Code of Practice for Collaborative Provision · 1. The University is responsible for the academic standards of all awards granted in its name. The academic standards of all awards

Code of Practice for Collaborative Provision Code of Practice 12: 2018 Version 02 Effective Date: 1 May 2018

Date Supersedes Description of Change

1 May 2018. 2017 Version. General update.

Document Owner Approved By Date Approved Review Frequency

Quality Assurance and Validation Unit.

Senate Regulations and Special Cases

Committee. 11 April 2018. Every three years.

Note: In exceptional circumstances, and subject to approval by the Chair of the Senate Regulations and Special Cases Committee, responsibilities assigned to Schools, Heads, of

School, School Officers or School Committees in these Regulations may be assumed by the College, Head of College, College Officers or College Committees respectively, as

appropriate.

Code of Practice 12: 2018 Version 02

2

Code of Practice for Collaborative Provision This Code outlines academic provision across institutions for both taught and research programmes.

This Code of Practice is for all award-bearing programmes delivered by the University in collaboration with another institution. It applies to both taught and research programmes. It applies to whole programmes and parts of programmes (e.g. modules). This Code of Practice should be read with:

Code of Practice for Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review. Validation Manual.

Regulations for Taught Programmes. Regulations for Postgraduate Research Programmes. Procedure for Placement Learning. General Regulations for Senate and its Sub-Committees.

Definitions

Collaborative Teaching partnerships are formal arrangements, with one or more institutions, that lead to a Bangor University Award. Under such arrangements, the University is dependent upon the partner(s) for the achievement of programme or module learning outcomes. Teaching partnerships include any collaboration where the partner contributes to the delivery of a programme and/or to the support provided to students. Academic Lead: A permanent member of staff within the University school engaging in the partnership, who will undertake overall responsibility for a programme or programmes and act as liaison between the partner and the University in relation to academic and quality assurance matters. Agreement for Collaborative Academic Programmes: Agreement between the University and the Partner defining the responsibilities and conditions for the programme(s).

Approved Staff: Staff of the partner institution who are approved by the University to deliver parts of a programme and, for research programmes, to supervise and examine students.

Articulation arrangement: An arrangement in which students who successfully complete an approved programme of study in a partner institution are automatically entitled (on academic grounds) to be admitted with advanced standing to a subsequent stage of a programme of a degree-awarding body.

Board of Studies: Committee established in schools, under the University’s regulations, to oversee the school’s policies on admission, portfolio and content of courses, methods of teaching, and assessment.


3

Dual, Double or Multiple Awards: Awards given for a programme that is separately and fully approved by the University and the partner institution(s). Students receive two (or more) awards, one from each institution. Programmes that lead to Dual, Double or Multiple Awards have substantial common elements, but can differ between the University and Partner(s). Programme titles may differ. Programmes involve credit transfer which may be reciprocal.

Externally Validated Programmes: See Validation.

Franchised Programmes: Programmes designed and approved by the University and delivered by another institution, under the University’s regulations, and leading to an award of the University.

Joint Award: An award that is given for a single programme that is jointly approved by a University and a Partner. In such cases the names of both institutions are listed on the certificate.

Joint Programme Board: Board responsible for each franchised programme (or group of cognate programmes) reporting to the school Board of Studies (or equivalent) in each institution.

Management Board: Board responsible for overseeing the ongoing management of a partnership.

Partner: Institution approved by the University that delivers or is involved in the delivery of the collaborative provision. This includes other academic institutions, public sector bodies and private companies. The term ‘Partner’ is used throughout this Code of Practice, however, it is recognised that some partnerships may involve multi-lateral agreements with two or more partners.

Programme Co-ordinator: A permanent member of staff within the University school engaging in the partnership, who will undertake overall responsibility for a programme and act as liaison with the Programme Director and the University school.

Programme Director: The Programme Director will undertake responsibility for all aspects of a programme within the Partner, and should command sufficient authority within the Partner to be able to implement most decisions regarding the programme, its staffing, students, progression and resources.

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

Programme: Programme of study delivered via collaboration between the University and the partner. The programme can be delivered by the Partner within a specific academic and financial framework and subject to contractual obligations. Academic responsibility for content, assessment, quality assurance and standards lies with the University.

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

School: Academic units within the University that lead the collaboration and which have responsibility for it. Some partnerships may involve more than one school or may be at University level.


4

Validation: A process by which the University judges a module or programme developed and delivered by another institution and approves it as being of an appropriate standard and quality to contribute, or lead, to one of its awards. Students normally have a direct contractual relationship with the delivery institution.

Validated Programmes: See Validation.

General Information and Responsibilities

1. The University is responsible for the academic standards of all awards granted in its name. The academic standards of all awards made under a collaborative arrangement must meet the expectations of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education and the Credit and Qualification Framework for Wales.

2. Collaborative provision must normally be in a field in which the University has expertise and comparable programmes, and should involve the relevant school(s) in the University.

The Academic Strategy Group (ASG) is responsible for the overall scrutiny and approval of new teaching partnerships. The External Partnerships Scrutiny Group (EPSG) is responsible for quality, standards and the academic approval of programmes and reports to Senate. The Collaborative Provision Sub-Group is responsible for overseeing the management and progress of approved partnerships, reporting to the Quality Assurance and Validation Task Group. The Teaching Partnerships Office (TPO) is responsible for managing taught collaborative programmes in Category A (see paragraph 20).

3. The University will assure itself that a potential partner institution has the appropriate academic infrastructure and support services to establish and maintain the required standards of quality management and enhancement. The University will conduct, with due diligence, an independent investigation of the good standing of a prospective partner institution, and of their capacity to fulfil their designated role in the arrangement. This will normally be undertaken by the IEC in relation to international partnerships, and by Corporate Communications and Marketing in relation to Home/EU partnerships. Where appropriate this investigation will include the following:

i. The Partner’s financial and academic standing (including, where appropriate, reference to external databases such as NARIC).

ii. Whether the partner has existing collaborations with other UK or overseas partners. Where there are existing collaborations, references may be sought as appropriate.

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

iv. Independent confirmation that the partner institution has the legal capacity to enter into collaboration with the University.

v. For collaboration with an overseas partner, independent confirmation that the University is legally able to deliver, and if relevant, award the programme in the partner’s home country.

vi. Whether there are any ethical considerations.


5

vii. Consultation with the Quality Assurance and Validation Unit about whether what is proposed is compatible with the UK Quality Code for Higher Education or any other relevant quality assurance requirements.

4. The University may approve programmes designed and delivered by another institution (validation). Due to the risks involved, validation will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances for any new partnerships or for existing partnerships where concerns have arisen in relation to quality and standards. The University’s procedures for approving Institutions and programmes are based on the expectation that Institutions will have codified policies and procedures that are consistent with the University’s regulations.

5. Collaborative provision will be subject to the University’s academic regulations or, in the case of Externally Validated programmes, the University’s Validation Manual. Any deviation from the regulations or the Validation Manual must be approved by the Chair of the Senate Regulations and Special Cases Committee.

6. The Quality Assurance and Validation Unit will maintain a publicly available record of all partnerships, and a list of all collaborative programmes operated through those partnerships.

7. The University will inform a professional, statutory and regulatory body (PSRB) which has approved or recognised a programme if there are plans to deliver the programme under a collaborative arrangement. The status of the programme in respect of PSRB recognition must be made clear to prospective students.

8. Third party franchising is not normally permitted. That is, partner institutions do not have the authority to offer collaborative provision under serial arrangements with other institutions. Third party arrangements may be approved by the University under some circumstances, for example, if a partner institution uses specialist placement locations for parts of collaborative programmes.

9. The language of instruction and of all assessed work must normally be Welsh or English, except for subjects where a language is the subject of study.

10. The Head of Quality Assurance is responsible for ensuring that collaborative partnerships are established and monitored in accordance with this Code of Practice and the Validation Manual. The Head of Quality Assurance (or nominee) will advise on procedures and undertake institutional and programme approvals.

11. The Head of Quality Assurance is responsible for recommending approval processes for any partnerships that are outside the set of definitions provided in this Code of Practice. The approval process must be approved by EPSG before the programme is submitted for approval by ASG.

Establishing a Partnership

12. The initiative for a programme may come from the University, partner institution or external agency and may reflect an institutional need, market forces or educational imperative.


6

13. All major or significant prospective partnerships must be led by a member of the Executive (PVC level) assisted by a team that constitutes a specific partnership development group. Major/significant partnerships include, but are not limited to:

A partnership involving a campus, in the UK or overseas, that is developed by, or in co-operation with, the University.

A partnership that involves a single partner but in several distinct locations. A partnership that involves franchised or validated programmes.

14. The educational objectives of a partner institution must be compatible with those of

the University. Partners will preferably be institutions of high standing with a proven reputation, particularly in teaching and/or research.

15. Establishing and maintaining collaborative programmes is a significant undertaking that schools must lead and must commit sufficient resources, including staff time, to ensure that the requirements of this Code of Practice are met. It is a requirement that schools will appoint an Academic Lead to oversee the development of the programme, and its ongoing management. Where the Academic Lead is unable, for whatever reason, to continue with the role in accordance with the University’s expectations, the Head of School will become the Academic Lead until another person is appointed to the role.

16. Any partner from the UK, except where specifically exempted in the collaborative agreement, must be a recognised Tier 4 sponsor in its own right, in order for the University to be assured that the partner is in a position to discharge its obligations to the UKVI.

17. Corporate Communication and Marketing or the International Education Centre must act as the primary contact between the University school and the partner during any preliminary discussions about developing a partnership. Information detailing the full process for approving and establishing a partnership must be provided to schools and the potential partner at an early stage.

18. Schools must be integrally involved in the development of a partnership from the outset and must, working in conjunction with relevant service departments including the Quality Assurance and Validation Unit and the Teaching Partnerships Office, produce a Partnership Management Plan for each partnership in advance of any approval event. Preliminary discussions should not be taken to imply final agreement for a proposal. A checklist of items to be considered at the exploratory stage is provided in Appendix 4.

19. Articulation is the process by which students who have successfully completed an approved programme of study in a partner institution have guaranteed entry onto a linked undergraduate programme in the University. Students will typically complete two or more years of study in the partner institution and then transfer to the University to complete the final 2 years of a programme (for example, a ‘2 + 2’ arrangement). Exceptionally, students may be allowed to directly enter the final year of a University programme. When establishing articulation arrangements, it is important to ensure that the course or modules completed in the partner institution match those that students in the University would complete up to the point of entry.


7

Reference should be made to the programme outcomes listed in the Programme Specification. For certain countries or educational systems, independent evidence may be available that can be used to verify their academic equivalence in terms of credit and level. Transferable and cognitive skills must be considered as well as subject specific skills and knowledge, so that students entering the University are not at a disadvantage. Where the proposed arrangement involves an international partner, the arrangements must also consider how English or Welsh language requirements will be met.

Approval routes for different types of partnership

20. The approval routes for different types of partnership are:

Category Types of Partnership

Category A: Require Strategic Approval (ASG) and Academic Approval (EPSG)

Externally Validated Programmes

Franchised Programmes Joint Programmes (Taught and Research1,) Dual Programmes (Taught and Research) Doctoral Training Centres Any other form of major partnership (for

example, Embedded College)

Category B: Require Academic Approval (EPSG)

Articulation arrangements

Category C: Approved by University Module Approval Process (Code of Practice for Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review )

Collaboration with other HEI(s) to provide taught modules (including provision in Welsh)

Work-based learning modules

Category D: Approved by Head of School (or equivalent)

Joint supervision of research students (where the co-supervisor is from a partner)2

Research conducted at a partner (inc. research and taught postgraduate programmes) 2

Provision of learning support, resources or specialist facilities as a small module component or small part of a research project

Work-based Placements Study abroad (including exchanges and student

mobility)

1 Joint supervision of research programmes (where the co-supervisor is from a partner) and research conducted at a partner (including research and taught postgraduate programmes). 2 If this involves more than one student, in a planned recurring agreement, then see Joint and Dual programmes.


8

Strategic Approval of Partnerships

21. The Academic Strategy Group is responsible for the scrutiny and approval of all new partnerships in Category A. There will be a two-stage approval process, the first being a Preliminary Strategic Approval, followed by a more detailed second stage approval of the Business Plan. ASG reports to the University Executive. The membership of ASG is:

PVC R&I Chair PVC T&L College Deans Student Union Planning and Student Data Office Others – co-opted as and when agenda requires

The terms of reference of ASG are:

To develop academic strategy and activities that will enable the university to plan for and respond to changes in the internal and external environment. To provide academic strategic planning recommendations to the university, including resource implications. To discuss and agree strategic need for new academic programmes. To ensure clear and on-going communications relevant to the group’s activities to the executive, staff, and students. To review Category A agreements.

22. New partnerships Proposals and proposals to renew or amend existing partnerships for consideration by ASG for preliminary strategic approval must include:

Institutional Review and Due Diligence Report (Appendix 2). Risk Assessment Report (Appendix 3). Brief Outline Business case (Appendix 7). Proposals involving international partners must be discussed with, and

approved by, the International Education Centre before they are presented to ASG.

23. For each proposal ASG much choose whether to refer the proposal to the External

Partnership Scrutiny Group (EPSG) for preliminary approval. If a decision is made not to renew an existing partnership, this must be reported to EPSG. A termination agreement must be drawn up in accordance with the original agreement and appropriate arrangements put in place for programmes to be taught out as necessary.

24. Following initial approval from EPSG, ASG will consider the proposal in further detail and will review the following documentation:

• Institutional Review and Due Diligence Report (Appendix 2). • Risk Assessment Report (Appendix 3).


9

• Business plan (see Appendix 7). • Partnership Management Plan (see Appendix 5).

25. For each proposal, ASG must choose one of the following options:

i. Approval with no conditions and refer to EPSG. ii. Approval with conditions, to be completed within six weeks and approved by

the Chair of ASG, before referral to EPSG. iii. Resubmission to ASG (ASG can decide that an Institutional Visit is required

before a proposal is resubmitted to ASG). iv. Reject the proposal.

Academic Approval of Institutions and Programmes

Please note: the procedures for the approval of validated programmes are set out in the Validation Manual.

Stage 1: Consideration by EPSG

26. Programmes approved by ASG and Articulation Agreements must be considered by the External Partnership Scrutiny Group (EPSG). The membership and Terms of Reference of EPSG are specified in the General Regulations for Senate and its Sub-Committees.

27. Proposals for consideration by EPSG must include:

For proposals considered by ASG

o 1st Stage Details of the proposed partner (as a summary of the information provided to ASG, including due diligence report and Partnership Management Plan).

o For Externally Validated, Franchised and Joint programmes: An Initial Programme outline (See Code of Practice for Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review : Strategic Approval Step 4).

o For Dual awards: Descriptions of each component of the programme.

For Articulation Agreements:

o Institutional Review and Due Diligence Report (Appendix 2) . o Risk Assessment Report (Appendix 3). o Details of how the programme completed at the partner institution

(both in terms of credits and level) maps onto those modules that form part of the Bangor programme.

o For proposals involving international partners, confirmation of discussion with the International Education Centre.

28. Representatives from the submitting school may be invited to present their proposals to EPSG.

29. For each proposal, EPSG must choose one of the following options:


10

i. Approval with no conditions (only available for Articulation Agreements). ii. Approval with no conditions and refer the proposal to an Approval Panel. iii. Approval with conditions, to be completed within six weeks and approved by

the Chair of EPSG (only available for Articulation Agreements). iv. Approval with conditions, to be completed within six weeks and approved by

the Chair of EPSG, before referral to an Approval Panel. v. Resubmission to EPSG. vi. Refer the programme to ASG (only available for Articulation Agreements). vii. Reject the programme.

Note: After EPSG has ratified the decision of an Institutional Approval panel then ASG has to pursue formal legal agreement.

Stage 2. Consideration by an Institutional Approval Panel

30. The membership of an Institutional Approval Panel is:

Head of Quality Assurance (or nominee) as Chair. Two academic members of staff. An External Assessor. A secretary chosen by the Chair.

A student representative.

The membership of an Institutional Approval Panel may be amended at the discretion of EPSG.

31. The Institutional Approval Panel must consider the Institution’s governance,

management, resources, services, and quality assurance arrangements, along with the intended arrangements to be put in place by the University to ensure that the partnership can be managed effectively. The Chair of an Institutional Approval Panel will specify, in advance of the visit, the documentation required, the resources the panel will wish to view, and the teaching staff or senior managers it will wish to meet. These can include:

Partnership Management Plan. Mission statement. Self-evaluation with regard to the delivery of Higher Education programmes. Governance and structure (including the committee(s) responsible for quality

assurance). Financial standing. Legal status. Procedures and policies for quality assurance & enhancement.

Regulations and procedures, including: o Admission of students o Appeals and complaints procedures o Unfair practice procedure o Academic regulations o Health and safety o Appointment and role of External Examiners


11

o Annual and periodic review of programmes. Staff profile and staff development.

Outcome of external reviews. Student feedback. Student support services and pastoral care.

32. The Institutional Approval Panel must recommend one of the following options for

ratification by EPSG:

i. Approve Institution with no conditions. ii. Approve Institution with minor conditions. iii. Approve Institution with conditions to be fulfilled before the Panel’s report is

submitted for approval by the Panel Chair. iv. Reject the application by Institution and inform the Institution of the

reasons, giving an indication of whether the University will/will not consider future applications.

v. Reject the application by Institution and inform the Institution, without specifying the reasons, indicating that the University will not consider future applications.

Stage 3. Consideration by a Programme Approval Panel

33. EPSG must decide whether a Programme Approval Panel is required. EPSG may decide that it is not necessary to establish a Panel for programmes that have already been approved by the University or for Dual awards.

34. The Programme Approval Panel must consider any new taught programmes, based on Programme Specifications, as specified in Code of Practice for Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review – Procedure for Approval Panels.

The Programme Approval Panel must choose one of the following:

i. Unconditional Approval. ii. Approval with minor modifications to be approved by the Chair of the

Approval Panel. iii. Conditional Approval subject to specified conditions and recommendations to

be approved by the Chair of the Approval Panel and the External Subject Specialist.

iv. Refer back to the school and/or partner. v. Rejection.

Under ii and iii, the Panel must specify when the revisions have to be completed.

Agreement Documentation and Termination

35. An Agreement for Collaborative Academic Programmes must be signed between the University and the partner(s), setting out the rights and obligations of all parties. The terms of the Agreement for Collaborative Academic Programmes must be discussed and agreed during the programme development phase. Agreements must be approved and signed on behalf of the University as shown below:


12

Category Person authorised to sign the agreement1

Category A:

Chair of ASG

Category B:

Chair of EPSG

Category C: Collaboration with other HEI(s) to

provide taught modules (including provision in Welsh)

Work-based learning modules

Approved and signed by the Head of

School2

As defined by the Procedure for Placement Learning

Category D: Joint supervision of a research

students (where the co-supervisor is from a partner)

Research conducted at a partner (including research and taught postgraduate programmes)

Provision of learning support, resources or specialist facilities.as a small module component or small part of a research project

Work-based Placements

Study abroad (including exchanges and student mobility)


School

Approved and signed by the Head of School


School



1 Agreements may also be signed by the Vice-Chancellor (or nominee). 2 The agreement template provided by The Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol can be used.

36. Where the partnership is supported by external grant funding, the agreement may be replaced by the completed grant application signed by both parties.

37. The Agreement for Collaborative Academic Programmes must include:

The term of the agreement. Any conditions pertinent to a particular programme, including aims,

academic structure, professional requirements, resources and staffing. A detailed fee schedule.


13

The conditions under which termination can occur.

The Agreement for postgraduate research students must also include:

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

Details of the intended programme of work. The curriculum vitae or details of the relevant qualifications of the local

supervisor. In the case of Dual and Joint awards the student must have a designated supervisor in each partner.

A statement by the head of the partner, or other person with appropriate authority, confirming that the student will be provided with necessary facilities as required during the study period.

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

38. If an agreement is terminated, the University and the Partner must enter into a Termination Agreement that sets out the responsibilities and rights of both institutions and of students enrolled on programmes. The Termination Agreement must include the steps necessary to safeguard the interests of existing students, including offering alternative programmes where appropriate.

Management of Collaborative Programmes in Category A

39. All Teaching collaborative programmes in Category A are managed on behalf of the University by the Teaching Partnerships Office (TPO). Management Boards for each overseas partner will also be established which will meet regularly with the partner to manage and monitor the relationship. The Management Board’s membership will include representatives from the partner institution, and representatives from the University, including the PVC Teaching and Learning; Head of Quality Assurance; Head of Teaching Partnership Office; Academic Leads; Moderators; Students’ Union.

40. The Planning and Student Data Office will assist with the arrangements to present management type accounts for each teaching partnership in Category A that include all costs (direct expenditure and indirect associated costs). Targets, including financial monitoring, for each collaborative programme, or group of programmes, are overseen by ASG.

41. The academic standards in all collaborative programmes must be overseen by a school Board of Studies. The Board of Studies can assign responsibility to sub-groups:

Externally Validated Programmes:

Responsibility is assigned to Board of Studies managed by the Partner in accordance with the Validation Manual


14

Franchised Programmes:

Responsibility is assigned to a Joint Programme Board, specifically constituted for each programme (or group of cognate programmes). The Joint Programme Board will consist of:

Chair: Head of School (or nominee).

At least 2 members of academic staff from the University. At least 2 members of academic staff from the Partner. TPO representative.

The Joint Programme Board may co-opt one or two members to represent users/clients and practice. It is recommended that the Joint Programme Board also has a student representative. If the Joint Programme Board does not have a student representative, the Board must have mechanisms to obtain student feedback. All meetings of the Board will be minuted, and a record held by the Bangor University school. Meetings may be held by video conference.

The Joint Programme Board will:

i. Report to the relevant school/department’s Board of Studies (or equivalent) in each institution.

ii. Meet at appropriate times during the academic year, and at least 3 times. iii. Monitor the Annual and Quinquennial Reviews and the administration of

quality assurance procedures. iv. Consider all proposed modifications in content, programme delivery,

assessment framework, progression and staffing. v. Assist in setting targets for recruitment and in ensuring that student welfare

and resource implications are properly addressed.

The Terms of Reference for the Joint Programme Board are:

i. To manage the operation and quality of the programme. ii. To oversee applications, admissions and recruitment procedures. iii. To oversee the development of the programme and determine

improvements that can be made. iv. To consider end of module reports and determine appropriate actions. v. To consider an annual review of the programme and periodic institutional

reviews of the programme. vi. To make recommendations for minor amendments, as educationally

appropriate, to the programme of study. vii. To consider issues raised by student feedback and by the Student-Staff

Liaison Committee and to agree appropriate actions. viii. To consider and respond to comments made by External Examiners and

agree recommendations for appropriate action. ix. To consider education and quality issues raised by module teams. x. To advise the committee(s) that it reports to (in the two institutions) on the

above and other matters as applicable.


15

xi. To assure and oversee the immediate quality of the course in terms of teaching and learning, student experience and outcomes, linking to existing standards for teaching quality in both institutes.

Joint and Dual awards for taught programmes:

Responsibility is assigned to a sub-group of the Board of Studies consisting of representatives from the school and from each/all partners.

Joint and Dual awards for research programmes:

Responsibility assigned to a Boards of Examiners as specified in the University’s Regulations for Postgraduate Research Programmes.

Other (e.g. embedded colleges):

Responsibility assigned in accordance with the arrangements determined at the time of approval. Such arrangements must be approved by the Collaborative Provision Sub Group.

Management of Collaborative Programmes in Category B (Articulation Agreements)

42. Collaborative programmes in Category B are managed on behalf of the University by the International Education Centre. The International Education Centre will coordinate liaison between the University school and the partner institution to ensure that the University’s requirements continue to be met.

43. Schools are responsible for supporting students from the partner institution during the transition period.

Management of Collaborative Programmes in Category C

44. Schools are responsible for managing collaborative programmes in Category C in accordance with the University’s Regulations for Taught Programmes and the Procedure for Placement Learning.

Management of Collaborative Programmes in Category D

45. Schools are responsible for managing programmes that involve:

Joint supervision of a research students (where the co-supervisor is from a partner).

Research conducted at a partner (including research and taught postgraduate programmes).

Provision of learning support, resources or specialist facilities as a small module component or small part of a research project.

Work-based placements.

46. Collaborative programmes in Category D must be managed in accordance with the University’s Regulations for Taught Programmes, the Regulations for Postgraduate Research programmes and the Procedure for Placement Learning.


16

47. The Bangor supervisor must maintain regular contact with research students by email, video conferencing or other electronic means for students based overseas. Students must be made aware of the standards and procedures for the conduct of research in the Partner. They must also be made aware of how to seek guidance and assistance where necessary and procedures for reporting concerns or irregularities.

48. Research students must comply with the legal and ethical requirements defined by the University and in the countries where the research is conducted. Similarly students based abroad who are enrolled for a research programme of the University must comply with the UK’s legal and ethical requirements as well as those of their own country. Any plans for students to undertake study overseas must take into account the relevant Foreign and Commonwealth Office guidelines for travellers abroad and follow the University’s normal health and safety guidelines.

49. The International Education Centre, working with schools, is responsible for the administration of international placements (including university exchanges, work placements and other forms of student mobility). Where an international placement is part of a programme (for example, programmes leading to awards ‘with International Experience’), the activities must be as defined in the Programme Specification. For all international placements, the activities (including a list of taught modules where appropriate) must be approved by a student’s school and by the International Education Centre. All activities must be planned and conducted in accordance with the Procedure for Placement Learning. Students must apply for international placements using forms available from the International Education Centre. Where the placement is supported by external sponsorship managed by the IEC (e.g. Erasmus+), the University will ensure that it has a record that the student has acknowledged receipt of the grant and full details of the placement location and contact details. The International Education Centre is jointly responsible with schools for providing students with relevant information about international placements; this must include academic requirements, health and safety, finance, and cultural assimilation. The IEC will receive evidence from the Host Institution to confirm student achievement and, if relevant for grant purposes, duration of attendance. Schools will liaise directly with students to confirm attendance.

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

Confirmation of Personal Details. Erasmus+ Application Form (if relevant). Erasmus+ Grant Agreement (if relevant). Flight/Travel Details.

Health & Safety Checklist. Learning Agreement (for study placements). Study/Work Abroad Agreement. Training Agreement (for work placements).


17

Quality Assurance, Review and Renewal of Approval of Collaborative Programmes

50. Schools’ Board of Studies are responsibility for the quality and academic standards of collaborative programmes.

51. The University’s internal quality audit process must include scrutiny of collaborative provision.

52. Agreements for Collaborative Academic Programmes in Category A and Category B must be reviewed after three years and then every five years by ASG and EPSG respectively. Agreements for Collaborative Academic Programmes in Categories C and D must be reviewed every 5 years by academic schools and where appropriate by the International Education Centre.

53. For taught programmes in Category A, the Programme Director (or equivalent) must present the External Examiner’s report and an Annual Review and Development Plan (QA1 form) to the Board of Studies or to the Joint Programme Board. The QA1 forms and External Examiner reports must be sent to the Quality Assurance and Validation Unit for consideration by the Quality Assurance and Validation Task Group.

54. Taught programmes in Category A must be reviewed within 3 years of initial approval and every five years thereafter in order for renewal of approval to be granted. For partnerships consisting of validated programmes, the relevant procedures for renewal of approval are set out in the Validation Manual. For other taught programmes under Category A, following approval in principle from the ASG, EPSG must be provided with a proposal to renew approval, with details including:

A list of programmes currently delivered by the partner (with any proposed changes).

Details of any new programmes the partner wishes to introduce. Reports from Moderators (if applicable). Reports from External Examiners.

Feedback from Professional Bodies. Summary information on student numbers and completion rates. Details of any matters of concern relating to the partnership as recorded by

the Quality Assurance and Validation Task Group. Details of any matters considered by the Teaching and Learning Task Group.

A methodology for re-approval must be prepared by the Head of Quality Assurance or nominee, and presented to EPSG.

55. EPSG must choose one of the following options:

i. Approve the proposal. ii. Request additional information. iii. Reject the proposal.

If a proposal is rejected, under iii above, the University must inform the Institution and arrange for a Termination Agreement to be drafted and signed.

56. If EPSG approves the proposal, an Institutional Re-approval Panel must be arranged as for initial approval, described in paragraph 30 above. Subject to any alternative


18

arrangements as may be agreed by EPSG, the Panel will normally be held at the partner institution, though if necessary the Panel may also meet with relevant persons involved with the partnership at Bangor University.

57. The Chair of the Institutional Re-approval Panel will specify, in advance of the visit, the documentation required, the resources the panel will wish to view, and the teaching staff or senior managers it will wish to meet. The documentation may include the documents for initial approval as listed in paragraph 31, as well as the documents presented to EPSG with the proposal to renew approval as described in paragraph 55.

58. The Panel will consider:

• The overall development of the programme. • Academic standards and quality of teaching. • Compliance with Bangor University’s policies and procedures. • Student demand. • Application numbers and admission standards. • Physical resources. • Learning resources. • Student progression and employability. • Staffing, including staff development and training. • Student support and pastoral care. • Assessment and feedback. • Enhancement. • Student representation. • Effectiveness of management and administrative arrangements. • Accuracy of published information. • Any other relevant factors as may be determined by the panel.

59. The Institutional Re-approval Panel must recommend one of the following options for ratification by EPSG:

i. Approval of Institution to be renewed with no conditions. ii. Approval of Institution to be renewed with minor conditions. iii. Approval of Institution to be renewed with conditions to be fulfilled before the

Approval Panel’s report is submitted for approval by the Panel Chair. iv. Approval of Institution to be reconsidered and Panel to be reconvened. v. Approval of Institution to be discontinued.

After the visit, the Panel secretary must prepare a report for approval by the Panel Chair. The report must be submitted to the External Partnership Scrutiny Group and the Quality Assurance and Validation Task Group.

If approval is to be reconsidered, under option iv above, the Panel must be reconvened within 3 months of the original Panel meeting and at least 1 month before the current agreement expires. A Panel must only chose option iv if there is enough time:


19

For the Institution to address the issues raised by the Panel and For the Institution to meet any conditions specified by the Reconvened panel

and For a new agreement to be put in place.

If a Panel chooses option [iv], it must identify the areas of concern and specify matters it requires the Institution to change/improve.

If approval is to be discontinued, under option [v] above, the University must inform the Institution and arrange for a Termination Agreement to be drafted and signed.

60. The monitoring, institutional oversight and feedback mechanisms for the various types of partnership are:

Category Monitoring, institutional oversight and feedback mechanisms

Category A:

External Examiner Reports

Annual Monitoring Reports (for Taught Programmes – QA1s and QA2s)

Monitoring reports (for research students)

Approval and revalidation reports Moderator Reports (for Externally Validated Programmes) Joint Boards of Studies (for Dual Programmes – Taught) Joint Programme Boards (for Franchised Programmes) Internal Quality Audits (for schools involved with Franchised

Programmes and Joint Programmes) Joint examination arrangements (for Dual Programmes – Research)

Category B:

Internal Quality Audits

Marks obtained by students in Bangor Partner required to inform BU of any major changes to curriculum. Annual procedure to check that programme in partner still meets

university requirements.

Category C:

External Examiner reports QA2 forms Internal Quality Audits PRSB’s where appropriate

Category D:

External Examiner reports QA2 forms (for modules)

Internal Quality Audits PRSB’s where appropriate Monitoring reports (for research students) External Examiner reports (for research students)


20

Changes to Programmes

61. No major changes may be made to modules or programmes without the prior approval of the University Board of Studies or, for franchised provision, the Joint Programme Board. The minor changes that can be authorised by Boards of Studies or Joint Programme Boards are as described in Code of Practice for Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review.

62. Any changes to programmes or modules that cannot be authorised by Boards of Studies or Joint Programme Boards must be submitted for approval as specified in paragraph 20.

63. Where approved amendments affect students currently enrolled on a programme, the agreement of those students should be obtained before implementing the amendment. Any significant changes to a programme should be notified to prospective students who have received an offer of a place but have yet to register.

64. Copies of the amended and approved Student Handbook, incorporating all approved changes, must be forwarded to the University by the partner institution on an annual basis prior to the beginning of the academic year.

Information for Students

65. Students enrolled on a collaborative programme must be provided with information about the procedures for complaints and appeals, making clear the channels through which they can contact the University.

66. The school will be responsible for monitoring the information given by the partner institution to prospective students and those enrolled on a collaborative programme, including information provided in the Student Handbook and on the partner institution’s web site and Virtual Learning Environment.

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

Appeals, Complaints and Academic Misconduct

68. Appeals must be considered under the University’s appeals procedure. For Externally Validated Programmes, the partner’s appeals procedure must be used, as described in the Validation Manual.

69. Complaints by students about the course, the standard of teaching, facilities or other relevant matter, will be considered under the University’s complaints procedures, or, for Externally Validated programmes, the partner’s procedure. For all programmes, an attempt must be made to resolve the complaint informally. If a student is unhappy with the way a complaint has been considered by a partner institution, a complaint can be submitted to the University’s Regulations, Complaints and Appeals Officer.

70. The partner institution must maintain a record of all complaints and appeal made by students and of their outcome.


21

Certificates

71. The University has sole authority for awarding certificates and transcripts relating to the programmes of study leading to its awards. The only exception is that partners may produce transcripts for students on Externally Validated programmes or joint or dual award programmes subject to the prior agreement of the University.

Conferment

72. Subject to approval by the University, partners may make arrangements for a ceremony at which certificates are presented. Arrangements for attending the University’s graduation ceremony will be included in individual agreements with partners.

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

74. Graduates should wear the appropriate academic dress in accordance with the University’s policies.

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

Publicity Material

76. The University, in accordance with its Scheme of Published Information, will ensure that it has effective control over the accuracy of all public information, publicity and promotional activity relating to its collaborative provision, by requiring all such information etc. to be approved by the school or whoever is responsible under the terms of the relevant agreement. The school or the relevant person will be responsible for monitoring such publicity. Where publicity is produced in a language other than Welsh or English, a translation must be provided to the school or relevant person.


22

Appendix 1

The management of collaborative programmes in Category A must include:

Approved Staff

Staff engaged in delivering or supporting a collaborative programme must be appropriately qualified for their role, and the partner institution must have effective measures to monitor and assure the proficiency of such staff. Approved Staff may be entitled to borrowing membership of the University Library and access to its other electronic information sources. Any arrangements to permit access will be discussed and agreed as part of the agreement between the University and the Partner. The University school responsible for a Programme must verify annually that all members of the partner institution team who are engaged in delivering or supporting a collaborative programme are suitably qualified, fully conversant with the operational details of the programme(s) of study, including assessment requirements, syllabi, timetables, facilities and the style and level of teaching and learning expected on the programme(s). An up-to-date list of staff approved to teach on the approved programme will be maintained by the University school. No member of staff may teach on the programme unless approved and formally listed.

Admissions Admissions arrangements including those for Recognition of Prior Learning must comply with the University’s Admissions Policy (Policy and Code of Practice for Student Recruitment and Admissions (Admissions Policy)) and the University’s Regulations for Taught Programmes. Admissions criteria must be defined in the Programme Specifications for taught programmes. For Joint and Dual awards the admission requirements must be agreed in advance and detailed in the partnership agreement.

Schools must ensure that any requirements or opportunities to undertake study away from Bangor are clearly identified in publicity material. Students who will be required to undertake a period of research in a partner institution must be informed of this at the time when an offer of admission is made. They must receive details of the programme including financial implications for themselves, where they will be based, the period(s) involved and arrangements for local supervision.


23

Supervision (Research Programmes)

Students will normally be allocated two named supervisors, one in the University and one in the partner. It is expected that the supervisors will have been identified by the time the offer of admission is made. Regular contact with the Bangor supervisor may be by e-mail, video conferencing or other electronic means for students based overseas. The supervisor in the partner must be appropriately qualified and have a good understanding of the student’s area of research. Students must be made aware of the standards and procedures for the conduct of research in the Partner. They must also be made aware of how to seek guidance and assistance where necessary and procedures for reporting concerns or irregularities.

Legal, ethical and travel guidance (Research Programmes)

When conducting research in other countries or working with an overseas collaborator, research students must comply with the legal and ethical requirements defined by the University and in the countries where the research is conducted. Similarly students based abroad who are enrolled for a research programme of the University must comply with the UK’s legal and ethical requirements as well as those of their own country.

Any plans for students to undertake study overseas must take into account the relevant Foreign and Commonwealth Office guidelines for travellers abroad and follow the University’s normal health and safety guidelines.

Study periods Students on Joint or Dual programmes must be fully briefed prior to moving between institutions. This should include full details of the work the student is expected to complete and local supervisory arrangements. The briefing should also include details of travel, health and safety arrangements and local cultural or other norms that the student might be expected to adhere to.

Assessment of students on Taught Programmes

The regulations that apply to each Programme must be defined in the Programme Specification. For taught programmes, other than for credit gained at a partner institution in Dual awards, all forms of assessment must be conducted as specified in the University’s Regulations for Taught Programmes. For Franchised Programmes, The Board of Examiners will be chaired by the Head of the relevant University school (or nominee) or by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor T&L (or nominee). The Board of Examiners will also include the Director, the Programme


24

Co-ordinator, and all members of the teaching team. All assessment results for progression at Level 4 and Level 5 must be submitted to the Chair of the relevant University Senate Board of Examiners for approval. All assessment results for final awards at Level 4, 5, 6, and 7 should be reported to, and considered by, the University school’s Board of Examiners to confirm that students have met the criteria for University awards. Boards of Examiners for Joint and Dual awards will be established as defined by the University’s regulations. Partners should be represented at Boards of Examiners, but, in accordance with the regulations, sub-committees may be established with representation from the University and partner and with specific responsibility for the collaborative programme.

Examination of students on Research Programmes

Research programmes must be examined as specified in the Regulations for Postgraduate Research Programmes unless agreed otherwise, in which case the arrangements must be set out in the agreement and approved by the Chair of the Senate Regulations and Special Cases Committee. This is especially important in the case of Joint and Dual awards where the procedures that normally operate in the partner may be different to those that operate in Bangor University. This applies in particular, to the precise nature of the thesis defence and the procedures to be followed after the examination, for example in relation to corrections that are required.

Generic skills training (Research Programmes)

It is the responsibility of the Head of School (or nominee) to identify the training needs of individual students and how they are met. Wherever possible, students spending part of their registration period in a partner institution should still complete generic skills training in the normal way. Where the length of the student’s period of study away from Bangor precludes this it is the responsibility of the Head of School (or nominee) to ensure that equivalent measures are in place.

External Examining Arrangements

External examining procedures for collaborative programmes must be consistent with the University’s normal practices, as set out in the Codes of Practice for External Examiners. The University is responsible for the appointment, payment and functions of external examiners. The recruitment and selection of external examiners must be as specified in the Codes of Practice for External Examiners. External examiners of collaborative programmes will receive briefing and guidance from the University’s Quality Assurance and Validation Unit, sufficient for them to fulfil their role effectively.


25

External Examiners for collaborative programmes will report directly to the University. Copies of the External Examiners’ reports will be forwarded to the partner institution and made available to students.


26

Appendix 2: Institutional Review and Due Diligence Report

An Institutional Review and Due Diligence Report enables the University to confirm that the proposed Partner institution is, prima facie, compatible in mission and sufficiently financially sound to support the collaborative activity. This is needed for forming the following types of partnerships: MoU, Exchange, Study Abroad, Articulation, Validation, Franchise, Dual or Joint Degree Programmes. The following information may be prepared by relevant academic schools or the International Partnership Office (IPO), and signed by relevant staff in IEC and relevant Head of Schools. (Signatures from schools may not be necessary if the proposed partnership is at the Institutional level.) The Report must be submitted to the Academic Strategy Group (ASG) and External Partnership Scrutiny Group (EPSG) together with an Institutional Risk Assessment Form and a Business Plan (not necessary for MoU, Exchange, Study Abroad and Articulations). The draft Agreement may be submitted at the same time or at a later stage.

1. Partner General Information

Name of Institution

Address

Website

Academic Unit involved in this collaboration

Lead contact for this collaboration in partner institution

Name

Title

Email

Telephone

Address if different from above

Type of Institution (please tick)

University FE College Other – please specify

Legal Status (please tick) Publicly funded Private Charitable

Range of awards offered (please tick one or more)

Sub Honours degree Up to Honours degree Up to Masters degree Research Degrees

Total student numbers Undergraduate Postgraduate

Total number of staff Academic


27

Brief profile of academic staff, e.g. percentage of Professors, staff with PhD qualification

Administration

Existing links and nature of the links with other UK HEI’s if any

Courses currently offered in the broad area by the institution

National and international reputation of the institution General ranking, subject specific ranking, QA rating etc. if available

1. Are there any aspects of this prospective partnership arrangement that require further consideration from a UKVI perspective e.g. non-standard delivery, contact hours, compulsory placements etc?

Yes / No (please delete as appropriate) If ‘Yes’ please complete Question 2.

2. Please elaborate and explain:

- What aspects need

consideration? - Have the requirements of

the UKVI Tier 4 Student Visa policy been considered in consultation with the Governance and Compliance team?

- What are the conclusions? - Have the conclusions been

signed-off / approved? - By whom?

If the answer to Q1 is ‘Yes’ and Q2 has been completed, a copy of this form should be sent to the Head of Governance and Compliance.


28

2. Resources at Partner Institution

Please list the names and qualifications of the key staff in the partner who will be involved in teaching and assessment in the programme

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

Please confirm that the partner has adequate library, ICT, laboratory and other physical resources to deliver the programme

3. Proposed Collaboration Programme(s)

Type of Collaboration(s) (please tick one or more)

MoU

Exchange

Study Abroad

Articulation

Dual degree

Joint degree

Validation

Franchise

Other, please specify

Programme(s) Involved Please specify the name and type of award. If articulation, NARIC comparability

Brief Description of the Proposed Arrangement. Please explain how the collaboration will work

Rationale for the Development Please explain how the collaboration fits with the strategic development plans of the school and how it will benefit the University and the partner.

Forecast Number of Students

Proposed Starting Date

Source of Funding (Please tick one or more)

Fees HEFCW funded numbers Other


29

4. Host School in Bangor University

Proposing School(s)

Lead Contact(s) at School(s)

Name

Title

Email & Extension

Proposed date of first student intake

5. IEC

Lead Contact at IEC

Name

Title

Email & Extension

Author of this Report

Date

6. Any Other Relevant Information

IEC Signature: Staff Name: Title: Date: Head of School Signature: Head of School Name: School: Date: More head of schools can be asked to sign if more schools are involved in the partnership.


30

Appendix 3: Risk Assessment Form

A Risk Assessment Form is a complement paper to the Due Diligence Report which is needed for forming the following types of partnerships: MoU, Exchange, Study Abroad, Articulation, Validation, Franchise, Dual or Joint Degree Programmes. The Form may be prepared by relevant academic schools or the International Partnership Office (IPO), and signed by relevant staff in IEC and relevant Head of Schools. (Signatures from schools may not be necessary if the proposed partnership is at the Institutional level.) The Report must be submitted to the Academic Strategy Group (ASG) and External Partnership Scrutiny Group (EPSG) together with an Institutional Review and Due Diligence Report.

Partner Institution: Proposed Partnership Type: (If this is a MoU only, please complete form 1, otherwise form 2) Proposed Programme and Award: Relevant School(s): Head of School Signature(s): Author of the Report: Signature: Date: _______________________________________________________________________________


31

Form 1 0-5 = Low Risk 6-9 = Medium Risk 10+ = High Risk

Risk Area Criteria Level Score

Partner’s Status University offering taught and research degrees, international standing

0

University offering taught and research degrees

1

University or College offering taught degrees only

2

Publicly funded FE College 2

Private College or organisation 3

Potential Collaboration projects with BU (If it is more than one types of collaboration, then select the highest risk level)

Joint research including staff exchange 0

Student exchange and/or study abroad 1

Pathway and/or Articulation 1

Dual degree 2

Franchise 2

Validation 3

Partner’s collaboration with other UK HEI’s

Partner has experience of collaborating at this level with research led UK HEI’s

1

Partner has experience of collaborating at a lower or similar level with new UK HEI’s

2

No experience of collaborating with any UK HEI’s

3

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

1

Medium or small institution (<10,000 students), generally well resources

2

Limited resources 3

Total


32

Form 2: Proposed Programme and Award: 12-15 Low Risk 16-22 = Medium Risk 23+ = High Risk

Risk Area Criteria Level Score

Partner’s Status University offering taught and research degrees, international standing

0

University offering taught and research degrees

1

University or College offering taught degrees only

2

Publicly funded FE College 2

Private College or organisation 3

Role of Partner Support centre only & teaching provided by Bangor staff

1

Teaching provided by a combination of Bangor and partner staff

2

Teaching delivered by partner with Bangor staff limited support

3

Partner’s expertise in this area

Partner has established programmes at this level of award

1

Partner has established programmes at a level immediately below the planned level of award

2

Other 3

Partner’s collaboration with other UK HEI’s

Partner has experience of collaborating at this level with research led UK HEI’s

1

Partner has experience of collaborating at a lower or similar level with new UK HEI’s

2

No experience of collaborating with any UK HEI’s

3

Expertise of staff in the partner institution

Most of the partner staff who will be involved in the delivery of the programme have relevant expertise at a level above the level of award

1

Most of the partner staff who will be involved in the delivery of the programme have relevant expertise at the level of award

2

Some of the partner staff who will be involved in the delivery of the programme have relevant expertise at a level lower than the level of the award.

3

Staff has little relevant expertise 4

Bangor school’s experience of

School has prior experience of collaborative provision

1


33

collaborative provision

None 3

Programme This programme or similar programme is provided by the Bangor school

1

New programme in an established curriculum area

2

New programme in a curriculum area not currently available in Bangor

3

Qualification Undergraduate or sub-degree 3

Masters 2

PhD 1

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

1

Medium or small institution (<10,000 students), generally well resources

2

Limited resources 3

Professional body recognition

None 1

Course requires professional body recognition

3

Total


34

Appendix 4: Establishment of Collaborative provision – Flowchart of process

Text in bold is the documentation that is required at each stage of the process.

Expression of Interest

Preliminary Strategic Approval by ASG

International Education Centre/School

Institutional Review and Due Diligence Report

Outline Business Plan

Risk Assessment Report

Programme Outline

Reject

External Partnership

Scrutiny Group Reject

Institutional Visit

Programme Approval Panel

Refer Back

Reject

Agreement

Completed and signed* Establish Joint

Programme Board

Promotion of programme

and recruitment

External Partnership

Scrutiny Group Reject

Strategic Approval by ASG

Business Plan, Due Diligence &

Programme Outlines

Reject


35

Appendix 5: Checklist for Schools to be used when developing arrangements for collaborative programmes

The following checklist is intended to assist schools when they are developing arrangements to deliver a programme in collaboration with a partner institution. It does not have to be submitted to a University committee. However, consideration of it will assist schools when preparing the formal documentation required by the University.

Developing a collaborative programme will normally involve often complex and lengthy discussions with staff at the partner institutions and within the University. Such discussions should take part prior to the programme being submitted for approval. Where appropriate consideration has not been paid to academic, financial, operational and quality assurance issues, a proposal is likely to be referred back to the school for further work.

Schools should also be aware that, once established, the collaborative programme remains their responsibility. Hence, when considering such arrangements, they must be prepared to commit sufficient time and staff resources to it, to ensure that quality assurance and enhancement requirements are met.

Programme development

1. What is the rationale for developing this programme?

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

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

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

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

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

Academic content and delivery

7. Where will the programme be delivered?

8. Is it full time or part time?

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

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

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

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

13. Who will be responsible for preparing assessments?

14. Who will be responsible for marking and for moderating marks?


36

Admission requirements

15. What will the entry requirements be?

16. How will admissions be processed?

Resources

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

18. Are the teaching rooms suitably equipped?

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

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

Course Management

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

a) in the partner?

b) in the University?

22. Which institution (University or partner) will be responsible for the different functions during the annual life-cycle of the programme including publicity, selection of students, admission, enrolment and registration, maintenance of student records, provision of ratified results, issuing of certificates and transcripts?

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

24. What arrangements will be put in place in order to ensure accuracy of published information?

Student support

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

26. How will students on the course provide feedback to the University school?

Funding arrangements

(Schools should discuss the funding arrangements with the Planning and Student Data Office in the first instance).

27. How will funding flow from the University to the partner or from the partner to the University?

28. What fees will students pay and to whom?

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


37

Appendix 6: Partner documentation

Documentation to support the establishment of a collaborative arrangement Any collaborative arrangement must meet the requirements that are detailed elsewhere in this Code of Practice. This appendix lists those documents or information that a potential partner is required to supply in support of the application. Partner institution information

Institutional aims or Mission statement

Prospectus Student handbook Details of collaboration with other UK HEI’s

Regulations, policies and procedures

Procedures for admission and selection of students.

Procedures for detecting plagiarism and for dealing with unfair practice in general. Academic regulations for the programme(s) under consideration including

procedures for assessment, re-assessment, progression and award. Procedures for dealing with complaints. Health and safety policy. Policies relating to equal opportunities and diversity. Policies relating to students with disabilities.

Quality assurance and enhancement

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

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

In the case of research programmes, procedures for annual monitoring of progress. Procedures for obtaining feedback from students. Reports of relevant reviews by external or public sector review bodies. Professional development opportunities for staff.

Student support services

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

Tutorial or other support systems.


38

Appendix 7: Business Plan

The Planning and Student Data Office can support schools with the production of the Business Plan.

For the purposes of gaining preliminary strategic approval and outline business case should be presented including the potential size and scope of the partnership; indication of the likely fees, income and costs.

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

1. University Strategic Priorities

The University’s strategic Plan is available online: https:/www.bangor.ac.uk/planning/strategic-plan

Outline of how the programme will contribute to the University’s strategic priorities in relation to an ‘An International University’; proposals will not necessarily be expected to contribute to all priorities.

How will the partnership operate?

2. Market Context

Who are current competitors and how will this offer distinguish itself from the market place?

What are the relevant student recruitment trends? (various analyses available from the Planning and Student Data Office)

What marketing position or quality profile does the University occupy in this specific subject area? (e.g. League table information which the Planning and Student Data Office can provide, research profile, or relevant links with specific employers, associations etc.)

3. Marketing Strategy

How will the course reach its target market? Who are the target students; what career paths might this be an attractive course for?

Will the course require any specific or differing marketing activities?

Responsibilities for marketing clearly identified between the University and Partner?

4. Income/Costs and Resource Requirements

This section just needs to provide narrative to demonstrate that the requirements have been thought through; assistance will be provided by the Planning and Student


39

Data Office to populate an appendix which will outline the costs associated with any additional resources and advice will be provided re: costing of staff etc.

What level of student recruitment is likely to be achievable?

Funding arrangements (e.g. grant and/or fee income) Is grant funding split with the partner? Is there a minimum income to the University?

If no additional resources are required please state this.

Additional academic and non-academic staff – what profile/grade? How many, and over what time period?

Non-staff resource: subject specific equipment, central library and IT resources; marketing material costs; travel and subsistence; agents commission; scholarships or bursaries.

External costs (e.g. Board of Examiners or professional body). External Examiner fees and costs. Initial and ongoing panel/meetings costs. Other Fees/Expenses. Indirect Expenditure:

School academic and support staff time. Teaching Partnership Office staff time. Other University staff time. Other indirect costs.

Ongoing costs of managing the partnership. Costs of training staff at the partner institution.

Documents

Code of Practice for Collaborative Provision · 1. The University is responsible for the academic standards of all awards granted in its name. The academic standards of all awards