/assessment/Pages/default.aspx





to submit an annual report, within four weeks of the main meeting of the ABE. Chief External

Examiners may expect that any comments made in their report will be addressed adequately

by the University in the next year and that they will receive feedback. To that end, the Dean

of Quality and Standards (DQS) will ensure that a response is received and both the report

and the response are considered by the Academic Regulations Committee (ARC);

to receive a copy of the Annual Report of the DQS; the Report will include reference to Chief

External Examiner reports.

6.7.0 Meetings with Students

6.7.1 External examiners do not normally meet with students (although it is acknowledged that this

may be the subject of negotiation between the external and the course). The exceptions to this

are:

where meetings with students are required by an external validating body;

where meetings with students are required by a professional accrediting body;

where the nature of the external examining process – for example, with respect to

performances – makes it inevitable that external examiners should meet with students.

6.7.2 Where external examiners request a meeting with students, their attention should be drawn to

the point below.

6.7.3 There is no provision for the conduct of viva voce examinations within the University’s

regulations. Thus no meeting between an external examiner and a student can be used to make

judgements about that individual student’s performance.

6.8.0 Reports

6.8.1 The main purpose of subject external examiners' reports is to enable Academic Board to judge

whether a course is meeting its stated objectives and to allow any necessary improvements to be

made.

6.8.2 External examiners' reports are submitted annually at the end of the academic session.

Immediately before the assessment round begins (this will usually be before the summer

assessment round but the timing will depend on the course’s academic calendar), the Academic

Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO) forwards to each external examiner links to a template and

notes of guidance for his/her report. The external examiner is invited to comment on the

following areas using the standard template:

The standards of academic achievement demonstrated by the students;

The appropriateness of these standards to the level of the award;

The extent to which these standards are comparable with those with which you are familiar

for comparable awards in other institutions;

The extent to which these standards are consistent with the Framework for Higher Education

Qualifications and (where relevant) with the QAA Foundation Degree and Masters

Benchmark Statements;

The strengths and weaknesses of the student cohort as evidenced by the material seen;

The design and structure of assessments;

The marking of assessments;

The appropriateness and soundness of the procedures for assessment and examinations;

The administration of the assessment and examination processes, including the conduct of

examination boards;



The quality of the student learning experience, including availability of appropriate learning

resources, in so far as the external is able to comment;

The design, aims, currency and content of the curriculum, including its consistency with QAA

subject benchmark statements and (where appropriate) its relevance to current professional

practice;

The external examining process.

6.8.3 External examiners are also asked to confirm that comments made in their previous report(s)

have been considered and, where appropriate, acted upon. New external examiners are asked

to confirm that they have received a copy of the previous year’s report. Those external

examiners coming to the end of their tenure are asked to provide an overview statement on

progress over the years of their appointment.

6.8.4 The external examiner's report is returned to the AQPO (email [email protected]) for

circulation within the University. It is important that these reports are returned centrally and not to

individual Academic Course Leaders (ACLs) or other members of the department or faculty since

external examiners are required to report to Academic Board and not to individual courses.

Central receipt of reports also ensures that the procedures detailed below can be carried out.

6.8.5 On receipt, external examiners' reports are read by the Dean of Quality & Standards (DQS) on

behalf of Academic Board. Any exceptional issues which require action outside the normal

review cycle are addressed at this point. Such issues, the action required, and a deadline for

response are detailed on a cover sheet which is attached to the report. The report is then

distributed to:

Faculty Dean

Head of School

Course Leader

Academic Subject Leader (ASL)

Faculty Head of Quality and Standards (FHQS)

Faculty Administration Manager

Partnership Co-ordinator (where relevant)

6.8.6 For Home and Franchise provision externals’ reports will be considered and responded to as part

of the Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM) process. The Faculty Academic Standards &

Quality Committee (FASQC) should ensure that issues arising from the reports of external

examiners have been properly considered. Each point raised by external examiners must be

addressed. The ASL (or relevant officer at a collaborative partner) is responsible for ensuring

that external examiners receive a copy of the reponse.

6.8.7 All reports are read by the DQS to identify cross-University issues and common themes or

patterns. An overview report is then prepared for consideration by the Academic Standards and

Quality Committee (ASQC) and Academic Board. Any necessary action is agreed by these

committees.

6.8.8 Chief External Examiners provide an annual report, which is submitted to AQPO. The report

covers the following matters:

the operation of the Award Board of Examiners (ABEs) in respect of adherence to University

regulations;




the fitness for purpose of regulations and procedures for assessing students, including with

regard to alignment with section A6 of the UK Quality Code on Assessment of learning

outcomes;

the efficiency of administrative arrangements;

suggestions for improvement to assessment regulations and procedures;

where applicable, any matters of serious concern arising from the process, which might put

at risk the standards of the University.

6.8.9 On receipt, the Chief Externals’ reports will be read by the DQS on behalf of Academic Board.

Any exceptional issues which require action outside the normal review cycle are addressed at

this point. Such issues, and the action required, are detailed on a cover sheet which is attached

to the report. Reports are then distributed to the Associate Deans of Quality and Standards

(ADQS) and the Faculty Heads of Quality and Standards (FHQS).

6.8.10 Each Chief External Examiner report and a specific response addressing issues raised are

received and monitored by the Academic Regulations Committee (ARC) on behalf of ASQC. Any

significant issues arising from the reports will be incorporated into the summary report described

in paragraph 8.8 above. Actions identified in the summary report are monitored on a regular

basis by ASQC.

6.8.11 Students and external examiner reports

6.8.11.1 The University notifies students of the name, position and institution of subject external

examiners via module descriptors, programme specifications, and Course Handbooks. Course

Handbooks and other sources of information for students should make it clear that students are

not permitted to contact external examiners.

6.8.11.2 As a minimum requirement, external examiner reports should be made available to student

representatives via the reports being received at Boards of Studies. Subject Communities should

consider sharing the reports in other ways, for example via their being posted on the Continuous

Improvement Monitoring (CIM) SharePoint site or Moodle.

6.8.11.3 Reports of chief external examiners and responses thereto, should be received by Academic

Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC).

6.9.0 Premature termination of contract

6.9.1 Where the University considers that an external examiner is not fulfilling the agreed

responsibilities outlined above, it reserves the right to terminate that examiner’s contract

prematurely. Specifically, this right would operate under the following circumstances:

failure to deliver an annual report;

non-attendance at Boards or lack of engagement with the role;

other failure to fulfil external examining duties;

changes to the course or modules covered by the examiner which render the appointment

no longer appropriate;

withdrawal of a course or provision;

serious and irrecoverable breakdown in the relationship between the external examiner and

staff of a course or faculty, which constitutes a potential threat to academic standards.





6.9.2 This right is vested in the Academic Board, which it delegates to Academic Standards & Quality

Committee (ASQC). In all cases, approval of the termination by Academic Board will be

required.

6.9.3 Following a decision by Academic Board that a contract should be terminated, the external

examiner in question has the right to appeal in writing against this decision. The appeal will be

considered by a panel consisting of the Dean of Quality and Standards (Chair), a Faculty Head of

Quality and Standards (FHQS) from a faculty other than that of the external in question, and one

other external examiner not known to the appellant.

6.10.0 Resignation of external examiners

6.10.1 Where an external examiner wishes to resign before the end of their term, this should be done in

writing to the Academic Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO) who will send a letter confirming

termination of employment.

6.11.0 Externality in Validation and Periodic Review and Revalidation

6.11.1 Periodic Review and Revalidation

An external examiner's report may raise issues which have implications for course design and

delivery, but it is not the role of the external examiner to decide what precise changes should be

made as a result of his/her report. Such changes are the remit of the Board of Studies as a

result of review processes which include the external examiner’s report. The reports are,

therefore, an integral part of the review process and those with responsibility for conducting

review should scrutinise both the reports and the record of responses made to them.

6.11.2 Validation

In order to ensure impartiality, no member of a validation panel should have a close association

with the course concerned. In this context, no external examiner should be considered for

membership of such a panel. However, in some instances related to changes or modifications to

a course, it is good practice for the external examiner to be consulted. These include any

changes which affect the regulations by which students are assessed, and proposed changes to

the title of an award (see Section 1).

6.12.0 Other sources of externality

6.12.1 These include:

external inputs to Internal Quality Audits and to reviews of professional departments external

membership of validation panels;

external advice sought by development teams during new programme developments.

6.12.2 In all these cases, the criteria for appointment described in this chapter, appropriately interpreted,

will be applied.



Section 7: The Role of Students in Quality Assurance

7.1.0 This section presents the arrangements in place to actively encourage student engagement in

quality assurance and the enhancement of their learning opportunities. These arrangements

apply to home provision and collaborative partner franchise provision. Collaborative Partners

with other arrangements e.g. Collaborative Provision Validated or Joint Venture, are required to

make equivalent provision for the engagement of students in Quality Assurance activity and

these arrangements will be discussed during partnership approval and review processes.

7.1.1 The University’s arrangements for Student engagement with quality assurance and enhancement

(hereafter QA/E) align with the QAA UK Quality Code including B1 Programme Design,

Development and Approval, B3: Learning and Teaching, B5: Student Engagement, B8:


7.2.0 The involvement of students in quality assurance and enhancement processes is integral to the

approach to learning and teaching promoted by the University’s Learning and Teaching Strategy.

This section outlines briefly the range of educational enhancement and quality assurance

activities with which the University actively encourages students to engage. [Indicator 1]

7.3.0 The Student Representation Scheme: The Students’ Union Voice Manager (SUVM)

coordinates the Student Representation (SR) Scheme. The University actively supports the SU

in the planning, promotion and implementation of the Student Representation Scheme. The

Student Union provides information, training and ongoing support for student representatives.

7.3.1 Within the Student Representation Scheme there are two roles: course representatives and

school representatives. Further explanation of these roles follows below.

7.4.0 Course Representatives: Students on all taught programmes are invited to elect course

representatives, one per level for each course, to represent their peers on the course and to act

as conduits for information between students on the course and the course team, to help ensure

feedback loops are closed.

7.4.1 During induction Academic Course Leaders (ACLs) are required to provide an introduction to the

SR Scheme and to allow time within a session for the election of a course representative to take

place.

7.4.2 The SUVM organises the training of course representatives and Chairs of Boards of Studies

(BoSs) are required to provide an induction for new course representatives prior to their first BoS

meeting.

7.4.3 Course Representatives sit on the Board of Studies that oversees the course that they have been

elected to represent. Chaired by the ACL or Academic Subject Leader (ASL), the BoS is the

primary unit of academic quality assurance at course level and has a clear responsibility for

continuous evaluation of the course and the actions which result from it. Such evaluation should

involve every member of the BoS including course representatives. Further information about the

conduct of BoS can be found in Section 3.

7.5.0 School Representatives: the school representative role is a part-time, fixed term (one academic

year) paid role undertaken by existing students with course representation, or equivalent,

experience. One school representative is appointed per School. School Representatives are












managed by the Students’ Union who provide, supported by university staff, the training for the

role.

7.5.1 The purpose of the role is to improve the quality of the student experience by engaging

effectively with course representatives and students; and working with staff to develop

approaches to teaching, learning and the wider student experience.

7.5.2 School Representatives have core activities that they each undertake and some individually

negotiated tasks. They meet on a fortnightly basis with Heads of School and on the alternative

weeks with the SUVM. School Representatives are members of the Faculty Learning and

Teaching Committee, for the faculty within which their School is based. School Representatives

are also members of the Campus Life Group on the campus where their School is based.

7.5.3 Further information about the role of student representatives and the current version of the

Student Representation Handbook may be found on the Students’ Union web site at

http://www.yourstudentsunion.com/representation.

7.6.0 Student Representation on Committees: The University is committed to ensuring that the

student voice is both heard and responded too through its management and deliberative

committee structures. In addition to course representative membership of Course Boards of

Studies, students are represented on a range of university committees by School

Representatives and SU representatives, including Academic Board, Academic Portfolio

Committee (APC), Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC), Learning and Teaching

Committee (LTC).

7.7.0 Campus Life Groups (CLG): The main forum for exchange of views between staff and students

on non-academic, campus-based issues is the Campus Life Group (CLG). A CLG runs on each

Campus and is chaired by a Student Union Sabbatical Officer supported by the Dean of Faculty.

School Representatives are members of the CLG on the home campus for their course. CLGs

normally meet once per term. The purpose of CLGs is to represent the views of students on their

non-academic Campus based experiences and for service providers to update students on

developments, policies and procedures in key services CLGs are an open forum and every

student is welcome to attend.

7.8.0 Student Life Committee (SLC): CLG reports to the Student Life Committee (SLC), chaired by

the ProVice-Chancellor (Operations), this committee has a remit to represent the views of

students on their non-academic experiences in the University and to update students on

developments or changes to policies and procedures in key services. In addition SLC has a

responsibility to monitor and set standards for the quality of core University services. The

membership of SLC includes the Student Union President, members of the University Executive

and representatives of core university services.

7.9.0 Student Union Liaison Group (SULG): CLGs also report to the Student Union Liaison Group

(SULG) which contains representatives of the Students’ Union and members of the University

Executive. This group holds regular Keep in Touch (KIT) meetings to address issues of concern

or interest in relation to the student experience.

7.10.0 Other Systematic Approaches to Gathering Student Feedback: In addition to the input from

student representatives via formal committee structures, and from all students via informal

contacts e.g. with module tutors and personal tutors, the university engages in a number of

systematic exercises for the gathering of feedback from students. These include:

http://www.yourstudentsunion.com/representation



7.10.1 Mid-module evaluation, carried out at around the mid-point of each module. (see Section 3)

7.10.2 Annual Course Evaluation (ACE): carried out towards the end of the Academic Year. (see

Section 3)

7.10.3 The National Student Survey (NSS), an external survey carried out in all Higher Education

Institutions by the polling agency Ipsos-Mori on behalf of the Higher Education Funding Councils.

7.10.4 The Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) and Postgraduate Research Experience

Survey (PRES) carried out via the Higher Education Academy, to provide an opportunity for

students in the PGT and PGR constituencies to give feedback on their experience.

7.10.5 The International Student Barometer (IBS) that surveys views of international students on their

experience of studying and wider experience of living at the University.

7.10.6 A number of more targeted surveys carried out by particular areas of the university, for example

Library and Information Services and the International Development Centre.

7.10.7 External examiners’ reports and either the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR), or the Continuous

Improvement Monitoring (CIM) process, are discussed at meetings of the Board of Studies at

which course representatives are present. School Representatives are invited to Academic

Health Check meetings which are part of the CIM process. (see Section 3)

7.10.8 Students are involved in a number of formal quality assurance processes. Panels carrying out

Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR) make provision for a student member and also meet

students of the provision under review as a standard part of the process. When professional

departments are under review students form part of the ‘user group’ met by the review panel,

where the service under review has direct contact with students. School or SU representatives

are also invited to sit on Internal Quality Audit panels. Training is provided for student

representatives engaged in these activities.

7.10.9 Students who wish to take an active part in quality assurance activities are encouraged to make

this known either through the Representation and Democracy Co-ordinator, via the Students’

Union, or by contacting the Dean of Quality and Standards directly.

7.10.10 The SU website has an excellent tool for eliciting and collating student feedback to feed into the

Campus Life Groups (CLGs) and to inform other University activities. The SU also undertake

other systematic activity to elicit student feedback on their studies and wider university

experience, e.g. Feedback February.

7.10.11 Finally one of the most successful examples of gathering and responding to feedback from

students is the Student-Led Teaching Awards. Organised by the Students’ Union students are

asked to nominate staff (individuals and teams) for a range of awards relating to excellent

teaching, formal and informal support for learning and curriculum design / content.



Section 8: Internal Quality Audit

8.1.0 This section presents the arrangements for Internal Quality Audit (IQA) for:





8.1.1 The University does not require collaborative partners to conduct their own IQAs, but

collaborative partners with validated provision will be expected to have equivalent processes in

place for the careful consideration of practice leading to action resulting in the enhancement of

the student experience.

8.1.2 The University’s arrangements for IQAs align with the QAA UK Quality Code including B8:


It should be noted that as an IQA may focus upon any aspect of the University’s provision any

chapter of the Quality Code could become a significant resource to inform an IQA.

8.1.3 IQAs provide an opportunity to examine more closely selected aspects of the operation of the

University’s quality assurance and enhancement policies, and operate both as a quality

assurance mechanism, ensuring that processes are operating as they should, and as a means of

quality enhancement, enabling good practice to be identified and disseminated. The audits are

set up and managed by Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC), with a summary

report being provided to Academic Board annually.

8.1.4 Topics for audits will be identified by the Dean of Quality and Standards (DQS) in consultation

with Associate Deans, Faculty Heads of Quality & Standards (FHQS) and the Academic

Registrar. A list of proposed topics for audits in the following academic year will be brought to

the May meeting of ASQC each year, for approval.

8.1.5 Topics may arise from consideration of quality assurance and enhancement matters in a number

of fora; the list which follows is intended to be indicative rather than definitive:

the Annual Monitoring Round

Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM)

consideration of common themes identified in external examiner, and other quality

assurance, reports

the work of the Teaching, Learning and Assessment Committee (TLAC)

meetings of University Executive Committee (UEC)

the implementation of the Strategic Plan / Academic Strategy

outcomes of the National Student Survey

national developments in higher education

8.1.6 It is likely that no more than two audits will take place in any one academic year, though the

precise number will be for ASQC to decide.

8.1.7 Audit is intended to be a flexible process, and thus the composition and method of operation of

individual audit groups, and their timescale for reporting, will be tailored to the requirements of

the topic which they are examining. Nevertheless, it is likely that the normal composition of an

Audit Group will be:







A Chair

An external member

Other members of University staff sufficient to ensure that the Audit can be properly

conducted

A student member and / or SU representative

An Officer provided by Academic Registry

8.1.8 The composition of the Audit Group for a particular audit will be agreed by ASQC.

8.1.9 The audit will normally be a focussed activity occupying one – two days, during which the audit

group will examine documentary evidence and may obtain oral input from staff members, either

individually or in groups. In some cases it may be more appropriate to operate via a series of

meetings over a longer period, in which case the external member may be involved by

correspondence; however, the shorter model is to be preferred unless there are compelling

reasons to adopt an alternative.

8.1.10 The timescale will normally require the audit to take place during the spring term. The Chair of

the Audit Group will produce a report on the findings of the audit, which will be brought to ASQC

at its April meeting. Once agreed, key outcomes will be reported to Academic Board, and any

necessary actions identified will be set in train.

8.1.11 Audits will not result in a judgement, but rather in an evaluative summary of the findings of the

Audit Group together with recommendations for resulting action where necessary and an

identification of any good practice which has been observed.

8.1.12 Progress against recommendations should be monitored by ASQC in the following academic

year.



Section 9: Course Handbooks and Module Guides



9.3.0 Module Guides


9.1.1 The University is committed to providing students with information about their course and

modules which is consistently informative, clear, useful and accurate. To that end, this section of

the Academic Quality and Partnership Handbook (AQPH) provides guidance on what students

can expect in terms of Course Handbooks and Module Guides.

9.1.2 This section presents the requirements for course handbooks and module guides for home and

collaborative partner franchise provision. Collaborative partners with Validated or Joint Venture

provision are required to provide course handbooks and modules guides of an equivalent

standard and they are encouraged to use the guidance provided here as the basis for their own

documents.

9.1.3 In developing this guidance, the University has taken due notice of Chapter C of the UK Quality

Code for Higher Education on Information about Higher Education Provision. In particular, the

University has taken cognisance of the following Indicators.

Indicator 2 – Higher education providers describe the process for application and admission

to the programme of study

Indicator 3 – Higher education providers make available to prospective students information

to help them select their programme with an understanding of the academic environment in

which they will be studying and the support that will be made available to them

Indicator 4 – Information on the programme of study is made available to current students at

the start of their programme and throughout their studies

Indicator 5 – Higher education providers set out what they expect of current students and

what current students can expect of the higher education provider.

9.1.4 This guidance also links to the University’s Student Charter which says that students can expect

from the university “to receive all necessary information about your course in a timely manner.”


9.2.1 The University requires that students on any of its taught provision receive a Course Handbook,

a key source of academic information for students and a visible part of the University’s quality

assurance arrangements. It is noted that some courses might refer to the Course Handbook as a

Course Guide.

9.2.2 The main aims of Course Handbooks are to:

Set out the academic context of the course within the University, the Faculty, the School and

the Subject Community;

Inform prospective and current students of the key course related data;

Set out the academic and pastoral support systems within which the course operates.

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/Part-C.pdf

http://www.glos.ac.uk/docs/download/Equality/student-charter.pdf



9.2.3 Academic Course Leaders (ACLs) are responsible for compiling Course Handbooks, which

should be agreed by Academic Subject Leaders (ASLs) at least two weeks prior to delivery of the

course so they can be published on-line prior to the start of the academic year. The handbooks

should be available electronically to:

All students taking the course;

All staff teaching on the courses;

Course administrators;

Help Zones;

Collaborative partners delivering franchised courses (where relevant)

And, with reference to Indicators 2 and 3, might also be made available to:

Prospective students for the process of application

9.2.4 Electronic versions of handbooks should be available to students via Moodle (or other means,

such as the Information Server) at least two weeks prior to delivery of the programme. Staff are

encouraged to make handbooks as 'student-friendly' as possible.

9.2.5 It is recognised that Course teams will wish to tailor their Handbooks to the particular needs of

their courses. However, all Handbooks, as a minimum should include information against the

headings in the attached example (which might be used as a template) and the associated

guidance notes (please refer to the Academic Quality Guides & Templates page). Where

necessary, information should be taken direct from definitive documents. Where the Course

Handbook references central University information, it should provide hyperlinks to relevant

material rather than seeking to reinterpret official guidance.

9.2.6 For courses franchised to collaborative partners, the Handbook will additionally need to set

out the relationship between the University course team and the teaching team at the

collaborative partner.

9.3.0 Module Guides

9.3.1 The University requires that students receive a Module Guide for every module on which they are

registered. It is noted that some courses might refer to the Module Guide as a Module Outline.

9.3.2 A Module Guide should expand on the basic content and operating parameters set out in the

Validated Module Descriptor and Approved Assessment Brief(s). It provides course teams and

individual Module Tutors the opportunity to:

Offer additional insight into the module content;

Demonstrate the relationship between modules;

Offer insight into proposed methodologies;

Offer precedent or comparative study examples;

Expand on Assessment Briefs;

Set out Assessment Criteria;

Offer an expanded reading list from the Module Descriptor/link to OPAC;

Provide the schedule of the delivery, expanding on the timetable.

9.3.3 Module Tutors are responsible for compiling Module Guides, which should be forwarded to

Academic Subject Leaders (ASLs) for approval at least four weeks prior to delivery of the course.

Once approved, they can be published in readiness for the beginning of the new academic

session. The Guides should be available electronically to:




All students taking the module;

Module Tutors for related provision;

ACLs and ASLs for areas which deliver the module;

Relevant course administrators;

Collaborative partners delivering franchised modules (where relevant)

9.3.4 All students should be able to access an electronic version of their Module Guide. Electronic

versions should be available to students via Moodle (or other means, such as the Information

Server) at least two weeks prior to delivery of the programme.

9.3.5 It is recognised that Module teams will wish to tailor their Guides to the particular needs of their

module and the courses on which they are delivered. However, all Guides, as a minimum should

include information against the headings in the attached example (which might be used as a

template) and the associated guidance notes (please refer to the Academic Quality Guides &

Templates page). Where necessary, information should be taken direct from definitive

documents. Where the Course Guide references central University information, it should provide

hyperlinks to relevant material rather than seeking to reinterpret official guidance.

9.3.6 For modules franchised to collaborative partners, the Guide will additionally need to set out

the relationship between the University course team and the teaching team at the collaborative

partner.





Section 10: Definitions and Operations of Collaborative Provision

10.1.0 Introduction


10.3.0 Category ‘A’ – School-based training, clinical and other placements; overseas student

exchanges

10.3.1 – Approval and Monitoring of Placements

10.3.2 – Approval and Monitoring of Student Exchanges


10.4.1 – Approval

10.4.2 – Monitoring and Re-approval


10.5.1 – Approval



10.6.1 – Affiliate Partnerships

10.6.2 – Approval

10.6.3 – Credit-rating Process

10.6.4 - Monitoring and Re-approval


10.7.1 – Approval


10.8.0 Category ‘F’ – Franchise or Validated Provision leading to an Academic Award or Credit

(of UoG or of another HEI or awarding body)

10.8.1 – Franchised programmes: Partnership Approval

10.8.2 – Franchised programmes: Course Delivery and Approval

10.8.3 - Franchised programmes: Delivery, Monitoring and Re-approval

10.8.4 – Validated programmes

10.8.5 - Validated programmes: Partnership Approval

10.8.6 - Validated programmes: Course Validation

10.8.7 - Validated programmes: Delivery, Monitoring and Re-approval

10.8.8 - Constitution of Validation/Approval Panels for Category ‘F’ approval



10.11.0 Changes to Partnership Category



10.1.1 This section presents the definition and the arrangements for the operation of collaborative

provision

Collaborative Provision, i.e. provision for which the University is the awarding body but that

is delivered, in whole or in part, by another body

10.1.2 The University’s arrangements for collaborative provision align with the QAA UK Quality Code

including B10: Managing Higher Education Provision with Others.

10.1.2 The University’s definition of collaborative provision includes any module or programme for which

the University holds ultimate responsibility but which is delivered, in whole or in part, by or with

another body (This definition excludes UoG’s campuses and individual claims for credit for prior





certificated learning which should be considered in accordance with the Accreditation of Prior

Learning (APL) procedures).

10.1.3 Collaborative provision entails the delegation of responsibilities to another organisation and any

form of delegation contains an element of risk which may arise from the distance between the

University and its partner. However, risk should also be seen in positive terms and by delegating

more responsibilities to organisations that are geographically and culturally closer to their

students, new opportunities may be discovered to widen participation, secure market advantages

and, importantly, promote greater learning by the University and its partners.

10.1.4 The University’s quality assurance procedures for collaborative provision are consistent with the

QAA UK Quality Code including B10: Managing Higher Education Provision with Others. The

aim is to encourage effective and innovative practice while at the same time ensuring that the

University discharges its responsibilities for the quality of programmes and the standard of the

awards to which they lead. Broadly speaking, these procedures encompass:

The approval of new partnerships and review of existing partnerships;

The approval of existing partners to deliver new provision;

The approval of changes to the status of existing partnerships;

The annual monitoring, periodic review and re-validation of provision delivered

collaboratively.

10.1.5 The University’s procedures for managing collaborative provision provide for the identification,

control and optimisation of risk within the following areas of activity:

10.1.5.1 Provision

The ‘innovativeness’ of the programme; the level of the provision offered by the partner

organisation, or to which it contributes; whether the provision offered by the partner leads to an

award of the University or other external body; and the credit value of the provision for which the

partner has sole or partial responsibility.

10.1.5.2 Providers

In the context of collaborative provision, this refers to the partner organisation and also the

responsible (‘host’) Faculty and academic School of the University. The key issues to be

considered here include the parties’ joint experience of developing and delivering collaborative

provision; the number of partners involved in, and the complexity of, the collaboration; and the

characteristics of the proposed partner including its previous ‘quality record’.

10.1.5.3 Partnership:

Partnerships may be distinguished according to the nature and extent of the responsibilities

delegated to the partner. The classification of the University’s collaborative provision within the

seven broad categories of ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’ ‘F’ and ‘G’ reflects the relative level of risk

associated with different types of partnership, with Category ‘A’, placements and student

exchanges deemed to be of lowest risk and Category ‘F’, franchises and validations of highest

risk. Category G refers to joint ventures and the risk category will reflect the individual

arrangements. In this context the Risk Level is defined, with ‘1’ being the lowest and ‘6’ the

highest. Each proposal is loosely assigned to a Category at the point of initial approval in order

to guide University Executive Committee (UEC) and Academic Portfolio Committee (APC)

concerning the most appropriate approval process.






Category ‘A’ : School-based training, clinical and other placements; overseas student exchanges (Risk Level 1)

Within this category the University may delegate to a partner organisation such as a school or

hospital limited responsibility for student learning and assessment. Also included within this

category are student exchanges managed in collaboration with overseas HE providers, e.g. via

the Erasmus programme.

Category ‘B’ : Outreach Learning Venues/Location of Delivery (Risk Level 2)

Within this category University staff or approved University partners are fully responsible for

delivering UoG provision and supporting students at an external venue (This excludes any UoG

campuses).

Category ‘C’ : Outreach Supported Learning Centres (Risk Level 3)

Within this category University staff are responsible for delivering UoG provision at an external

venue but the partner (this could be a further education college or a private UK college or

overseas college or similar) has some delegated/agreed responsibilities for facilities and for

providing learning support and/or student services.

Category ‘D’ : Credit-rating (Risk Level 4)

Within this category the University may assign specific credit to units of learning delivered by

another body, typically an employer or other training organisation (accreditation).

Category ‘E’ : Articulation agreements (Risk Level 5)

Within this category the University recognises and grants credit exemption to students

completing a named programme of study of another awarding body to enable their progression

to a UoG programme at a point other than its normal start (‘entry with advanced standing’) i.e.

this demonstrates that students satisfy the ‘academic’ criteria for entry (In this particular

context, articulation agreements are, for example, likely to be with overseas institutions or UK

private providers or an Awarding Body that wish their certificate or diploma students to

progress to entry with advanced standing on to an UoG award.)

Category ‘F’ : Franchised provision leading to an academic award or credit (Risk Level 6)

Within this category the University franchises its own modules or programmes for delivery by

another organisation.

Category ‘F’ : Validated provision leading to an academic award or credit (Risk Level 6)

Within this category the University validates a complete programme of study or parts thereof,

developed or designed by another organisation for delivery by that organisation.

Category ‘G’ : Joint Venture (Risk level dependant on specific agreement)

This category relates to a contractual relationship where the University would pool resources

and expertise with one (or more) organisations to work together on a particular project or

initiative.

10.2.1 It is acknowledged that collaborations will not always fit neatly into one of the above categories.

However, this approach has facilitated the development of processes that are clear and fit-for-

purpose and while standard approval processes have been devised for each category, these

may be adapted by the Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC) on the advice of the

Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) to suit either simpler or more complex proposals. The

approval processes may range from consideration of documentation by correspondence to a full

panel meeting and event. It is also important to note that a single collaborative partner may work

with the University across a number of different categories, and a range of programmes and

Faculties. Each new proposal is therefore considered individually but at the same time takes

http://www.britishcouncil.org/erasmus



account of any investigations that have already been completed; e.g. previous audits of the

partner’s learning and student support infrastructure. The clarification and centralisation of

approval processes (via the oversight of collaborative partnerships in the Academic Quality &

Partnerships Office (AQPO) within Academic Registry and University Executive Committee

(UEC/Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) permits the sharing of information across Faculties

and central services to enable the most appropriate form of enquiry for any new collaborative

partner or provision.

10.2.2 The approval and monitoring of Category ‘A’ and ‘B’ provision is normally delegated to Faculties

via standard University processes of validation, monitoring and periodic review with oversight by

ASQC on behalf of Academic Board. However, on the basis that provision in Categories ‘C’, ‘D’,

‘E’, ‘F’ and ‘G’ is considered to be of relatively higher risk, Academic Board retains full

responsibility for its approval and monitoring through the standard University validation

procedures and ASQC respectively.

10.2.3 Collaborative arrangements in Categories ‘C to ‘F’ are formalised through a legally-binding

Agreement contract held by the Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP) which is signed

jointly by the Vice-Chancellor (the Deputy V-C may sign off Category ‘E’ Articulation Agreements)

and a senior representative from the partner, usually a College Principal, Chief Operating Officer

or similar, and sets out the generic responsibilities of the partnership. This is supported by

schedules which detail the specific arrangements for which the partner has been approved.

Once approved as a partner, proposals for further collaboration will require only the approval of

the specific programme or provision to be delivered unless either a change of Category is

required (see Changes of Partnership Category below) or the provision is to be delivered on a

site/campus which has not already been considered by the University. All contracts and

articulation agreements are for a standard period as set out in the following sections and these

are reviewed during the penultimate year before a decision is made on whether to renew the

arrangements. The standard period of approval may be varied by either ASQC on receipt of

reports from the Faculty or through the Institutional validation and approval processes. Renewal

is subject to the appropriate updating of the due diligence procedures and quality assurance

mechanisms associated with the level of partnership involved. The successful renewal of a

partnership will culminate in a new contractual agreement being drawn up and signed by all/both

parties.

10.2.4 While this section provides definitions of the categories of collaborative provision and an outline

of the processes for their approval, monitoring, review and re-approval, detailed operational

guidance for partner may be found in other the relevant sections of the Academic Quality and

Partnership Handbook (AQPH). These arrangements apply to all types of collaborative

partnerships, i.e. those involving UK public and private providers as well as overseas partners,

although the approval processes may be varied by ASQC to suit the levels of complexity and risk

associated with any individual proposal.

10.2.5 Guidance on the annual monitoring and periodic review and revalidation of collaborative

provision programmes are provided in Section 4a, Section 4b and Section 5.

10.3.0 Category ‘A’ – School-based training, clinical and other placements; overseas

student exchanges

10.3.0.1 This section sets out the minimum requirements for the approval and quality assurance of

school-based training, clinical and other placements where the University delegates to the

partner limited responsibility for student learning and assessment and for which Faculties hold



significant responsibilities. Category ‘A’ also encompasses student exchanges where the

University delegates to an overseas HEI limited responsibility for student learning and

assessment.

10.3.1 Approval and monitoring of placements

10.3.1.1 Faculties are empowered to approve new placement providers for the delivery of programmes

that are already in validation, or as part of the initial validation process for new programmes. In

general, placements represent only a part of a programme; however, in most cases students will

be taught, supported and assessed by staff who are not directly employed by the University and

for this reason there are potential risks to both quality and standards. Faculties must therefore

establish management arrangements that are proportionate to this type and level of risk,

ensuring the rigour and consistency of student assessment and access to appropriate learning

opportunities. Faculties remain fully responsible for academic and professional standards even

where the assessment of a placement does not contribute to academic credit or the classification

of a student’s final award.

10.3.1.2 Faculties are required to develop their own approval and monitoring procedures for placements.

Such arrangements must also be consistent with the expectations in the QAA UK Quality Code:

B10: Managing Higher Education Provision with Others and with the expectations and

requirements of other relevant external agencies such as the National College for Teaching and

Leadership (NCTL) and should include:

Formal and consistently-applied procedures for the approval of placements which address

the ability of providers to offer learning opportunities that enable the relevant validated

learning outcomes to be achieved; to provide appropriate support for students while on

placement; and to fulfil their responsibilities under health and safety legislation in the

workplace.

Measures that ensure that both placement providers and students are cognisant of their

respective responsibilities, and that students are aware of their rights to a safe placement

environment and to be treated in accordance with applicable legislation and professional

codes of conduct.

The provision of appropriate guidance and support for students before, during and after their

placements.

Action, including training and development to ensure that placement providers’ staff are

competent to fulfil their supporting role. Faculties should reflect on whether collaborative

partners’ own processes for reviewing teaching quality are sufficient to satisfy the University

of it additional review mechanisms are required.

Procedures for dealing with complaints and for ensuring that all parties, including placement

providers as well as students, understand and can make use of these procedures.

The explicit consideration of placements in continuous improvement monitoring and periodic

review and revalidation of courses.

Formal agreements between the Faculty and each placement provider. These may take the

form of either/both individual learning contracts and/or longer-term and generic agreements

between the Faculty and placement provider. The duration of such agreements should be

no longer than the period of validation of the relevant programme(s) to which the placement

contributes.

10.3.1.3 The approval of placement providers is concluded by production of a Memorandum of Agreement

(MoA) which is signed by the relevant Dean of Faculty. Each Faculty is responsible for

maintaining its own register of placement providers and this is managed through the placement

team. Arrangements for the management and quality assurance of placements should also be



https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/national-college-for-teaching-and-leadership

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/national-college-for-teaching-and-leadership



considered within Periodic Review & Revalidation (PRR) and may be subject to further audit by

Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC).

10.3.2 Approval and monitoring of student exchanges

10.3.2.1 Responsibility for approving relationships with overseas HEIs for the purpose of operating

student exchanges resides with International Development Committee (IDC) ensures a

Memorandum of Approval/Understanding is in place. The International Development Unit is

required to maintain auditable records of its consideration of potential relationships and

exchanges and to keep a current register of all approved overseas HEI providers of student

exchanges which informs production of the University’s Register of Collaborative Provision.

10.3.2.2 Primary responsibility for the monitoring of such relationships resides with the appropriate Faculty

and arrangements for the management and quality assurance of student exchanges may also be

subject to audit by Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC).


10.4.0.1 This section sets out the minimum requirements for the approval and monitoring of any external

venue (which may include overseas learning venues).

10.4.0.2 Outreach Learning Venues (OLV) refer to locations where there is no collaborative partner

involvement, where all teaching, assessment and student support are provided by UoG and the

responsibilities of the venue provider are limited to the supply of accommodation and, on

occasion, some learning resources for example ICT provision. In this respect the owners of

learning venues may more appropriately be regarded as service providers than as collaborative

partners and this distinction is reflected in the arrangements for the approval and management of

Category ‘B’ provision. This arrangement will be subject to a ‘Location of Delivery’ approval of

the venue prior to students attending the OLV.

10.4.0.3 The University is required to approve any locations where UoG provision is delivered or

supported. Where delivery is provided by Collaborative Partners, the initial approval of the

location and the teaching, learning and support for students will be as approved at the original

partnership approval/validation event. Any new/additional venues will be subject to approval by

UoG prior to the students attending the new location, through a Location of Delivery approval

event. The investigations in this instance will be purely in relation to the partner delivering at a

different location and ensuring that the Partner maintains responsibility for the teaching,

assessment and support of students as per the original validation, and that the new location has

appropriate Health and Safety regulations in place and appropriate study facilities.

10.4.0.4 Students based at an OLV and are not therefore part of an existing collaborative partnership

arrangement will enjoy full access to the University’s on-line central resources and services;

additional support may be available from University services offering off-campus support. These

students can access all support and learning services if they attend one of the University’s

campuses. Admission and off-site enrolment of students are co-ordinated by the Faculty(s)

delivering at the OLV and may be supported by the Academic Quality and Partnerships Office

(AQPO) and the Admissions team.

10.4.0.5 Students studying in an existing, approved partnership arrangement will be supported by the

Partner organisation as per the original partnership/programme validation.



10.4.0.6 OLVs represent a low level of risk with respect to academic standards. However, in so far as the

University will usually exercise a lower level of control over physical resources than for its own

campus-based provision this may present a higher level of risk with respect to the quality of

students’ learning opportunities, Such risk would be heightened where a whole

programme/award was being delivered at an external venue and this must be considered.

Faculties and where applicable, collaborative partners must therefore ensure that students at

learning venues enjoy comparable (though not necessarily identical) learning opportunities to

those on UoG campuses and are not disenfranchised with respect to their identification with the

University or their participation in course consultative processes such as Boards of Studies.

10.4.1 Approval

10.4.1.1 Following the procedures detailed in Section 12 of the AQPH with regard to Outreach Learning

Venues (OLV), the proposing Faculty initially negotiates directly with the provider of the venue

and conducts its own approval process. This process should include the production and

consideration of a business case and an initial audit of health and safety and facilities at the

venue. Once approved by the Dean of Faculty, the proposer will provide details of the venue to

the Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP) who will arrange for the formal Location of

Delivery visit to inspect the premises. The outcomes of which are submitted for endorsement by

the Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) and then reported to Academic Standards &

Quality Committee (ASQC). (Where small amounts of non-credit bearing provision are concerned

Faculties may complete venue approval without further reference to ASQC). For more detailed

information on the approval process for Category ‘B’ provision including all relevant

documentation, Section 12.

10.4.1.2 All financial and operating arrangements are agreed in the form of a contract between the Faculty

and the provider. This contract is signed on behalf of UoG by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and

the duration of the contract will be agreed between the Faculty and venue provider. Each Faculty

is responsible for maintaining a register of its Outreach Learning Venues. This is received by the

relevant Faculty Academic Standards & Quality Committee (FASQC) and informs production of

the University’s Register of Collaborative Provision, which is maintained centrally by AQPO.

10.4.1.3 Existing Collaborative Partners who require a new location to be approved for delivery should

contact the DCP who will arrange for the formal Location of Delivery visit to inspect the

new/additional premises. The outcomes of which are submitted for endorsement by CPC and

then reported to ASQC. All approved Delivery Locations are detailed in the formal Agreement.

10.4.2 Monitoring and re-approval

10.4.2.1 Internal Category ‘B’ provision should be reviewed within Continuous Improvement Monitoring

(CIM) and considered at Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR). Arrangements for the

management, quality assurance and re-approval of Category ‘B’ venues will be addressed as

necessary in the Collaborative Provision Committee Annual Report. The process for renewing a

contract will be determined by the Faculty.


10.5.0.1 This section sets out the minimum requirements for the approval and monitoring of off-site

collaborative arrangements where University staff conduct all teaching and assessment but the

venue (e.g. a further education college or a private college), provide learning resources and

some support services are provided by the partner. In some cases, students will also have

access to agreed and appropriate University learning resources and services. The administration

of student admission and enrolment is co-ordinated by Faculty staff, the UoG Admissions Team

http://www.glos.ac.uk/partnerships/Pages/collaborative.aspx



and the Academic Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO) and may be supported by staff of the

partner organisation. Outreach supported learning centres represent relatively low risk with

respect to academic standards. However, in so far as the University will exercise a lower level of

control over resources and student services than for its own campus-based provision, this may

present a higher level of risk with respect to the quality of students’ learning opportunities. Such

risks would be heightened in the case of arrangements which applied to the delivery of a whole

programme or award. Faculties must therefore ensure that students at outreach supported

learning centres enjoy comparable (although not necessarily identical) learning opportunities to

those on the University’s own campuses and are not disenfranchised with respect to their

identification with the University or their participation in consultative processes such as Boards of

Studies.

10.5.1 Approval

10.5.1.1 For Category ‘C’ proposals the first formal step is completion of the Collaborative Partnership

Proposal Form (CPP) and business case template which is produced and approved by the

Faculty and submitted to the Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP). Submission to the

DCP ensures that proposals are considered at the appropriate level/committees and supports the

University in maintaining a Register detailing all collaborative provision activities, a requirement

of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education Part C: Information about higher education.

Following University Executive Committee (UEC) approval to proceed, Academic Standards &

Quality Committee (ASQC) will confirm the approval process and appropriate level of due

diligence as detailed in Section 11.

10.5.1.2 As part of the due diligence process (which include the requisite legal and financial checks) the

DCP or their nominee works with the partner to complete a Partnership Audit Document (PAD),

accompanied by supporting documents. It is a general principle that the PAD will be completed

by a neutral party i.e. not a member of the proposing Faculty. The Audit considers:

The partner’s systems and processes as they relate to the delivery and support of higher

education provision including:

o student recruitment, admissions, enrolment and induction;

o student support and guidance;

o learning resources and learner support.

The responsibilities that will be devolved to the partner organisation’s services, and those to

be shared with the University.

The mechanisms for communication between the partner and the University.

The partner’s strategy for ensuring inclusion and accessibility.

The provision of information to staff and students on services and facilities (of both the

University and the partner) that are available to students.

Relevant quality management information on student services and learning resources, e.g.

results of internal student satisfaction surveys and external audits, e.g. Ofsted and QAA

Review of College Higher Education (RCHE) or Review for Educational Oversight (and any

subsequent review process), or international equivalents.

10.5.1.3 The operational management of Category ‘C’ provision is formalised within a Collaborative

Delivery Plan (CDP) which will form Schedule 3 of the Contract. The purpose of the CDP is to

provide a systematic and comprehensive record of the responsibilities that are retained by the

University and those which are delegated to the partner organisation in the delivery of

collaborative provision. This document serves as a rolling ‘operational contact’ between the

University and the partner and should be reviewed annually as part of the annual monitoring

process.




http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Quality-Code-Part-C.pdf

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/InstitutionReports/types-of-review/RCHE/Pages/default.aspx






10.5.1.4 In addition a Planning Document (a ‘Planner’) will be produced by the Partner supported by

AQPO and the Academic Link Tutor which indicates the key ‘milestones’ (with dates for the

forthcoming year) for the recruitment, enrolment, assessment and progression of students within

cohorts.

10.5.1.5 The final financial and operating arrangements are formalised in a legal contract with a standard

approval period of five years.

10.5.1.6 Once approved as an Outreach Supported Learning Centre, the addition of further Category ‘C’

programmes will be on submission of a fresh business case by the relevant Faculty to UEC.

Where courses have specific on-site resource requirements, a Location of Delivery approval visit

will be completed which requires approval at ASQC. On approval the relevant schedule will be

altered in the partnership contract to include the additional provision.


10.5.2.1 Oversight of the management and quality assurance of Category ‘C’ provision will be considered

in Faculty Academic Standards & Quality Committee (FASQC) Annual Reports and courses

delivered in this mode should be considered within Faculty Annual Monitoring Reports and

Periodic Review & Revalidation (PRR). The University’s central services will maintain a

continuous dialogue with the partner organisation and a formal ‘re-audit’ of its processes

including learning and student support infrastructure will be carried out as part of a Partnership

Review (usually, in the fifth year of the partnership). An Institution-level perspective on Category

‘C’ provision is detailed in the DCP’s Annual Report of Collaborative Partnerships and in

Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) Annual Reports.


10.6.0.1 Whilst credit recognition of a programme in another educational establishment is well-

understood, the assignment of credit to externally-based training may be less so. The need to

recognise such training and experience may arise because:

A student wishes to have their individual learning accredited (individual student learning from

employer-provided training may be accredited retrospectively through Accreditation of Prior

Learning (APL) on production of a portfolio or may be recognised concurrently where the

learning from training is incorporated within a ‘shell module’, for example, within the

Gloucestershire Framework)

An employer wishes to have a particular entire learning experience (course) accredited

and/or recognised for credit and may or may not be seeking specific credit towards a specific

award.

10.6.0.2 Where an employer seeks accreditation of a particular programme it is likely to be to add

academic credibility to its training for the greater benefit of its employees. The types of possible

accreditation are:

a) Assignment of general credit that does not contribute to a specific named award (equivalent

to xx HE credits at level x);

b) Assignment of specific credit that contributes to an existing named module/award

(equivalent to xx HE credits at level x in partial fulfilment of xxxxxxxxx module/award);

c) Accreditation leading to a UoG award (e.g. UoG Certificate: ‘The Fred Bloggs Company IT

Programme’.)

10.6.0.3 The third of these – leading to a full award - requires validation and delivery approval in line with

the processes for Category ‘F’ provision which are described below. However, the first two – the




assignment of either general or specific credit (for sufficient students such that the use of

individual APL or individual negotiation of learning within the envelope of a shell module would be

excessively burdensome) come within Category ‘D’, for which the following process has been

developed.

10.6.1 Affiliate Partnership

10.6.1.1 This is a limited type of partnership arrangement for which, for example, training colleges,

businesses, Health Trusts and charitable and training organisations may choose to apply.

Affiliate partnership is typically available to organisations whose provision does not lead to

learning opportunities (courses) which result in a full award of the University and may comprise

one or more of the following: (Note: this excludes UoG Certificates of Credit but would not preclude

students’ use of the credit gained from such courses to seek exemption from all or part of an UoG award

under existing APL arrangements).

a) The franchising of a UoG module(s) for delivery by the partner;

b) The rating of the partner’s provision for the award of UoG general credit;

c) The rating of a limited volume (typically less than 30 credits) of specific credit

All of these arrangements represent a correspondingly low level of risk.

10.6.2 Approval

10.6.2.1 For accreditation proposals, the first formal step is completion of the Collaborative Partnership



DCP ensures that any proposals are considered at the appropriate level/committees and

supports the University in maintaining a Register detailing all collaborative provision activities, a

requirement of Part C the UK Quality Code for Higher Education. On completion of the

necessary due diligence procedures and exercising the powers delegated to it by Academic

Board, Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC) approves the partnership. A contract

is produced by the DCP and while ASQC sets the duration of the partnership, the provision

delivered within it will usually be subject to re-accreditation after three years (see below).

10.6.3 Credit-rating process

10.6.3.1 Having approved the Affiliate, Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) proceeds to consider the

most appropriate level of academic scrutiny to accredit its provision. Credit-rating involves the

review, for content and level, of the partner’s module/s or programme and the development of an

appropriate assessment strategy to enable the award of UoG academic credit and a University

transcript. Decisions on credit-rating will therefore be influenced by:

The level of the proposed learning opportunity (Level 4, 5, 6 or 7);

The volume of academic credit;

The particular subject discipline;

The intended venue for delivery, including any specific resource requirements;

The intended arrangements for assessment (although it is assumed that most Affiliates will

wish to assess students themselves, there may be situations in which the partner chooses to

pass on the assessment of students to the University. In either event, the intended

arrangements should be outlined clearly in the application and business case prior to their

consideration by Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC).

10.6.3.2 Each case is treated individually although the Dean of Quality and Standards will advise ASQC

as to the most appropriate level of scrutiny which may range from (at the lowest end of the scale,

typically involving a small amount of Level 4 credit) a ‘virtual’ validation panel operating by

correspondence to a small validation panel for more complex proposals. It is anticipated that the




http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/Quality-Code-Part-C.aspx



first credit-rating proposal of an Affiliate Partner will always be considered by an academic

Validation panel meeting. A suitable external panel member, nominated by the University and

approved by the Chair of ASQC will be retained in accordance with the UK Quality Code for

Higher Education Chapter B1 on Programme design and approval. Submission documentation,

comprising a Credit Recognition Coversheet accompanied by the partner’s own course

documentation will be produced by the Academic Link Tutor or Partnership Coordinator who

works in conjunction with the partner and makes an initial recommendation regarding the

appropriate academic level and credit volume for the proposed learning opportunities although

the final decision concerning these resides with the validation panel.

10.6.3.3 While the partner will generally (although not always) bear full responsibility for the recruitment,

administration and support of learners, the University retains formal responsibilities pertaining to

maintenance of academic standards and external examination. The University will maintain

responsibility for the approval and moderation of assessments and the full operating

responsibilities will be defined within a Collaborative Delivery Plan (CDP). Students will only

enrol with the University at the point of submitting work for credit rating. In situations where the

partner’s learning materials are recognised for credit by the University, intellectual property rights

will reside with the partner. The process of credit-rating acknowledges that the University is

making a judgement only on the academic standards achieved by learners and not about parity

of learning opportunities; in this respect, it is judging outcomes rather than process and whilst

ensuring the academic credibility and capability of the employer’s staff who are associated with

the provision, the University will not make judgements other than of a threshold nature regarding

physical resources. As a consequence, no audit of an Affiliate’s learner support infrastructure is

generally required.

10.6.3.4 Following completion of the credit-rating process, a confirmed module specification is lodged with

Student Records in Academic Registry and details of the assessment strategy are entered on to

the Student Information Database (SITS). The normal period of credit-rating is three years and

where an existing Affiliate wishes the University to accredit further provision over time, this will be

on submission of a fresh proposal to University Executive Committee (UEC) for approval by

ASQC.

10.6.4 Monitoring and Re-approval

10.6.4.1 Consideration of Affiliate partnerships and accredited provision should be incorporated within

routine Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM) and Periodic Review & Revalidation (PRR).

All modules at Level 5 upwards are subject to scrutiny by an external examiner in accordance

with standard University operating requirements. An Academic Link Tutor is appointed by the

host Faculty to monitor the standards and quality of the provision and produces an Annual Report

for consideration by Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC). This is summarised and

evaluated in the CPC Annual Report for submission to Academic Standards & Quality Committee

(ASQC). Re-validation of existing units is a central academic validation panel responsibility, the

process for which is advised by the Dean of Quality & Standards and will usually entail a brief

review of previous delivery, a rationale for any proposed changes and submission of updated unit

documentation. Any amendments to modules should follow the standard University PCAP

process detailed in AQPH, Section 1.


10.7.0.1 There are two types of Articulation Arrangements that UoG recognises. Firstly, this involves the

review, for content and level, of a specified module/s or programme of another UK HEI or Ofqual

accredited awarding body (or an overseas provider of similar status) for the purpose of providing

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/quality-code-B1.aspx

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/quality-code-B1.aspx


http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/



entry with advanced standing to an UoG programme, e.g. direct entry to Level 6 of an

undergraduate degree or the final 60 credits of a Masters programme. UoG’s approach to entry

with advanced standing is based upon the principle of credit recognition rather than credit

exemption, and this is reflected within students’ transcripts. These arrangements, which are

subject to formal agreements involve two separate components, where each is the responsibility

of the respective organisations delivering them, but, together contribute to a single award (of the

degree-awarding body i.e. in this case UoG).

10.7.0.2 Secondly, the University recognises the principle of credit exemption for entry to programmes

specifically designed to provide ‘top-up’ opportunities i.e. Level 6, 120 credit only awards and

Level 7, 60 credit Masters Stage only awards. These ‘Direct Entry’ arrangements require the

review, for content and level, of a specified module/s or programme of another UK HEI or Ofqual-

accredited awarding body (or an overseas provider of similar status) for the purpose of ensuring

sufficient credit at an appropriate level to meet the entry requirements.

10.7.0.3 Decisions on articulation applications also take into account the individual’s general educational

(and where relevant, professional) experience, including competence in English as a second

language.

10.7.1 Approval

10.7.1.1 For Category ‘E’ proposals the first formal step is completion of the Collaborative Partnership

Proposal Form (CPP) and business case which is produced and approved by the Faculty and

submitted to the Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP). Submission to the DCP ensures

that any proposals are considered at the appropriate level/committees and supports the

University in maintaining a Register detailing all of its collaborative provision activities, a

requirement of UK Quality Code for Higher Education Part C: Information about Higher Education

10.7.1.2 Additionally, for International proposals, further information is submitted relating to the specific

country in question. For example a broad overview of the education system of the home territory

of the awarding body/institution, detailed intelligence on the school system, selection and support

for tertiary education in the state and private sector and an explanation of the regulatory systems

and any other specific information pertinent to the area. Initial desk based due diligence is

undertaken to ascertain evidence of the proposed partner’s status and the equivalence of their

qualification against the UK FHEQ/HECF. If the qualification and/or institution concerned is not

recognised within comparators such as the publication NARIC, it is unlikely that the proposal will

be progressed. In this instance, please contact the DCP for advice.

10.7.1.3 Following University Executive Committee (UEC) approval to proceed, Academic Standards &

Quality Committee (ASQC) will confirm the required approval process and appropriate level of

due diligence (Route A or B) as detailed in Section 11.

10.7.1.4 The academic investigations will involve mapping the content and outcomes of the qualification

against the pre-requisites for the level at which entry to an UoG award is sought and specifying

clearly the amount of credit to be exempted or recognised. This involves a similar process of

consideration as the University’s APL process. Where the partner is the delivering institution as

well as the partner institution, some consideration will also be given to how students are

supported for progression. External verification reports of the awarding body will also be sought.

An Articulation Agreement is produced by the Director of International Development for overseas

proposals and by the DCP for UK proposals listing the programmes involved. Where the

articulation arrangement is with an existing Collaborative Partner, the Articulation arrangements




http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Quality-Code-Part-C.pdf

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/quality-code-A1.aspx

http://www.naric.org.uk/



will be detailed as a Schedule to the existing Contract. The normal period of approval conferred

is limited to 3 years in order to minimise the risk of curriculum ‘drift’ (see also below).


10.7.2.1 Articulation agreements require little ‘annual maintenance’ but the performance of students

progressing to study at UoG should be addressed through Annual Monitoring Reports and PRR,

reports of which may be copied to the partner. Additional reports may be commissioned by

Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC) and an Academic Link Tutor may also be

appointed.

10.7.2.2 Renewal of articulation agreements is subject to a review of the partner’s programme to ensure

that the curriculum has not drifted, nor standards been undermined in any way. The re-approval

process and documentation requirements will include a full academic investigation at the same

level of the original approval.

10.8.0 Category ‘F’ – Franchise or Validated Provision leading to an Academic Award or

Credit (of UoG or of another HEI or awarding body)

10.8.0.1 Within this category the University franchises the delivery of its own modules or programmes, or

validates a complete programme of study designed and delivered by another organisation.

Partners may range from UK further education colleges to overseas providers of higher

education.

10.8.1 Franchised programmes: Partnership approval

10.8.1.1 For Category ‘F’ proposals the first formal step is completion of the Collaborative Partnership




supports the University in maintaining a Register detailing all of its collaborative provision

activities, a requirement of Part C the UK Quality Code for Higher Education. Following UEC

approval to proceed, ASQC will confirm the approval process and appropriate level of due

diligence as detailed in Section 11.

10.8.1.2 As part of the due diligence process (including the requisite legal and financial checks) the DCP

(or their nominee) works with the partner to carry out ‘process’ due diligence by completing a

Partnership Audit Document (PAD), accompanied by supporting documents. It is a general

principle that the PAD will be completed by a neutral party i.e. not a member of the proposing

Faculty. The Audit will consider:

a) Evidence of the partner’s higher education strategy, policy and processes and systems for

HE curriculum development, approval and delivery.

b) (For overseas proposals) In-country intelligence on the educational system, its structure and

regulation (provided on request by IDeC) and comparative analysis of the proposed partner

against expected norms.

c) Policies and procedures that relate to student support, admissions, enrolment and induction

in the partner organisation (sufficient to ensure that students on HE programmes have

comparable rights and responsibilities to their peers at the University).

d) Information about the proposed systems for administering and managing the partnership and

individual and shared responsibilities of key postholders in the partner organisation and the

University for:

e) Student recruitment, admissions, enrolment and induction;

f) Student support and guidance;








g) Learning resources and learner support.

h) Mechanisms for communication between the partner and the University.

i) The partner’s strategy for ensuring inclusion and accessibility.

j) Information relating to the partner’s learning environment including central learning

resources, sufficient to ensure that students undertaking HE programmes have a

comparable learning experience with their peers at the University.

k) The entitlement of students in the partner organisation to access the University’s facilities

and support services, etc.

l) The provision of information to staff and students on the services and facilities available to

students.

m) Identification of the partner’s (and the University’s) support for staff development to support

the delivery of HE provision including opportunities for scholarly activity, professional

updating and (where appropriate) academic research.

n) Information relating to the quality assurance systems of the partner organisation including

periodic monitoring, assessment and moderation, collection and evaluation of student

feedback and the interface between these systems and those of the University in relation to

the delivery of HE provision; results of internal student satisfaction surveys and external

audits, e.g. Ofsted and QAA.

10.8.1.3 The operational management of Category ‘F’ provision is formalised within a Collaborative

Delivery Plan (CDP). The purpose of the CDP is to provide a systematic and comprehensive

record of the responsibilities that are retained by the University and those which are delegated to

the partner organisation in the delivery of collaborative provision. This document serves as a

rolling ‘operational contact’ between the University and the partner and should be reviewed

annually as part of the annual monitoring process.

10.8.1.4 In addition a Planning Document (a ‘Planner’) will be produced by the Partner supported by the

Academic Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO) and the Academic Link Tutor which indicates

the key ‘milestones’ (with dates for the forthcoming year) for the recruitment, enrolment,

assessment and progression of students within cohorts.

10.8.1.5 The final financial and operating arrangements are formalised in a legal contract with a standard

approval period of three to five years.

10.8.1.6 In all other respects the conduct and outcomes of partner approval are consistent with those of

the University’s standard validation process, but with a normal approval period of three to five

years. Following a successful Partnership Approval event and ratification of this by Academic

Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC) a partnership contract is produced by the DCP.

10.8.1.7 When renewing a Category ‘F’ partnership arrangement the University considers the record of

the partnership to date using the outcomes of the ABR process which informs the decision to

continue; the Partnership Coordinator, Academic Link Tutor and the AQPO advises the partner in

the production of a submission document comprising the following information:

a) Over-arching summary report by the Partner including their strategic direction and

indications of where UoG fits into these plans

b) Updated Partner Audit Document (PAD) including any plans for future collaborative

developments with the University;

c) The partner’s most recent institution-level Annual Partnership Report (as submitted to the

University’s Collaborative Provision Committee);

d) Outcomes of the most recent Annual Business Review;

e) Most recent programme-level Annual Monitoring Report(s) for each Category ‘F’ programme;






f) Relevant reports of external agencies, e.g. Ofsted, QAA and international equivalents.

10.8.1.8 Following a successful review event, the Collaboration Agreement is also reviewed and renewed

at this time.

10.8.2 Franchised programmes: Course Delivery Approval

10.8.2.1 On completion of Category ‘F’ partner approval/review a separate process is required to approve

the partner to deliver a specific programme or to add further programmes over time. The first

formal step is the completion of the Collaborative Partnership Proposal Form (CPP) and business

case template which is produced and approved by the Faculty and submitted to the Director of

Collaborative Partnerships (DCP). (This is often done immediately following the Partner

Approval/Review event but is conducted as a separate process and produces a separate report).

Submission to the DCP ensures that any proposals are considered at the appropriate

level/committees and supports the University in maintaining a Register detailing all of its

collaborative provision activities, a requirement of Part C the UK Quality Code for Higher

Education.

10.8.2.2 Where an existing Franchise Partner requests authority/approval to deliver additional

programmes this will require Faculty and UEC initial approval of the business case. The

proposal then proceeds to delivery approval (see Section 11) where a validation panel considers

the partner’s ability to deliver the provision and the host Faculty/department’s capacity to manage

its responsibilities for quality assurance. The ‘course team’ – which for the purposes of delivery

approval consists of representatives of both the partner organisation and the University –

prepares a submission document, including the existing programme specification(s), that

indicates specifically how the provision will be delivered and supported by the partner. A

Collaborative Delivery Plan (CDP) will be produced which will form and/or contribute to Schedule

3 of the Contract.

10.8.2.3 In addition a Planning Document (a ‘Planner’) will be produced by the Partner supported by the

Academic Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO) and the Academic Link tutor which indicates the

key ‘milestones’ (with dates for the forthcoming year) for the recruitment, enrolment, assessment

and progression of students within cohorts.

10.8.2.4 The submission documentation should detail:

The arrangements for the quality assurance of the provision including appointment by the

University of an Academic Link Tutor and Partnership Coordinator;

Arrangements for the admission and registration of students for the award;

Arrangements for the internal moderation of assessment; including details of UoG

moderation process;

The maximum and minimum number of students to be enrolled on the provision;

Identification of current and planned programme-specific resources, including staffing, ( and

a copy of the University’s most recent audit of the partner’s central learning support

infrastructure should also be included;

In the specific case of foundation degrees, course teams should also include arrangements

for the management and support of Work-Based Learning and support for students’

progression to higher study.

10.8.2.5 Once any conditions have been signed off the Faculty submits the revised and now definitive

documents to AQPO in Academic Registry:

A confirmed (updated) Programme Specification;

Staff CVs and (where relevant) an inventory of course-specific resources;








Collaborative Delivery Plan and Planner.

10.8.2.6 The appropriate schedule to the contract for the partnership must also be produced and/or

amended and signed before students may be enrolled. Normally, programme delivery approval

is coterminous with the validation period of the programme so that re-validation and delivery re-

approval may take place together (see below).

10.8.3 Franchised programmes: Delivery, Monitoring and Re-approval

10.8.3.1 Faculties are responsible for ensuring that the University’s requirements for annual monitoring

and periodic review are met. Home provision including courses that are franchised use the

Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM) process while Collaborative partners with validated

arrangements produce Annual Monitoring Reports (AMR) for each validated programme at the

end of the academic session and all collaborative partners engaged in delivery of Category ‘F’

provision also submit an institution-level Annual Partnership Report (APR) which is considered by

Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC). Partners’ franchise programmes will be considered

through the standard programme monitoring considered at FASQCs by the published date.

Faculties must ensure that the Partnership Co-ordinator and/or the Academic Link Tutors support

the partners through the AMR process.

10.8.3.2 For Category ‘F’ provision, partners should provide outcomes of their evaluation of learning

infrastructure and environment within their programme-level AMRs, referenced to the

Collaborative Delivery Plan for the programme(s). In addition to maintaining an ongoing dialogue

with partner organisations the University’s central services also conduct a formal audit of

partners’ learner support infrastructure (usually in the third year of the partnership) as part of an

interim Partnership Review and identified risks are managed through the University’s deliberative

committee structure: Academic Board, Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC),

Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC), Faculty Academic Standards & Quality Committees

(FASQCs), and course and assessment boards. Courses delivered collaboratively are also

subject to normal University requirements for the internal moderation of assessment and external

examination (see Section 6).

10.8.3.3 Following the AMR process undertaken under the auspices of ASQC, there is an additional

Annual Business Review of Partnerships for partners in categories D, E & F where a holistic

approach to reviewing the partnerships is taken. Information is collated from the past year

relating to the academic, operational and financial performance of the partners. This is reviewed

by the UEC in the context of the Faculty and University strategic priorities, which may result in a

decision to terminate or grow a particular partnership. Any such decisions will be managed in a

planned way with full negotiation with the Faculties and Academic Quality and Partnership Office

(AQPO).

10.8.3.4 Periodic Review & Revalidation (PRR) and delivery re-approval of programmes delivered under

franchise takes place in the penultimate year of validation. The Faculty works closely with the

partner to provide the AQPO with:

An updated programme specification (where applicable);

The most recent AMR and ABR report for the provision;

An updated Collaborative Delivery Plan and Planner;

Staff CVs and (where applicable) inventory of course-specific resources.

10.8.4 Validated programmes

10.8.4.1 Under a validation arrangement the University approves the partner’s own programme for the

award of a University degree. The significant differences from a franchise arrangement are:




a) Within a validation arrangement the partner ‘owns’ the curriculum, students and normally

‘returns’ the student numbers;

b) Principle responsibility for the student experience resides with the partner (although the

University retains an interest in so far as learning opportunities influence students’

achievement of academic standards);

c) Students of the validated programme do not have standard access to University learning

resources or services (unless negotiated separately).

10.8.5 Validated programmes: Partnership Approval

10.8.5.1 For validation proposals the first formal step is completion of the Collaborative Partnership




supports the University in maintaining a Register detailing all of its collaborative provision

activities, a requirement of Part C the UK Quality Code for Higher Education. Following UEC

approval to proceed, the appropriate due diligence will be undertaken.

10.8.5.2 As part of the due diligence process (alongside any legal and financial checks) the DCP (or their

nominee) works with the partner to carry out ‘process’ due diligence by completing a Partnership

Audit Document (PAD), as accompanied by supporting documents. It is a general principle that

the PAD will be completed by a neutral party i.e. not a member of the proposing Faculty. The

Audit will examine the partnership as described above for franchise arrangements.

10.8.6 Validated programmes: Course Validation

10.8.6.1 Submission documentation for Category ‘F’ validation – see Section 1

10.8.6.2 Proposers are expected to demonstrate how relevant externality has informed curriculum

development and where the programme has already been delivered, e.g. under another

awarding body, recent annual monitoring and external examiner reports should also be supplied.

10.8.7 Validated programmes: Delivery, Monitoring and Re-approval

10.8.7.1 Students are enrolled at the partner institution and registered for assessment/awards with the

University. Advertising of the provision is via the partner’s prospectus and website where, for UK

partners, any requirement to publish a Key Information Set (KIS) is met. The supporting Faculty

appoints a Partnership Co-ordinator, and an Academic Link Tutor is appointed for each course or

group of courses validated.. The partner organisation produces a programme-level Annual

Monitoring Report (AMR) and the partner also produces an institution-level Annual Partnership

Report (APR) which are received and approved by the Collaborative Provision Committee.

Programme AMRs should comment on and evaluate cohort performance and also learning

opportunities and infrastructure in so far as these impact students’ achievement of the academic

standards set at validation. Validated programmes are also subject to standard University

requirements for the internal moderation of assessment and for external examination (see

Section 6). Responsibility for monitoring and liaising with External Examiners resides with the

supporting UoG Faculty. Module Boards of Examiners may be delegated to the partner, with the

University Academic Link tutor and external examiner in attendance. Award Boards of

Examiners are chaired by University staff (the Head of School or a nominee) and may be held at

the partner’s location. These Boards are required to be conducted in line with Standard

University practice. Modifications to validated programmes are managed via the supporting

Faculty of the University through the standard Programme Change Approval Process (PCAP).

Programmes are submitted for Periodic Review and Re-validation (PRR) every five years. PRR










normally takes place at the same time as Partnership Review although two separable events are

held.

10.8.8 Constitution of Validation/Approval Panels for Category ‘F’ approval

10.8.8.1 For stand-alone partnership approval (i.e. not combined with programme validation and/or

delivery approval) panels should be made up as follows:

Chair

One external panel member is required with suitable expertise in managing collaborative

provision at an institutional level. The Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP) is

responsible for ensuring completion of the External Panel Member Form and forwarding this

to the Academic Quality and Partnerships Office (AQPO);

Internal member

Officer from AQPO

DCP or their representative in attendance

10.8.8.2 For stand-alone delivery approval of an existing validated programme:

Chair

One external panel member is required with relevant subject expertise (experience of

collaborative partner working is also desirable). The host academic department completes

an External Examiners Nomination Form and forwards this to the Officer (AQPO);

Internal member

Officer from AQPO


10.8.8.3 For combined programme validation and delivery approval:

Standard operating procedure as for programme validation (see Section 1)

Chair

One external panel member is required with relevant subject expertise (experience of

collaborative partner working is also desirable). The host academic department completes

an External Examiners Nomination Form and forwards this to the Officer (AQPO);

If the subject EPM doesn’t have any partnership experience, an additional External Panel

member with Partnership experience is required;

Internal member

Officer from AQPO


10.8.8.4 In all cases, the Dean of Quality & Standards (as Chair of Academic Standards & Quality

Committee (ASQC) has final responsibility for agreeing external panel member nominations.

10.8.8.5 After a successful approval process, which includes approval by ASQC on behalf of Academic

Board, the DCP will produce the Collaboration Agreement for the partnership.


10.9.1 In addition to the standard University Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) process, there is an

additional Annual Business Review (ABR) of Partnerships for partners in categories E, F and G

where a holistic approach to reviewing the partnerships is taken. Information, including the

outcomes of annual monitoring, is collated from the past year relating to the academic,

operational and financial performance of the partners. This is reviewed by the UEC in the

context of the Faculty and University strategic priorities, which may result in a number of



decisions including that to terminate a partnership. Any such decisions will be managed in a

planned way with full negotiation involving the Faculties and Academic Quality & Partnerships

Office (AQPO). It should be emphasised that the ABR is separate to the University’s standard

quality assurance of collaborative provision.


10.10.1 Definitions

The term Dual award describes a collaborative arrangement under which two (or more) awarding

institutions together provide programmes leading to separate awards being granted by each (all)

of them under their own academic regulations. UEC would be required to approve any proposals

to offer Dual awards.

10.10.2 This differs from a Joint award arrangement in which two (or more) awarding institutions together

provide a programme of study which results in a single joint award of both (all) institutions,

operating under a common set of academic regulations. The University Academic

Regulations for Taught Provision do not currently enable the development of Joint

awards.

10.10.3 Partnership approval

The first formal step is completion of the Collaborative Partnership Proposal Form (CPP) and

business case template which is produced and approved by the Faculty and submitted to the

Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP). Submission to the DCP ensures that any

proposals are considered at the appropriate level/committees and supports the University in

maintaining a Register detailing all of its collaborative provision activities, a requirement of Part C

the UK Quality Code for Higher Education. Following Executive approval to proceed, ASQC will

confirm the approval process and appropriate level of due diligence.

As part of the due diligence process (alongside any legal and financial checks) the DCP (or their

nominee) works with the partner to complete a Partnership Audit Document (PAD), accompanied

by supporting documents. It is a general principle that the PAD will be completed by a neutral

party i.e. not a member of the proposing Faculty. The Audit will examine the partnership as

described above for franchise arrangements.

10.10.4 Course/curriculum approval and monitoring

In most cases Dual award arrangements are likely to span one or more of the existing

collaborative provision Categories ‘D’, E’ and ‘F’ and the AQPO should be consulted on a case-

by-case basis concerning the (hybrid) academic approval process to be followed which will be

confirmed by ASQC. In all cases however, standard initial approval processes involving UEC

approval and financial, legal and process due diligence will be completed. Course monitoring will

usually be based upon the standard Category ‘F’ model of partner’s Annual Monitoring Report

and appointment of an UoG Academic Link Tutor and Partnership Co-ordinator. Following

successful approval a Contract will be produced by the DCP.

10.11.0 Changes of Partnership Category

10.11.1 Should an existing partner wish to change or expand their partnership with the University

resulting in a change of collaborative provision category – e.g., from Category ‘C’ outreach

supported learning to Category ‘F’ franchise or validated – the appropriate approval process for

the higher category must be completed. However, Academic Standards & Quality Committee

(ASQC) will give due consideration to previous investigations, audits etc. and partners will not be








subject to additional checks in areas that have already been fully considered. Nevertheless, the

addition of new franchises or articulation routes to an existing partner will always be

accompanied by the relevant approval procedures at individual programme level.


10.12.1 Formal notification by the University of the closure of an existing franchise, validated or other

collaborative partnership arrangement is by written correspondence to the partner from the Vice

Chancellor (see Section 13)



Section 11: Partnership Approval and Review, Delivery Approval, Change of Partner Status

11.1.0 Introduction

11.2.0 Partnership and Programme Approval Procedure



11.5.0 Articulation and Direct Entry Arrangements with Awarding Bodies or Overseas

Institutions – CP Category E






11.1.0 Introduction

11.1.1 This provides broad definitions of collaborative provision categories which provides a useful

starting point for discussions and understanding of the risk level associated with a particular

proposal. It is acknowledged that proposals will not necessarily fit neatly into any particular

category and a flexible approach to manage this will be taken.

11.1.2 This Section of the AQPH provides step-by-step procedures to fulfil the following processes:

Institutional approval of a new Collaborative Partner;

Approval of an existing Collaborative Partner to deliver new provision (“delivery approval”);

Change of Partner status from one category to another;

Review/Re-approval of an existing partner.

11.1.3 This section will provide detailed procedures on the above processes for Categories B, C, D, E, F

and G. Procedures for Category ‘A’ provision are delegated to Faculties and approved and

monitored by the Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC).

11.1.4 It is important to note that Partners work with us across a number of different Categories across a

range of programmes and Faculties. Each new proposal is considered separately but at the

same time taking account of audits and investigations already carried out. The clarification and

centralisation of these approval processes allow the University to share information across

Faculties and central services to enable the most appropriate form of enquiry for a new partner or

for provision delivered collaboratively.

11.1.5 All templates are available from the Collaborative Provision Forms page The Business Case

template indicates the minimum level of resources that must be taken into consideration when

costing a proposal. Colleagues can however, include additional resource implications if required

for their particular proposal.

11.2.0 Partnership1 and Programme Approval Procedure

1 For all partnership proposals where UoG credit is being delivered or supported by partner institution (excluding placements)




Informal Partnership development discussions & exploration and completion of initial Risk Assessment for

new Partnerships2

Faculty decision to formally explore/develop/extend a partnership. Informal engagement with Director of

CP to confirm credibility and reputation of potential partner, and to confirm that the prospective partner has

the minimum requirements for partnership with the University3

Collaborative Partnership Proposal Form (CPP) & prospective Business Case produced and approved by

Faculty4.

Discussion & approval to proceed at Executive

Partnership Co-ordinator5 and Academic Link Tutor (s) appointed by the Faculty Dean(s)

Discussion, approval to plan and confirmation of approval process at Academic Portfolio Committee (APC)

(for programme) and Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC) for Partnership (CPP and

Programme Approval Form (PAC)

Academic, legal, financial and process due diligence culminating in formal approval events/validations.

Proposal approved at ASQC

Contract produced and signed by all parties

Partnership commences & added to the Collaborative Partnership Register

2 May take many forms e.g. development of existing partnership, new business development by Faculty, International Office or

others. May result in a commitment to engage in further discussions e.g. signing of an MoU or may result in agreement to terminate discussions. 3 For UK public institutions confirmation of Department for Education/Ofsted approval. For UK Private Providers, confirmation of

QAA Educational Oversight or equivalent and HTS if working with overseas students. For Overseas Providers confirmation of Naric recognition and recognised by local approval bodies e.g. Ministry of Education or similar. 4 Faculty Quality Committee or Deans signature

5 The Partnership Co-ordinator will oversee the proposal and work with the partner to ensure that all documents and information is

provided for the due diligence and approval events.





Legal, Financial & Process Due Diligence

(Led by CP Office)

Academic Due Diligence

(Led by Faculty/School)

Due Diligence questionnaire completed & submitted to

DCP with documentary evidence (by potential Partner)

Financial Accounts submitted to Director of Finance &

Planning for appraisal and comments

Faculty prepare programme submission

documents for:

new programme6

new delivery option

mapping of partner provision

credit rating

delivery approval

Completion of Partnership Audit Document (PAD)7

Confirmation of satisfactory due diligence evidence

from Dean of Quality & Standards/Director of F&P and

Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP)

Draft Collaborative Delivery Plan (CDP) and

Planner (if required) produced

Partner Approval8 documentation produced by DCP and Faculty and Event(s)9 held for

Partnership and Academic Approval– Delivery, Curriculum content.

Draft Contract/MoC/Articulation Agreement produced

by DCP (this may be required prior to the approval

event)

Conditions of Approval Event(s) complete

Submission to Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC) for final approval and final Contract/CDP

signed by all relevant parties & programme commences operation and added to the Collaborative Partners

Register

6 New programme or changes to programmes follow usual approval procedure as outlined in Section 1 of the AQPH. This

investigation stage will include proposals for Articulation and recognition of other University Degrees or credit. 7 PAD Incorporates all central service audits.

8 Consists of completed PAD, signed off Due Diligence and associated evidence, Country Intelligence if required and draft CDP

9 This event could involve credit rating/curriculum mapping by correspondence or a full approval panel for a partner to deliver UoG

programmes. APC/ASQC confirmed approval process.









1. Internal University proposals - completion of ‘Application for the approval of a new Venue/Location’

(CAT B) Includes Business Case and submit to Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP)

(Faculty Proposer)

2. Collaborative Partners additional location of delivery required –

contact Collaborative Provision Manager

DCP to arrange formal Location of Delivery visit and report

Report submitted to Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) for recommendation of Venue/location and

confirmed at Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC)

CPC Officer to advise Academic Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO) and Faculty Administration

Managers

1. Preparation of Contract for Facilities Hire (for internal provision) to be signed by the Deputy Vice-

Chancellor (Academic)10 and Senior Representative at Venue (DCP)

2. Additional Location of Delivery to be included in Annex of Collaborative Provision Agreement

New Venue/location to be included in the Collaborative Provision Register

and a copy of the Health & Safety Audit, and Public Liability Insurance are to be held centrally

(Collaborative Provision Manager)

11.5.0 Articulation and Direct Entry Arrangements with Awarding Bodies or Overseas

Institutions – CP Category E

11.5.1 The university defines articulation in two ways:

Firstly as the process by which students use an external qualification or programme for entry

to one of the University’s programmes at a point other than the usual starting point (i.e. entry

with advanced standing).

Secondly, as the process by which qualifications studied at particular organisations or

approved by a specific awarding body as an entry requirement for the usual starting point of

a standalone level 6 award or a Level 7 MSO (i.e. direct entry).

11.5.2 Articulation is used when a number of students will be applying with the same entry requirements

from a specific awarding body/institution. Individual students applying for entry with advanced

standing, where articulation is not intended to lead to a formal agreement should use the

established Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL) process.

10

All venue contracts must be signed at an Institutional level





11.5.3 Approval of an articulation route then results in an Articulation Agreement between the University

and the awarding body/institution. The chart that follows outlines a number of possible scenarios,

together with the level of due diligence and investigations required.

11.5.4 To enhance recruitment from International students, the University may wish to develop

Progression Agreements which recognises particular qualifications, studied at particular

organisations as an entry requirement for the usual starting point of a programme. These

arrangements must follow the processes outlined below.

11.5.6 The approval process for an articulation route or direct entry, whether UK-based or overseas, has

two purposes: to establish broad equivalence between the external programme and the

University programme to which entry is being sought in respect of curriculum content, volume

and level; and the requirement of the University to satisfy itself that the awarding body/institution

has broad mechanisms for assuring the academic standards of its programmes (whilst, at the

same time, acknowledging the lower level of risk associated with this type of collaborative

provision which does not directly result in the award of UoG credit).

11.5.7 The process in detail is as below:

As for all collaborative proposals, a Collaborative Partnership Proposal (CPP) form is

produced and approved to proceed through Faculty (or Faculties), by Executive and

Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) for programmes and Academic Standards & Quality

Committee (ASQC) for the partnership.

In addition, for international proposals, the International Development Centre (IDeC)

produces a broad overview of the education system of the home territory of the awarding

body/institution, for example, detailed intelligence on the school systems, selection and

support for tertiary education in the state and private sectors, explanation of the regulatory

system for the sector and any other specific information pertinent to the area.

Desk-based institutional due diligence undertaken to ascertain the status of the awarding

body/institution within their country’s system i.e. appropriate licence to operate and authority

to award qualifications. Status information can be provided in the above IDeC report.

UK Awarding Bodies to have an audit visit.

11.5.8 Allocation of a route for approval/validation process is as follows:

11.5.8.1 Route A – Used where there is sufficient evidence to confirm the standards of the institution or

the awarding body without recourse to additional information (for example, Universities or

Colleges with individual entries on NARIC or other appropriate ‘official’ evidence, and awarding

bodies that are nationally ‘known’, e.g. Edexcel).

11.5.8.2 Route B – Where insufficient evidence is available to confirm the academic standards without

further investigation, student work may be requested to provide evidence of level and

achievement. Further institutional due diligence would be required to ascertain the quality

assurance mechanisms of the institution or awarding body.

11.5.9 All Articulation and direct entry arrangements will be subject to a Review after a period of three

years to confirm curriculum match and Institution / Awarding Body status.

11.5.10 If concerns remain in relation to the output of the awarding body/institution then approval of the

articulation route would only be granted for two years in the first instance and student

performance on the target award will be monitored. If, at the end of the two year period of

approval, the University is confident in the partner institution’s management of quality and



standards, approval would be conferred for an additional three years prior to the general review

to which all institutions are subject.

11.5.11 The process would culminate in an approval event managed by Academic Quality & Partnerships

Office (AQPO) (which could be by correspondence) entailing receipt and consideration of a

curriculum mapping statement produced by the proposing team; and evidence of the awarding

body’s systems for academic quality assurance, provided by the AQPO. Institutional due

diligence and evidence of the awarding body/institution’s quality assurance processes would not

need to be completed each time a new articulation route was proposed. Additional articulation

routes would require initial approval at Faculty Executive, and proceed to ASQC for confirmation

of the approval requirements which will involve an event (possibly by correspondence) and all

arrangements with awarding bodies/institutions will be subject to review after a period of three

years to confirm their status.

Process for the approval of Articulation and Direct Entry Arrangements

Route A Route B

Sufficient evidence to

confirm quality and

standards of institution. No

further institutional Due

Diligence.

Insufficient evidence is available to confirm quality

and standards - student work may be requested to

provide the evidence of level and achievement.

Information to be considered at an Approval Event.

Further institutional Due Diligence required.

Director of Collaborative Provision (DCP) to advise.

Curriculum Mapping

- Credit rating

- Content

- Level (against FHEQ)

- Volume of credit

Approval Event

Articulation/Progression

Agreement produced

and stored by DCP &

added to the

Collaborative Partners

Register


11.6.1 Once a partner has been approved within a particular category, any further provision within the

duration of the approval period will focus on specific delivery approval for particular programmes.

11.6.2 However, a partner may wish to ‘upgrade’ their partnership category either, for specific

programmes or for all the provision they offer through UoG. In order to do this, partners must

follow the appropriate approval process and due diligence as identified earlier in this guide. Due





consideration will be given to audits and investigations already carried out, and partners will not

be subjected to additional checks in areas already investigated fully.


11.7.1 Contracts, Articulation Agreements and other contractual arrangements are for a specific period

of time and in the last year of the arrangement, there is the capacity for a full review before a

decision is made on whether to continue with the partnership.

11.7.2 Renewal of the partnership arrangement will be subject to the appropriate updating of the due

diligence procedure and quality assurance mechanisms associated with the level of partnership

and as detailed above.


11.8.1 Processes for annual and periodic Partnership Review

In addition to reviewing individual courses running in collaborative partner organisations, the

University also conducts a process for annual and periodic review of partnerships at the

institutional level.

11.8.2 Annual Partnership Monitoring (APM) Report

The objectives of this report are:

To provide an institutional context for the individual course-level reports

To inform the University of significant developments within the partner institution

To evaluate the operation of the partnership and to provide a formal means by which the

partner can feed back on generic matters

To ensure that the appropriate action is taken to resolve any identified shortcomings

11.8.2.1 The report is compiled by the Principal/ Head (or nominee) of the partner institution. It should be

succinct and evaluative, and informed by institutional data and feedback from course team(s) and

students.

11.8.2.2 The APM report pro forma requires:

a progress report on actions and outcomes identified in the previous year with additional

contextual information where necessary

an evaluation of the operation of the collaborative programme(s) with the University to

include relevant statistical data and commentary on recruitment, retention and completion

rates and on possible cross-college issues such as learning resources, student feedback

and staffing.

commentary on plans for future development and the rationale for these

an evaluation of partnership liaison which addresses the areas of administration, advice and

guidance, relevant aspects of assessment, staff development and, where applicable,

admissions and progression to the University

the partner institution to raise any issues which they particularly wish to bring to the attention

of the University

11.8.2.3 The document will be included as contextual material when course reports are considered by

faculties, and all institution-level reports will also be considered by the Collaborative Provision

Committee (CPC) at its January meeting. A summary drawing attention to any points for the

attention of the University which emerge from the institution-level reports will be prepared by the




Chair of CPC and submitted to the March meeting of Academic Standards & Quality Committee

(ASQC).

11.8.2.4 Where a report contains information that the university believes to constitute an imminent threat

to quality or standards, a Partnership Review of the institution in question may be called for

immediately.

11.8.3 Diagram of Annual Partnership Monitoring

Annual Partnership Monitoring report submitted with Annual Monitoring Review report(s) (early

November)

Consideration of all submissions at CPC (normally January)

trigger for PRR

if any threat to

Quality or

Standards

identified

CPC summary report received at ASQC (normally March)


11.9.1 This is an opportunity for the University to take an annual holistic review of all elements of the

partnership with information gained from a variety of areas including Finance & Planning, Quality

& Standards and Faculties.

11.9.2 The collation of information and evidence is led by the Academic Quality & Partnerships Office

(AQPO) and presented to the University Executive Committee (UEC) normally in February each

year. This allows the University to take a strategic approach to the oversight of collaborative

partnerships.

11.9.3 Feedback from the ABR process is provided to the Faculty by each Faculty Dean. Where

appropriate, Partnership Co-ordinators and the AQPO will provide feedback to partners and there

may be an action plan to address any issues that have been raised.


11.10.1 Partnerships will be subject to Partnership Review normally in the year prior to renewal of the

Agreement, both in the case of validated provision and the delivery of franchised provision.

Agreements are normally issued for a period of 5 years.

11.10.2 Partnership Review is the opportunity to re-visit the strategic reasons for working in partnership

and to renew the Legal, Financial and Process due diligence. A successful Review will result in

the re-approval of a partner institution by the University to enable them to continue to provide

programmes or support students on programmes leading to an award of the University of

Gloucestershire. It is distinct from the periodic review and revalidation of a specific award or

programme. This Partnership Review process is aligned to the QAA UK Quality Code, Chapter

B10: ‘Managing higher education provision with others’, which requires that the University

assures itself of the continued suitability of any partner.

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/quality-code-part-b

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/quality-code-part-b



11.10.3 The Partnership Review Event requires the Approval Panel to make a recommendation to the

University’s Academic Quality & Standards Committee (ASQC), who considers all such

recommendations on behalf of Academic Board, that the institution is formally re-approved as a

University Collaborative Partner. The recommendation is made on the basis that the partnership

between the University and the Partner continues to be appropriate and robust. The judgement is

based on a review of the evidence presented to the panel generated through the re-visited Legal,

Financial and Process due diligence, the Partner submission, the latest Annual Monitoring

reports and the Annual Business Review (ABR) report.

11.10.4 Partnership Review events usually take place at the partner, so that the University can also take

the opportunity to formally re-inspect the facilities and re-approve as a location of delivery. The

Panel will follow an agenda agreed with the partner and will normally include the following

activities:

Meeting with senior managers responsible for the Partner’s strategy with respect to HE

development.

Meeting with senior managers responsible for the oversight of quality and standards of HE

provision at the Partner.

Meeting with Library staff and colleagues in Student Services for providing generic academic

and other support to HE students.

Tour of the facilities to include library and learning resource areas, student learning and

social areas and, if planned provision is defined, key specialist resources (Please note that a

tour of specialist facilities may be more appropriate to the programme approval event(s))

Meeting with a selection of current HE students from different subject areas and different

programme levels.

11.10.5 The Chair is responsible for highlighting positive aspects of the partnership and raising issues in

a constructive manner. The Chair normally commences the second private meeting of the panel

by summarising the issues and the partner’s responses. The Chair will conclude the meeting by

agreeing the outcome of the event with the Panel before inviting members of the partner back for

verbal feedback. Where the decision of the Panel is not unanimous, the decision of the Chair is

final.

11.10.6 Outcome of the Event

11.10.6.1 The Panel will make recommendations to ASQC, via the Collaborative Provision Committee

(CPC), who will consider and confirm Partnership re-approval on behalf of Academic Board.

11.10.6.2 This recommendation will be verbally communicated to the partner at the end of the event,

together with any associated conditions and forward-looking recommendations to be addressed.

An outcomes report containing any conditions, (which must be met prior to the commencement of

any new cohorts), and the recommendations will be prepared in draft and agreed by the Chair

before circulating to appropriate parties, within 3 working days of the event. The draft full report

of the event and its outcomes will be provided to the Chair for approval and circulated to the

partner to check for accuracy within 10 working days of the event. The Partner and appropriate

colleagues are invited to respond to the conditions and recommendations and these statements

will be attached to the written report and submitted to CPC/ASQC. The Officer for the Review

event will be responsible for the communication with the Partner to ensure that all conditions are

met and receive sign off from the Chair within the agreed timescale for completion of the

conditions.

11.10.6.3 The re-approval of the partnership is normally for a time period of 5 years at which time the

agreement is subject to another formal Partnership Review process. The Chair of the Panel,



may in certain circumstances, recommend the re-approval of the Partnership for a shorter time

period if they have particular concerns over any issues raised at the event.

11.10.7 The Panel

11.10.7.1 Panel members will use the event to confirm that the legal and financial due diligence has been

completed satisfactorily and to explore any issues arising from the presented evidence. The

Panel will also seek confirmation that the partner has seen and agreed to the terms and

conditions of the new Collaboration Agreement, as well as paying particular attention of any

issues highlighted in the Partnership Audit Document (PAD).

11.10.7.2 The core membership of the Partnership Review Panel will normally comprise:

Chair: Senior member of academic staff (and external to the Faculty/School where the

provision is defined at this stage)

Internal panel member: member of academic staff or senior member of support staff

External panel member from another UK HEI with appropriate experience in collaborative

provision

Quality & Standards administrator, to act as officer for the event

Director of Collaborative Partnerships or nominee – to act as a source of advice and

clarification but not a formal member of the panel

11.10.7.3 Additional attendees required at the event:

Partnership Coordinator/Academic Link Tutors to attend as part of the proposing team

11.10.7.4 Proposing team from the partner to include:

Senior Member of staff to provide institutional support for the collaboration

HE Manager/Academic Partnerships Manager or equivalent

Colleagues knowledgeable about the Partner’s Quality Assurance/Enhancement process in

relation to educational programmes

Learning Resource/Library Manager or equivalent

Student Support Manager or equivalent

Teaching staff (optional for Partnership Review)

Students

11.10.8 Documents Required

11.10.8.1 The following documents are required to be available for distribution to the Panel, no later than 3

weeks prior to the date of the event:

a) A strategic overview document prepared by the proposing partner to include:

Introduction to the organization and brief history of the partnership

Strategic overview of approach to education and the future development and expansion

of the partnerships

Details of other HEI/educational partners and experience of programme delivery

Organisational/Management structure diagram

Reports from external review or bodies e.g. QAA

Overview of Quality Assurance processes

Overview of Teaching and Learning strategy/approach

Overview of Student Support

Overview of staff expertise and development relating to the partnership

Latest Annual Monitoring Reports – Programme and Institutional

External Examiner reports



b) Confirmation from the Director of Collaborative Partnerships that the Legal & Financial Due

Diligence is complete. Evidence file to be available at the event for reference for the Panel;

c) The completed Partnership Audit Document with associated evidence;

d) Report from Learning Information Services based on the completed ‘checklist for library &

learning resources’;

e) For overseas proposals – the UK Naric and British Council Country overviews (where

available).

11.10.8.2 Following a successful Partnership Review a new Collaborative Partnership contract will be

issued.



Section 12: Partnership Liaison and Management


12.2.0 The Academic Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO)


12.4.0 Academic Liaison at the Course level – Academic Link Tutors







12.1.1 The University is committed to developing effective partnerships which both assure the quality

and standards of its awards and contribute to partnerships which are mutually beneficial to the

collaborative partner and the University. Effective liaison is built in a number of ways including

through:

a) The Academic Quality and Partnerships Office (AQPO) – this is a central support service

within the Academic Registry. The AQPO plays an integral role in supporting faculties to

establish and maintain collaborative partnerships, and facilitate communication both between

University offices and colleagues, and external colleagues in collaborative partners.

b) The Partnership Coordinator (PC) who is the key relationship manager, providing the main

conduit for information between the partner and the University.

c) The Academic Link Tutor (ALT) with subject specific expertise who, on behalf of the

Faculty / School, liaises with the partner providing academic oversight and support for

curriculum and assessment issues.

d) Faculty Administrative staff who support the administrative operations of collaborative

partnerships and ensure that all courses delivered collaboratively adhere to routine

University administrative policy and processes.

e) University Student Support Services and Learning & Information Services who also

support collaborative partnerships by working with colleagues in partner organisations to

ensure that students are supported appropriately in their local context.

f) Academic Registry staff who have responsibility for overseeing the administrative systems

and processes that support essential administrative and academic functions from application

through to graduation. For some functions, as defined in individual contracts, this

responsibility extends to students studying in collaborative partnerships.

g) Partnership Boards which bring together relevant personnel from the University and the

partner organisation in a formal context to discuss the partnership and agree actions.

12.2.0 The Academic Quality and Partnerships Office (AQPO)

12.2.1 The AQPO has oversight of all processes concerned with the development, approval,

management and monitoring of collaborative partnerships. As such, staff are a central

information point and provide advice and guidance to both internal and external colleagues on all

aspects of working in partnership.



12.2.2 The AQPO plays an integral role in promoting consistency across relevant University

administrative procedures for collaborative partnerships. It works with Faculties and Professional

Departments who manage services that partners need to access such as admissions, enrolment,

assessment, student support and learning services, graduation (where appropriate) and the

publication of information.

12.2.3 The key functions of the AQPO are to:

a) Develop and implement the quality assurance and operational processes for the approval,

management and monitoring of collaborative partnerships;

b) Oversee the Contract Management of Collaborative Agreements;

c) Undertake the invoicing of Collaborative Partners

d) Support the University’s administrative and quality assurance processes for collaborative

partnerships;

e) Act as a central liaison point for internal and external colleagues in relation to collaborative

provision;

f) Develop and implement central procedures for the operations of collaborative partnerships;

g) Collect and co-ordinate management and quality assurance data and information from

collaborative partners and hold in a central shared area;

h) Support Partnership Coordinators and Academic Link Tutors as appropriate;

i) Provide regular internal and external communication regarding collaborative partnerships;

j) Advise and support Faculties and partners on the preparation of Partnership

Approval/Review documents;

k) Support the Director of Collaborative Partnerships in the collation of documents within the

Due Diligence process for Partnership Approvals/Reviews;

l) Support the Annual Business Review of collaborative partnerships;

m) Manage the Annual Monitoring Review of collaborative partnerships and courses

n) Develop and maintain a central risk register for collaborative partnerships;

o) Maintain the University Register of Collaborative Partnerships


12.3.1 Partnership Coordinators have a key role in assuring the academic quality and standards of the

University’s awards delivered via partner institutions. They also play an essential role in ensuring

that the collaborative partnership operates effectively for both parties, and are crucial in the

maintenance of effective communications between the University and its collaborative partners.

12.3.2 The role is one with a broad liaison remit, and is in place to ensure the University’s maintenance

of all operations and procedures associated with its management of academic quality and

standards as outlined in this Handbook, the Academic Regulations for Taught Provision, the

Assessment Procedures and any other relevant guidance. Partnership Coordinators/Managers

must therefore have a good understanding of the University’s approach to quality assurance and

academic standards, and a sound grasp of University structures and committees, so as to advise

partners accordingly as issues emerge. They must also be familiar with the operation of

collaborative partnerships with respect to procedures such as student enrolment, Module and

Award Boards, the issuing of certificates and transcripts, the organisation of award ceremonies,

etc., as tailored to the specific requirements of each partnership.

12.3.3 It is not essential for the Partnership Coordinator (PC) to be drawn from a subject area cognate

with the partnership provision, given that many partnerships may operate across subject areas

and faculties. In some instances with agreement from the relevant Faculty Dean and the Director






of Collaborative Partnerships this role may be undertaken by a member of the Academic Quality

& Partnerships Office (AQPO).

12.3.4 PCs are responsible for overseeing and co-ordinating all Academic Link Tutors assigned to the

partnership. Therefore, they may be responsible for ALTs across different faculties.

Appointment of Partnership Coordinators

12.3.5 A PC will be appointed to each partnership, to oversee the partnership relationship. Deans of

Faculty in liaison with the Director of Collaborative Partnerships are responsible for appointing

PCs.

12.3.6 The PC will normally be confirmed at the point at which University Executive Committee (UEC),

approves a prospective partnership to proceed to the next stage of the Partnership Approval

process, due diligence, At the same time the prospective partner will be formally allocated to a

‘lead’ faculty. The early appointment of the PC will enable them to be engaged in supporting the

development of the partnership during the period prior to its formal approval. The identification of

a named PC will be a required procedural element before the full approval of any partnership.

12.3.7 The relevant Dean of Faculty is responsible for notifying the Director of Collaborative

Partnerships and the Collaborative Partnership Manager of the appointment of a new PC.

12.3.8 The Collaborative Partnership Manager will maintain a published list of all PC and should be

notified promptly of both new appointments and colleagues stepping down from the role. New

appointments should be confirmed by the Dean of Faculty. The Collaborative Partnership

Manager will report any changes to the list of PCs to the Collaborative Provision Committee and

will also ensure that any changes regarding the PC assigned to a partner are formally

communicated to the partner.

12.3.9 Once nominated, the PC will meet initially with the Director of Collaborative Partnerships or their

nominee (usually the Collaborative Partnerships Manager) to be appraised of the terms of

appointment and the responsibilities that ensue. They will be put into contact with an established

PC to act as a mentor. The meeting with the DCP must take place prior to the new PC formally

commencing the PC role.

12.3.10 The PC should attend the Collaborative Partnership Forums and any staff development activities

that pertain to collaborative provision. PCs will be notified when the minutes of the Collaborative

Provision Committee (CPC) are published on SharePoint Committee Home pages.

12.3.11 Resourcing for the role of PC based in a Faculty is determined within the context of the

University’s Workload Allocation Model. The precise allocation will depend on the complexity of

the partnership, its location, the number of courses and the number of students.

12.4.0 Academic Liaison at the Course level – Academic Link Tutors

12.4.1 All courses delivered with collaborative partners are linked with an appropriate Subject

Community, School and Faculty at the University. In the case of franchise provision, the

Academic Course Leader (ACL) of the franchised course is likely to be the Academic Link Tutor

(ALT) responsible for the quality and standards of the course. For validated provision, the Dean

of the Faculty/School will ensure that a specific ACL or Academic Subject Leader (ASL) is

allocated the responsibility for ensuring that an ALT is in place for each Course or subject area.



12.4.2 The primary purpose of the ALT is to support the academic delivery of collaborative provision

courses delivered through partners to ensure that standards and quality are maintained and that

course teams at partners are working in accordance with University policy and procedures.

12.4.3 ALTs are coordinated by the Partnership Coordinator (PC) responsible for the partnership. So it

is possible that the ALT and PC will be based in different faculties.

12.4.4 ALTs provide academic support at course and module level. Therefore it is important that the

academic link tutor role is undertaken by someone with an appropriate academic specialism.

12.4.5 ALTs will be asked to contribute to a number of reports throughout the year in order to effectively

monitor the partnership i.e. PC reports for the Annual Monitoring Review (AMR) and for the

Annual Business Review (ABR)


12.5.1 Faculty administrative staff play a key role in ensuring that collaborative partners adhere to

University administrative policies and processes.

12.5.2 They will support Partnership Coordinators and Academic Link tutors to carry out their roles

effectively, and liaise with the collaborative partners, the Academic Quality & Partnerships Office

(AQPO) and other central support services to maintain effective administrative processes.

12.5.3 They will also provide administrative support for Partnership Boards.


12.6.1 Colleagues in professional departments play a role in the initial approval of collaborative

partnerships to ensure that students studying in partnership arrangements have access to

services as agreed in the contract.

12.6.2 They will provide advice and guidance, as appropriate, to staff in collaborative partner

organisations and input to University collaborative partner training and update events. These

staff can then provide resources and services to support students locally.

12.6.3 They will work with Academic Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO) to undertake audits e.g. for

Partnership Review events as required to assure the quality of the student experience with the

partner.


12.7.1 Colleagues in Academic Registry may liaise with partners on a whole range of issues, from

application, admissions and enrolment through to assessment, student records and graduation.

12.7.2 They will support Faculties and the Academic Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO) in ensuring

that collaborative partners adhere to University policies and processes. In particular, staff in

AQPO will provide advice and guidance on University expectations and requirements for

example, with respect to the Academic Regulations for Taught Provision.


http://insight.glos.ac.uk/DEPARTMENTS/REGISTRY/QUALITY/Pages/AcademicRegulations.aspx



12.8.1 The information above identifies key roles and responsibilities for working with collaborative

partners. Liaison with partners can be further explained in terms of management/co-ordination,

academic tasks and administrative/support roles and these activities have been identified in the

table below. Each Partnership will have a Collaborative Delivery Plan which will identify the key

personnel involved with that particular partnership and therefore who will be taking the lead with

regard to the specific activities.

12.8.2 Whilst face to face interactions are preferable, it is acknowledged that other forms of liaison e.g.

Skype may sometimes be necessary to ensure appropriate management of the relationship. It is

recommended that the University undertakes a minimum of two visits to each partner during each

academic year. Colleagues are advised to seek advice from the Academic Quality & Partnerships

Office (AQPO) when planning alternative meeting arrangements.

Partnership Management Academic Oversight Professional &

Administrative Support

from Academic Registry

Faculty-based

Administrative

Support

Key contact – effective

relationship management.

Key contact - academic

issues.

Key contact – professional

and administrative support

on Academic Registry

processes/issues as they

pertain to collaborative

provision.

Key contact –

specific

Faculty/School

administrative

processes.

Maintain general oversight of

the partnership and ensure

that the partner is operating

in accordance with the terms

of the Collaboration

Agreement.

Provide subject-specialist

advice and guidance to

partner course teams.

Provide guidance and

administrative support for the

collation of reports, requests

for information etc.

Provide

administrative

support for all

Faculty/School

collaborative

partnership (CP)

related activities.

Appoint Academic Link

Tutors (ALTs) at point of new

proposal and ensure

replacement of ALT’s as

appropriate

Through liaison with the PC

ensure that the following role-

holders are informed of

developments within the

partner institution

Heads of School,

Faculty Deans,

Director of Collaborative

Partnerships,

Collaborative Provision

Manager

Provide a central information

service for internal

colleagues in relation to

collaborative partnership

operations. Maintain a

central registers of

Partnership Coordinators

(PCs) and ALTs.

Provide

administrative

support for all

Faculty/School CP

related activities

Oversee and co-ordinate the

work of ALTs at course level,

across the partnership

Ensure partnership

coordinators are kept

informed of all pertinent

academic matters.

Maintain close links with PCs

and ALTs to provide

professional and

administrative support.

Maintain close links

with other areas of

Registry involved in

supporting CP

operations, PCs and

ALTs to provide

administrative

support.




Faculty-based

Administrative

Support



Supported by colleagues in

AQPO provide advice on the

quality processes and the

development of

documentation to partners

regarding

Partnership Approval

Institutional Monitoring

Annual Monitoring

Partnership Review

Annual Business Review

suspension of provision and

termination activity

Provide advice on the process

and the development of

documentation during course

development, monitoring,

periodic review and

revalidation of courses,

including advising on

processes and documentation

for validation events.

Provide professional

guidance and support in

relation to the understanding

of quality assurance

processes for PCs and ALTs.

Organisation of QA events

via the provision of an officer.

Provide

administrative

support as

appropriate

Provide reports as and when

requested to update on the

Institutional/ operational

management of the

partnership.

Provide reports as and when

requested regarding the

academic standards and

processes at the partner.

Provide administrative

support for the collation of

reports, requests for

information etc.

Provide

administrative

support for all

Faculty/School CP

related activities.

Ensure that the partnership

has an up to date, signed

Collaborative Delivery Plan

(CDP) by the end of October

each year

Support the production of the

annual CDP and ensure

accuracy and compliance with

all academic processes as

detailed in the CDP.


support for the annual

process of updating CDP’s

Ensure that each course

within the partnership has an

up to date Planner, by the

end of August each year

Check and agree the module

delivery pattern for the

academic year, by the end of

August each year

Provide professional and

administrative support for the

annual process of updating

Planners.

Provide

administrative

support, if required,

for the annual

process of updating

Planners.

Ensure partners are aware of

the requirement for UoG to

approve new teaching staff

prior to delivery of UoG

programmes.

In consultation with Head of

School, scrutinise and

approve CVs for all staff

contributing to the partnership

provision prior to institutional

approval and validation, and

for any new staff who are

contracted to deliver

University provision

thereafter;

HR to hold the central record

of CP staff who have been

approved to teach on UoG

awards.

Retain oversight of the

student admissions process,

and ensure that standard

processes are being followed

through liaison with the UoG

Admissions Team.

Be available to respond to

questions that arise regarding

non-standard admission and

APEL/APL.

To maintain oversight of

partner compliance with the

admissions process, taking

action as appropriate.




Faculty-based

Administrative

Support



Provide oversight of the ALT

in relation to the monitoring

and approval of Module

Guides and Course

Handbooks, raising any

issues re non-compliance

with the Partner and CPM.

Monitor and approve Module

Guides and Course

Handbooks are accurate and

fit for purpose, confirming that

these have been issued to

students at the start of the

course. Advise the PC of any

non-compliance.

The CPM to provide

appropriate support to

facilitate the successful

completion of this task.

Provide

administrative

support for this

process

Support partner in ensuring

their students understand the

relationship with UoG as the

awarding body

Assist partner course teams in

the planning and delivery of

student induction to facilitate

new students’ understanding

of their courses and their

relationship with UoG

To provide professional

support and guidance to PCs

and ALTs in relation to this

area of their work.

Oversee adherence to

University assessment

principles and procedures,

including the setting, marking

and moderation of

assessment.

Ensure that partner course

teams adhere to University

regulations and assessment

procedures, and provide

guidance, with regard to:

Setting (where applicable) of

assessment, via Assessment

Scrutiny Process

Marking and moderation of

assessment

Feedback to students in

terms of quality and

timeliness

External examining

Boards of Examiners

Assessment Offences

To provide, via ACPO,

academic advice to ALTs in

relation to this aspect of their

work.

Have oversight of the

moderation process, taking

action to inform Partner,

Faculty and CPM and to work

with them to address any

issues raised by the ALT or

Moderator.

Undertake moderation of

assessments at the level

agreed in the CDP, keeping

PC informed of any issues

arising.

Provide

administrative

support to facilitate

the moderation

process

Convene and attend

Partnership Boards

Attend (but not chair) Module

Boards of Examiners and

Boards of Studies (or similar)

AQPO representatives to

attend all Partnership

Boards.

Provide officer

support for

Partnership Boards

held on UoG

campuses or via

Skype

Represent Partners’ interests

in UoG meetings and

committees.

Represent Partners’ interests

in UoG meetings and

committees.

Provide officer support for

CP related committees,

meetings and working groups




Faculty-based

Administrative

Support



Head of School (UoG) Chair

validated partners

Assessment Boards of

Examiners (ABEs).

ALT’s to attend Module Board

of Examiners

CP Franchise Partners work

is processed through Faculty

Module and Awards Boards.

Provide oversight of

administrative processes to

ensure completion of process

in the appropriate timeframe.

Liaising with the

Chair of the ABE

and the Partner,

ensure marks from

validated Partner

Boards are entered

into UoG SITS when

appropriate.

Ensure partners and

CP students are

advised of

marks/awards

following the

standard UoG

procedures.

Assess all University-related

publicity issued by the

partner, in advance of

publication, to ensure that it is

compatible with good practice

and with University guidance

(in consultation with CMSR);

Ensure AQPO is kept

informed of any non-

compliance with University

compliance.

Assess all course related

publicity issued by the

partner, in advance of

publication, to ensure that it is

compatible with good practice

and with University guidance

(in consultation with CMSR)

Provide oversight of

Partners’ University-related

publicity, taking action to

address non-compliance via

CMSR and PCs, or, if

necessary, directly with the

partner.

Monitor partner use of Virtual

Learning Environments

(VLEs) where these are used

to support the delivery of

University awards;

Uploading of module

handbooks/module

information on to

Moodle sites for

franchise provision

Provide information and

advice to students in relation

to progression routes, as

appropriate

Provide information and

advice to students in relation

to progression routes, as

appropriate

Participate in the induction of

external examiners appointed

to the partnership.

Lead on the Induction

process for external

examiners.


support for the EE process

and other generic partnership

operational procedures.

Identify staff development

needs arising in the partner

institution, and where

appropriate participate in the

organisation and delivery of

staff development activities.

Commit to personal CPD in

relation to CP.

Where appropriate contribute

to central or specific staff

development on academic

tasks.

Commit to personal CPD in

relation to CP.

Provide training/staff

development on quality

assurance and CP

Operations processes.


support to organise specific

staff development activities.

Provide training/staff

development on

faculty/school

administrative

processes




12.9.1 Partnership Boards provide a formal arena in which to review the operation and effectiveness of

the partnership, and to review partner institution performance and activities.

12.9.2 Partnership Boards take place minimally twice a year. The venue alternates between the

University and the partner institution. In circumstances agreed by the Head of School, Boards

may take place virtually. In the case of partners based overseas, every effort should be made to

have a Partnership Board on campus of either partner at least once a year and via skype for

other dates. Partnership Boards may be scheduled alongside other partnership meetings such

as Boards of Examiners, Boards of Studies, etc.

12.9.3 Partnership Coordinators are responsible for scheduling and convening Partnership Boards and

are supported by Faculty administrative staff appointed by the Faculty Administrative Manager.

Boards are usually chaired by Heads of School but s/he may nominate a suitable alternate.

12.9.4 Minutes of Partnership Board meetings should be submitted to, and held by, the Academic

Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO). The Director of Collaborative Partnerships will bring

matters to the attention of Collaborative Provision Committee and Faculty Academic Standards &

Quality Committees (FASQCs) as necessary. Minutes should be published on University and

partner portals to ensure staff and, where appropriate, student access.

12.9.4 Membership will typically include:

Relevant Head of School/or nominee (Chair)

Partnership Coordinator

A senior member of staff from Quality and Standards (e.g., Director of Collaborative

Partnerships, Collaborative Partnership Manager, etc.)

Partner Institution Head of Higher Education (or equivalent)

Partner member of staff with responsibility for quality assurance

A member of Partner staff who teaches on University awards

Academic Link Tutor (where possible)

12.9.5 Terms of reference will normally include the following:

a) To review higher education (HE) provision leading to a University award to include the

partner’s HE strategy, development plans, resources and finance;

b) To monitor the quality of student academic experience, utilising available resources including

Annual Monitoring Reports, Boards of Studies minutes, external examiners reports and

student feedback, as appropriate;

c) To discuss and agree any actions arising from quality assurance matters including annual

monitoring, validation, and periodic review and revalidation;

d) To discuss and agree any actions arising from assessment processes;

e) To monitor any actions arising from Partnership Approval, Annual Institutional Review or

Partnership Review,

f) To ensure that effective administrative systems are in place, for example, with regard to

scheduling of provision, admissions, registration, access to resources, assessment, and

transcripts and certificates;

g) To share relevant institutional level developments, and other matters of common interest that

may impact upon the partnership.

12.9.6 Quoracy of Partnership Boards comprises half of all members and should include two members

of staff from each institution.



Section 13: Termination of Collaborative Partnerships



13.2.1 – Terminating Partnerships (University)

13.2.2 – Terminating Partnerships (Partner Institutions)

13.3.0 Suspension and Discontinuation of Courses Delivered by Collaborative Partners

13.4.0 Suspension or Discontinuation as an Outcome of University Review


13.1.1 This section presents the arrangements for the termination of collaborative partnerships.

13.1.2 The University’s arrangements for the termination of collaborative partnerships align with the

QAA UK Quality Code including B8: Programme Monitoring and Review and B10: Managing

Higher Education Provision with Others.


13.2.0.1 The decision to terminate a partnership may be taken by the University or by a collaborative

partner. Partnership termination should always be carried out in line with the terms of the

Partnership Agreement.

13.2.1 Terminating partnerships (University)

13.2.1.1 The University may decide to end a formal partnership for a variety of reasons (for example,

concerns about quality of the provision, changes in strategic direction, or continuing poor

recruitment). The decision may be an outcome of the Annual Business Review process or the

result of a more general evidence-based review of collaborative partnerships.

13.2.1.2 A recommendation to terminate the partnership will be submitted to the University Executive

Committee (UEC). The documentation should outline the rationale for the proposal and provide

supporting evidence.

13.2.1.3 If UEC approves the proposal, the Partnership Coordinator will be asked to liaise with the

Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP) to prepare a plan indicating how the exit will be

managed.

13.2.1.4 The UEC decision will trigger information requests from the Academic Quality and Partnerships

Office (AQPO) regarding cohort numbers and likely completion dates, including retake

opportunities.

13.2.1.5 Following the UEC decision a formal letter, signed by the Vice-Chancellor, will be sent to the

partner institution confirming the decision to terminate the partnership. The letter will make

reference to the effective date at which the partnership ends, taking account of notice periods

where appropriate.

13.2.1.6 As soon as possible after the communication of the decision, there should be a face to face

meeting with the collaborative partner at Deputy Vice-Chancellor/Principal level, or exceptionally,

nominees at a senior level, to confirm the implications of the decision. The meeting will:







Confirm the mutual obligations of the partner and the University;

Confirm final recruitment point(s);

Confirm that the partner institution will communicate the decision to all internal and external

stakeholders and amend marketing communications;

Confirm both parties will cooperate to ensure current applicants are advised of the ending of

the partnership and, where possible provided with guidance on suitable course alternatives;

Confirm both parties will cooperate to ensure existing students are notified in writing and

advised of the ending of the Partnership Agreement;

Confirm a joint commitment to provide all enrolled students with every opportunity to

complete the award as validated;

Confirm agreement by the partner institution to maintain appropriate academic standards for

students remaining on course until the maximum registration date;

Confirm the University’s commitment to share intellectual property rights where the partner

institution wishes to validate existing University provision with a new higher education

awarding body.

13.2.1.7 The meeting will result in a formal record which will be signed by both parties.

13.2.1.8 Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC) and Collaborative Provision Committee

(CPC), via routine procedures for continuing liaison and regular review, will be responsible for

overseeing the closure of the partnership to ensure that students’ learning opportunities are in no

way compromised.

13.2.2 Terminating partnerships (partner institution)

13.2.2.1 Partner institutions will have their own internal procedures for closing a partnership. In such

cases partner institutions must comply with the terms set out in the Partnership Agreement,

which includes ensuring any remaining students are able to complete their studies up to the

maximum registration date.

13.2.2.2 Partners are advised to liaise with the Academic Quality & Partnerships Office (AQPO) and with

relevant faculties via their Partnership Coordinator to ensure that the rationale for the closure is

fully communicated to the University in a timely manner and to continue to work with the

University openly and transparently until all students have completed their studies.

13.3.0 Suspension and Discontinuation of Courses delivered by Collaborative Partners

13.3.1 Further information on the University’s regulations relating to suspension and discontinuation of

courses is provided in AQPH Section 1.

13.3.2 For resource or other reasons a partner institution might take the decision to suspend

recruitment to a course in a particular year. Equally, the University might require suspension of

recruitment. Any such decision by the partner institution should be reported by the principal of

the partner institution (or nominee) to the Partnership Coordinator and recorded at the relevant

Partnership Board. In turn, the Partnership Coordinator should notify any University Academic

Link Tutors and the Director of Collaborative Partnerships.

13.3.3 Courses should not normally be suspended for a period of more than two academic years. At the

end of the second academic year of suspension, the course(s) in question must be re-launched

or be withdrawn. For franchise provision, reinstatement of the arrangement will depend on the

validation status of the University’s course and the partner’s continued ability to appropriately

resource the delivery of the course. For validated provision, partners will need to seek re-



approval via the relevant Faculty Dean(s) and a proposal to the Academic Portfolio Committee

(APC) supported by the Partnership Coordinator

13.3.4 If a collaborative partner intends to discontinue a validated course delivered at their institution,

the principal of the partner institution (or nominee) should notify the Partnership Coordinator who

will ensure that the decision is recorded at the relevant Partnership Board. In turn, the

Partnership Coordinator should notify any University Academic Link Tutors and the Director of

Collaborative Partnerships.

13.3.5 For franchise provision, the decision should be noted at relevant Boards of Studies and recorded

in the relevant Faculty Academic Standards & Quality Committee (FASQC) minutes. For

validated provision, partners should record discontinuation of courses in the Annual Partnership

Monitoring Report. This should then be recorded at Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC)

and notified to APC which has oversight of the University’s portfolio of validated awards.

13.3.6 Whenever a course is to be withdrawn, the partner, in consultation with the Partnership

Coordinator, will be responsible for preparing a plan for the maintenance of the quality of the

student experience during the period of phasing out. The ‘phasing out’ plan will be approved and

monitored by the Partnership Board. FASQCs (for franchise provision) and CPC (for validated

provision) will maintain oversight of phasing-out arrangements.

13.3.7 It is recognised that the plan for safeguarding the quality of provision during the phasing-out

period may require a review and limited extension of the period of validation. This should be

negotiated by the Partnership Coordinator who will report any change to the Director of

Collaborative Partnerships. APC will need to be informed of any changes to validation periods

because this has implications for the academic portfolio. FASQCs via the APC minutes will need

to note any such changes.

13.4.0 Suspension or discontinuation as an outcome of University Review

13.4.1 It is possible that the Periodic Review and Revalidation of a course or a Partnership Review

could reveal concerns about the quality and/or standards of specific provision. In such cases,

Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC) could make a recommendation for action,

which might include suspending further recruitment to, or terminating, the provision. In such

cases, University Executive Committee (UEC) would need to approve the recommendation which

would then be reported to Academic Board.

13.4.2 In such a case, the University’s processes for oversight of provision that is phasing out will come

into operation to safeguard the quality of the experience of students remaining on the course(s).



Glossary

AB Academic Board

ACL Academic Course Leader

ADU Academic Development Unit

AHC Academic Health Check

ALT Academic Link Tutor

APC Academic Portfolio Committee

APR Academic Portfolio Review

AQPH Academic Quality & Partnerships Handbook

AQPO Academic Quality & Partnerships Office (formerly Q&S Team and CPO)

ARC Academic Regulations Committee

ARTP Academic Regulations for Taught Provision

ASQC Academic Standards and Quality Committee

ASL Academic Subject Leader

APL Accreditation of Prior Learning

ACE Annual Course Evaluation

AMR Annual Monitoring Report

ADQS Associate Dean of Quality and Standards

ABE Award Board of Examiners

BoE Board of Examiners

BoS Boards of Studies

CLG Campus Life Group

CA Change of Award form

CEE Chief External Examiner

CDP Collaborative Delivery Plan

CPP Collaborative Partnership Proposal form

CPC Collaborative Provision Committee

CPM Collaborative Provision Manager

CPO Collaborative Provision Office (now AQPO)

CMSR Communications, Marketing and Student Recruitment Department

CPD Continuing Professional Development

CIM Continuous Improvement Monitoring

CL Course Leader

DQS Dean of Quality and Standards

DAE Delivery Approval Event

DCP Director of Collaborative Partnerships

EE2 EE Extension/Amendment Application (to EE Duties)

EE External Examiner

EE1 External Examiner Application



EPM External Panel Member

FASQC Faculty Academic Standards and Quality Committee

FAM Faculty Administration Manager

FDB Faculty Development Board

FHQS Faculty Head of Quality and Standards

FLTC Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee

F&P Finance and Planning Department

HEI Higher Education Institution

HR Human Resources Department

IQA Internal Quality Audit

IDC International Development Committee

IBS International Student Barometer

KIT Keep in Touch meetings

KIS Key Information Set

LTC Learning and Teaching Committee

LIS Library and Information Services Department

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MME Mid-Module Evaluation

MBE Module Board of Examiners

NCTL National College for Teaching and Leadership

NSS National Student Survey

OLV Outreach Learning Venue

PAD Partnership Audit Document

PC Partnership Coordinator

PRR Periodic Review and Revalidation

PRES Postgraduate Research Experience Survey

PTES Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey

PSRB Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body

PAF Programme Approval Form

PAC Programme Approval Form (Collaborative Provision)

PCAP Programme Change Approval Process

QA Quality Assurance

QAA Quality Assurance Agency

R&DC Recruitment and Democracy Coordinator (Students' Union)

SLC Student Life Committee

SULG Students' Union Liaison Group

UEC University Executive Committee

UoG University of Gloucestershire

VLE Virtual Learning Environment



Document Title: Academic Quality & Partnerships Handbook

Document Date: 18 March 2015

Issuing Authority: Academic Standards & Quality Committee

Owner: Associate Deans of Quality & Standards and Director of Collaborative Provision

Updated: 09 December 2015