Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Note: In exceptional circumstances, and subject to approval by the Chair of the Senate Regulations and Special Cases
Committee, responsibilities assigned to Schools, Heads, of School, School Officers or School Committees in this Code
of Practice may be assumed by the College, Head of College, College Officers or College Committees respectively, as
appropriate.
Code of Practice for Collaborative Provision
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
Effective Date: 1st November 2016
This Code of Practice is for all award-bearing programmes delivered with another institution. It applies to both taught
and research programmes. It applies to whole programmes and parts of programmes (modules). Procedures for
different types of collaborative partnership are summarised in Appendix 8. This Code of Practice should be read with:
Code of Practice for Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review (Code 08)
Validation Manual
Code of Practice for Placement Learning (Code 07)
Definitions
Agreement for Collaborative Academic Programmes: Agreement between the University and the Partner defining the
responsibilities and conditions for the programme(s).
Approved Staff: Staff of the partner organisation who are approved by the University to deliver parts of a programme
and, for research programmes, to supervise and examine students.
Articulation arrangement: An arrangement in which students who successfully complete an approved programme of
study in a partner institution are guaranteed entry on to one of the University’s programmes.
Board of Studies: Committee established in Schools, under the University’s regulations, to oversee the School’s policies
on admission, portfolio and content of courses, methods of teaching, and assessment.
Dual Award: An award given for a programme that is separately and fully approved by the University and the partner
institution. Students receive two awards, one from each institution. Programmes that lead to Dual Awards have
substantial common elements, but can differ between the University and Partner. Programme titles may differ.
Programmes involve credit transfer which may be reciprocal.
Externally validated programmes: An arrangement whereby the University validates programmes designed and
delivered by another institution, under its regulations and procedures as permitted by the Validation Manual, and
leading to an award of the University.
Franchised programmes: Programmes designed and validated by the University and delivered by another institution,
under the University’s regulations, and leading to an award of the University.
Joint Award: An award that is given for a single programme that is jointly approved by a University and a Partner. In
such cases the names of both institutions are listed on the certificate.
Partner: Organisation that delivers or is involved in the delivery of the collaborative provision. This includes other
academic institutions, public sector bodies and private companies. The term ‘partner’ is used throughout this Code of
Practice, however, it is recognised that some partnerships may involve multi-lateral agreements with two or more
partners.
Programme Co-ordinator: A permanent member of staff within the University department engaging in the partnership,
who will undertake overall responsibility for a programme and act as liaison with the Programme Director and the
University department.
Programme Director: The Programme Director will undertake responsibility for all aspects of a programme within the
Partner, and should command sufficient authority within the Partner to be able to implement most decisions regarding
the programme, its staffing, students, progression and resources.
Programme Specification: The details of each programme as approved by the University.
Programme: Programme of study delivered via collaboration between the University and the partner. The programme
can be delivered by the Partner within a specific academic and financial framework and subject to contractual
obligations. Academic responsibility for content, assessment, quality assurance and standards lies with the University.
Regulations: Regulations of the University, including codes of practice, regulations, procedures and guidelines.
School: Academic units within the University that lead the collaboration and which have responsibility for it. Some
partnerships may involve more than one School or may be at University level.
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
2
General
1. The University is responsible for the academic standards of all awards granted in its name.
2. The academic standards of all awards made under a collaborative arrangement, including dual and joint awards,
must meet the expectations of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education and the Credit & Qualification
Framework for Wales.
3. The University will assure itself that a potential partner institution has the appropriate academic infrastructure
and support services to establish and maintain the required standards of quality management and enhancement.
4. The University will conduct, with due diligence, an independent investigation of the good standing of a
prospective partner organisation, and of their capacity to fulfil their designated role in the arrangement. Where
appropriate this investigation will include the following:
i. The Partner’s financial and academic standing (including, where appropriate, reference to external
databases such as NARIC)
ii. Whether the partner has existing collaborations with other UK or overseas partners
iii. A review of the QAA website to investigate whether there have been reports relating to the partner
iv. In the case of joint awards, confirmation that the partner organisation has the legal capacity to enter into
collaboration with the University
v. For collaboration with an overseas partner, confirmation that the University is legally able to deliver, and if
relevant, award the programme in the partner’s home country.
5. Collaborative arrangements must be negotiated, agreed and managed in accordance with the University’s
policies and procedures. The financial arrangements must also be agreed, including provision for monitoring
and external examining arrangements.
6. Collaborative provision will be subject to the University’s academic regulations or, in the case of validated
programmes, the University’s Validation Manual. Any deviation from the regulations or the Validation Manual
requires approval by the Chair of the Senate Regulations and Special Cases Committee.
7. The Academic Registrar will maintain a publicly available up-to-date and authoritative record of all partnerships,
and a list of all collaborative programmes operated through those partnerships.
8. The University will inform a professional, statutory and regulatory body (PSRB) which has approved or
recognised a programme if there are plans to deliver the programme under a collaborative arrangement. This
will also apply if franchise and distance learning arrangements are developed after a programme has been
approved or recognised. The status of the programme in respect of PSRB recognition must be made clear to
prospective students.
9. Collaborative provision should normally be in a field in which the University has expertise and comparable
programmes, and should involve the relevant School(s) in the University. The programme may also be the
whole or part of one or more of the University’s own approved programmes.
10. Third party franchising is not normally permitted. That is, partner organisations do not have the authority to
offer collaborative provision under serial arrangements with other organisations. Third party arrangements may
be approved by the University under some circumstances, for example if a partner organisation uses specialist
placement locations for parts of collaborative programmes.
11. The language of instruction and of all assessed work shall normally be Welsh or English, except for subjects
where a language is the subject of study.
12. The External Partnerships Scrutiny Group (EPSG) is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the
procedures for approving collaborative partnerships. EPSG is also responsible for scrutinising proposals as
described in this Code of Practice and in the Validation Manual.
13. The Academic Registrar is responsible for ensuring that collaborative partnerships are established and monitored
in accordance with this Code of Practice and the Validation Manual. The Academic Registrar may assign
responsibility to nominees, from the Academic Registry and the International Education Centre as necessary.
The Academic Registrar’s nominee will scrutinise all documentation, advise on procedures, and provide
administrative support to develop and approve each programme.
Establishing a Partnership - Principles
14. The educational objectives of a partner organisation must be compatible with those of the University. Partners
will preferably be an institution of high standing with a proven reputation, particularly in teaching and/or
research. However, the University will also consider partnerships that could play a significant role in
institutional and staff development, particularly in institutions overseas.
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
3
15. Any partner from the UK must be a recognised Tier 4 sponsor in its own right, in order for the University to be
assured that the partner is in a position to discharge its obligations under the 'Points-Based' visa scheme.
16. The initiative for a programme may come from the University, partner organisation or external agency and may
reflect an institutional need, market forces or educational imperative. Programmes must be compatible with the
University’s aims and must be of strategic benefit to the partner and University. Partnerships should not be
established solely for financial reasons.
17. Information detailing the full process of approving and establishing a partnership must be provided to the
potential Partner at an early stage. Preliminary discussions should not be taken to imply final agreement for a
proposal. Schools and potential Partners are encouraged to discuss collaborative arrangements with staff of the
Academic Registry and/or the International Education Centre, so that they become familiar with the process and
documentation required. A checklist of items to be considered at the exploratory stage is provided in Appendix
4.
18. Establishing and maintaining a collaborative programme is a significant undertaking and Schools should not
embark on this process unless they are able to commit sufficient resources, including staff time, to ensure that
the requirements of this Code of Practice are met.
Scrutiny of Proposals
19. Most proposals (see Appendix 8) are considered by the External Partnership Scrutiny Group. The membership
of the External Partnership Scrutiny Group is:
Director of International Development (Chair for International/EU partnerships)
Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching & Learning) (Chair for UK partnerships)
Chair of the Quality Assurance and Validation Task Group
Academic Registrar or nominee
2-3 senior members of the academic staff of the University, at least one of whom is a Dean not
involved in the proposals under consideration
Regulations, Complaints and Appeals Officer
Quality Assurance Officer (International Partnerships)
20. Representatives from the submitting School may be invited to present their proposals to the Group.
External Validation of Programmes
21. The University will validate programmes designed and delivered by another institution. The University’s
procedures for approving Institutions and validating programmes are based on the expectation that Institutions
will have codified policies and procedures that are consistent with the University’s regulations.
22. The procedures and regulations for the approval and ongoing management of validated programmes are
described in the University’s Validation Manual. As defined by the Validation Manual, the key principles
governing the approval of Institutions to deliver validated programmes are:
The need for appropriate due diligence.
The need to ensure that the Institution’s resources and procedures, especially for quality assurance and
enhancement, meet the University’s requirements.
The need for a two-stage process that approves the Institution and then, subject to a positive outcome
from the first stage, validates specific programmes.
23. The key principles governing the delivery and ongoing monitoring of validated programmes are:
Regular dialogue between the University and the Institution to ensure that emerging issues, problems
or proposed changes are discussed and resolved promptly.
Regular monitoring and reporting, facilitated by University-appointed Moderators, to demonstrate
adherence to the agreed quality assurance and enhancement procedures.
Scrutiny of programmes and students’ work by University-appointed External Examiners to ensure
that standards are comparable with UK expectations.
Articulation Agreements
24. Articulation is the process by which students who have successfully completed an approved programme of study
in a partner institution have guaranteed entry onto a linked undergraduate programme in the University.
Students will typically complete two or more years of study in the partner institution and then transfer to Bangor
to complete the final 2 years of a programme (for example, a ‘2 + 2’ arrangement). Exceptionally, students may
be allowed to directly enter the final year of the University programme.
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
4
25. When establishing articulation arrangements, it is important to ensure that the course or modules completed in
the partner institution match those that students in the University would complete up to the point of entry. For
certain countries or educational systems, independent evidence may be available that can be used to verify their
academic equivalence in terms of credit and level. Transferable and cognitive skills must be considered as well
as subject specific skills and knowledge, so that students entering the University are not at a disadvantage.
Where the proposed arrangement involves an international partner, the arrangements must also consider how
English or Welsh language requirements will be met. Reference should be made to the programme outcomes
listed in the Programme Specification.
26. The articulation arrangement must also specify how students from the partner institution will be supported
during the transition period and how liaison between the University School and the partner institution will be
maintained so as to ensure that the University’s requirements continue to be met.
27. Those submitting proposals to establish articulation arrangements must complete an Institutional Review and
Due Diligence Report (Appendix 1) and a Risk Assessment Report (Appendix 2). Details must also be provided
to demonstrate how the programme completed at the partner institution (both in terms of credits and level) maps
onto those modules that form part of the Bangor programme. These documents will be considered by the
External Partnership Scrutiny Group which will also approve the Articulation Agreement. Proposals involving
international partners should be discussed with the International Education Centre before they are presented to
the External Partnership Scrutiny Group.
28. The External Partnership Scrutiny Group may approve the proposal, request further information, or reject the
proposal.
29. An Agreement for Collaborative Academic Programmes must be signed between the University and the partner,
setting out the rights and obligations of all parties. The Articulation Agreement will set out the rights and
responsibilities of both partners and include provisions to safeguard students in the event that the arrangement is
terminated.
30. Articulation Agreements must be reviewed every five years by the External Partnership Scrutiny Group.
Taught Programmes (Other than Externally Validated Programmes and Articulation Agreements)
Approval Process
31. Appendix 3 shows the processes involved in developing a collaborative taught programme and indicates the
documentation required at each stage.
32. Where the University engages with a partner to provide a programme of study leading to a dual award, the
University and the partner must have the legal capacity to do so. The academic standard of the programme must
meet the University’s expectations, irrespective of the expectations of the partner’s awarding body.
33. Those submitting proposals to establish a collaborative taught programme must complete an Institutional Review
and Due Diligence Report (Appendix 1), a Risk Assessment Report (Appendix 2), and a business plan (see
Appendix 6). Where external funding is being sought to support a collaborative partnership, the business plan
and programme information may be provided in the grant application. For new programmes, a programme
outline must also be provided (See Code 08). For dual awards, descriptions for each component of the
programme can be provided instead of a programme outline. The documents will be considered by the External
Partnership Scrutiny Group. Proposals involving international partners must be discussed with, and approved
by, the International Education Centre before they are presented to the External Partnership Scrutiny Group.
34. The External Partnership Scrutiny Group may approve the proposal, request further information, or reject the
proposal.
Programme Validation
35. When the External Partnership Scrutiny Group has approved a proposal, the following must be completed:
[i] Identify the Programme Co-ordinator and principal contacts at the partner.
[ii] Notify to the partner that the proposal has been approved.
[iii] Draft an Agreement for Collaborative Academic Programmes for discussion with the partner.
[iv] Discuss the possible start-date, student numbers and funding.
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
5
Institutional and Course Review Visits
36. For franchised programmes, joint and dual awards, and in existing provision where approval to deliver
programmes in a new subject area is being sought, an Institutional Visit will normally be required. At the
discretion of the External Partnerships Scrutiny Group, the Institutional Visit can be deemed unnecessary for
joint and dual awards involving institutions with a well-established international reputation. The Visit will
normally be held at least one month before a Validation Panel considers the programme. The Visit will normally
be charged to the potential partner separately. This will be a non-refundable charge, regardless of the outcome
of the Visit.
37. The Visit Team will normally consist of the Chair of the Quality Assurance and Validation Task Group (or
nominee) as Chair, two academic members of staff, a representative of the relevant department (other than the
Programme Co-ordinator), an External Assessor and a secretary nominated by the Chair. The Team must satisfy
itself that the partner organisation has sufficient resources, such as laboratory, library and IT facilities, teaching
accommodation, staff, academic support services, welfare services and quality assurance arrangements to
provide the requisite quality of learning opportunities to enable a student to achieve the academic standards and
learning outcomes (Appendix 5). The Team will also seek to establish that there are mechanisms in place to
ensure the health and safety of students on the programme.
38. The Chair will specify, in advance, additional documentation required, the resources the panel will wish to view,
and the teaching staff or senior managers it will wish to meet.
39. The Visiting Team’s recommendation must be ratified by the External Partnership Scrutiny Group.
40. Academic validation of the programme will be through the endorsement of a Validation Panel, following normal
University procedures (See Code 08). At the discretion of the Chair of the Panel, it may not be necessary to
approve programmes that have already been approved by the University. The scope, coverage and assessment
strategy of a collaborative programme should be described in the Programme Specification. In addition to the
programme documentation, the Panel will consider the report of the Visit Team.
In the case of dual awards, credit transfer arrangements must ensure that those courses or modules taken in the
partner that contribute to the Bangor award are at the appropriate level and that students can attain the required
number of credits and all the programme learning outcomes.
The submitting team will be represented by the Principal/Director, the Programme Director and the Heads of the
relevant departments and/or other representatives of the programme development team.
Agreement Documentation
41. An Agreement for Collaborative Academic Programmes must be signed between the University and the partner,
setting out the rights and obligations of all parties. The terms of the Agreement for Collaborative Academic
Programmes will have been discussed and agreed during the programme development phase. The agreement
will be signed on behalf of the University by the Vice-Chancellor (or nominee) and by the Vice-Chancellor’s
counterpart (or nominee) in the partner organisation.
42. The Agreement for Collaborative Academic Programmes will specify the term of the agreement, and the
conditions pertinent to a particular programme, including its aims, academic structure, professional
requirements, resources and staffing. Where the partnership is supported by external grant funding the
agreement may be replaced by the completed grant application signed by both parties.
43. Agreements for Collaborative Academic Programmes will be reviewed every five years by the External
Partnership Scrutiny Group.
44. The Agreement for Collaborative Academic Programmes will contain a financial appendix, providing a detailed
fee schedule.
Termination
45. The Agreement for Collaborative Academic Programmes must specify the conditions under which termination
can occur and the steps necessary to safeguard the interests of existing students including offering alternative
programmes where appropriate.
46. In the event of termination of an agreement, the University and the Partner will enter into a Termination
Agreement which shall set out the responsibilities and rights of both institutions and of students enrolled on
programmes.
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
6
Programme Management
47. Franchised programmes will be the direct responsibility of a Joint Programme Board, specifically constituted for
each programme (or group of cognate programmes). The Joint Programme Board will consist of:
Chair: School Director of Teaching and Learning (or nominee) or Academic Registrar (or nominee)
Programme Director
One other member of staff involved in delivering the programme in the partner organisation
Programme Co-ordinator
Officer nominated by the Academic Registrar,
Administrative officer from the Partner
The Joint Programme Board may co-opt one or two members to represent users/clients and practice. It is
recommended that the Joint Programme Board also has a student representative. If the Joint Programme Board
does not have a student representative, the Board must have mechanisms to obtain student feedback.
48. All meetings of the Board will be minuted, and a record held by the Bangor University School. Meetings may
be held by video conference. The Terms of Reference for the Joint Programme Board are given in Appendix 7.
The Board will:
[i] Report to the relevant School/Department’s Board of Studies (or equivalent) in each institution.
[ii] Meet at appropriate times during the academic year, and at least 3 times.
[iii] Monitor the Annual and Quinquennial Reviews and the administration of quality assurance procedures.
[iv] Consider all proposed modifications in content, programme delivery, assessment framework, progression
and staffing.
[v] Assist in setting targets for recruitment and in ensuring that student welfare and resource implications are
properly addressed.
49. Joint and dual awards will be managed by Bangor University School Boards of Studies and Boards of Examiners
established and managed as defined by the University’s regulations.
Approved Staff
50. The University must satisfy itself that staff engaged in delivering or supporting a collaborative programme are
appropriately qualified for their role, and that the partner organisation has effective measures to monitor and
assure the proficiency of such staff.
51. Approved Staff may be entitled to borrowing membership of the University Library and access to its other
electronic information sources. Any arrangements to permit access will be discussed and agreed as part of the
agreement between the University and the Partner.
52. The University School responsible for a Programme must verify annually that all members of the partner
institution team who are engaged in delivering or supporting a collaborative programme are suitably qualified,
fully conversant with the operational details of the programme(s) of study, including assessment requirements,
syllabi, timetables, facilities and the style and level of teaching and learning expected on the programme(s). An
up-to-date list of staff approved to teach on the approved programme will be maintained by the University
School. No member of staff may teach on the programme unless approved and formally listed.
Admissions
53. Admission requirements and application procedures will be defined in the programme documentation and follow
recognised national and University procedures as defined in the Code of Practice for Recruitment and
Admissions (Code 09).
54. Admissions arrangements including those for Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL) and Accreditation of Prior
Experiential Learning (APEL), must comply with the University’s regulations. Admissions criteria must be
defined in the Programme Specification.
Assessment of students on Taught Programmes
55. The regulations that apply to each Programme must be defined in the Programme Specification.
56. For taught programmes, other than for credit gained at a partner organisation in dual awards, all forms of
assessment must be conducted as specified in the University’s regulations.
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
7
57. For franchised programmes, The Board of Examiners will be chaired by the Head of the relevant University
School (or nominee) or by the Academic Registrar (or nominee). The Board of Examiners will also include the
Director, the Programme Co-ordinator, and all members of the teaching team. All assessment results for
progression at Level 4 and Level 5 must be submitted to the Chair of the relevant University Senate Board of
Examiners for approval. All assessment results for final awards at Level 4, 5, 6, and 7 should be reported to, and
considered by, the University School’s Board of Examiners to confirm that students have met the criteria for
University awards.
58. Boards of Examiners for joint and dual awards will be established as defined by the University’s regulations.
Partners should be represented at Boards of Examiners, but, in accordance with the regulations, sub-committees
may be established with representation from the University and partner and with specific responsibility for the
collaborative programme.
Quality Assurance
59. School Boards of Studies are responsibility for the quality and academic standards of collaborative programmes.
60. The University’s internal quality audit process will include scrutiny of collaborative provision.
External Examining Arrangements
61. External examining procedures for collaborative programmes will be consistent with the University’s normal
practices, as set out in the Codes of Practice for External Examiners.
62. The University will be responsible for the appointment, payment and functions of external examiners. The
recruitment and selection of external examiners will be as specified in the Codes of Practice for External
Examiners.
63. External examiners of collaborative programmes will receive briefing and guidance from the University’s
Academic Registry, sufficient for them to fulfil their role effectively.
64. External Examiners for collaborative programmes will report directly to the University. Copies of the External
Examiners’ reports will be forwarded to the partner institution and made available to students.
Programme Monitoring and Review
65. Annual Review: The review will follow the quality enhancement procedures of the University and will be
conducted by the Programme Director who will present the External Examiner’s report and the Annual Review
and Development Plan (QA1 form) to the relevant group (Joint Programme Board or University Board of
Studies). These will also be considered by the University’s Quality Assurance and Validation Task Group.
66. The Academic Registrar (or nominee) will co-ordinate verification that the terms and conditions that were
originally approved have been, and continue to be, met, via scrutiny of the External Examiner’s report, QA1
form, Minutes of Joint Programme Boards, other relevant documentation.
67. Quinquennial Review: Each programme will be reviewed every five years. This will consider the overall
development of the programme, quality of teaching, student demand, application numbers and admission
standards, physical resources, developments in learning resources and strategies, student progression and
employability, staffing and quality of teaching. Quinquennial reviews will be co-ordinated by the Academic
Registry and follow the procedures of the University’s Quality Audits. A report of the review will be considered
by the Joint Programme Board (for franchised provision), the School Board of Studies and the Quality Assurance
and Validation Task Group.
Changes to the Programme
68. No major changes may be made to modules or programmes without the prior approval of the University Board
of Studies. For franchised provision, proposals for such change shall be considered in the first instance by the
Joint Programme Board.
69. Where approved amendments affect students currently enrolled on a programme, the agreement of those students
should be sought prior to implementation of the amendment. Any significant changes to a programme should be
notified to prospective students who have received an offer of a place but have yet to register.
70. Copies of the amended and approved Student Handbook, incorporating all approved changes, must be forwarded
to the University by the partner institution on an annual basis prior to the beginning of the academic year.
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
8
Collaborative Research Programmes
Principles
71. This section applies to all research programmes that involve collaboration with a Partner. This includes joint and
dual awards. It applies when a student has one or more supervisors that are not employees of the University. It
also applies to arrangements that allow students to access external facilities or resources that are not under the
control of the University but which are required in order for them to conduct their research.
72. Whenever collaborative research programmes are arranged, the University’s academic standards must be
maintained.
73. Potential partner organisation must have the appropriate infrastructure and support services to secure the
required standards of quality management and enhancement and that supervisory and monitoring arrangements
are appropriate. Appropriate consideration must be given to health and safety.
74. When developing collaborative research projects the partners involved must try to anticipate issues that might
arise. In particular, agreement must be sought on the specific roles of the student involved in the project and on
issues relating to intellectual property and/or publication, recognising that contributions may change during the
period of the project.
75. Collaborative arrangements must be documented in a written agreement which is signed by appropriate
authorities of the partners involved. The precise nature of the agreement will vary according to the scale and
nature of the collaboration. The University recognises that research projects may encompass a diversity of
partners and partnership arrangements, and hence there is no one type of agreement that will fit all types of
arrangement.
76. All students studying away from Bangor will be subject to the University’s normal regulations and processes,
including those for assuring quality and standards, supervision, annual monitoring and health and safety.
Students conducting research in other countries or working with overseas collaborators
77. When conducting research in other countries or working with an overseas collaborator, research students must
comply with the legal and ethical requirements defined by the University and in the countries where the research
is conducted. Similarly students based abroad who are enrolled for a research programme of the University must
comply with the UK’s legal and ethical requirements as well as those of their own country.
78. Any plans for students to undertake study overseas must take into account the relevant Foreign and
Commonwealth Office guidelines for travellers abroad and follow the University’s normal health and safety
guidelines.
Collaborative research programmes
79. The University can enter into arrangements with other academic institutions that have powers to award joint and
dual awards.
80. The arrangements must be approved, in advance, by the University’s External Partnerships Scrutiny Group and
cannot be established by an individual member of academic staff. The process for establishing these types of
award is described below.
81. Establishing and maintaining joint and dual research programmes is a significant undertaking and Schools
should not embark on this process unless they are able to commit sufficient resources, including staff time, to
ensure that the requirements set out below are met. The University will not establish joint or dual research
awards for individual research students.
Establishing collaborative research programmes
i. Programmes involving access to external resources
82. Research programmes may require students to make use of resources that are not under the University’s control.
These include, for example, specialist field or industrial sites, library or other information resources. Access to
such resources must be agreed in advance and incorporate consideration of when and how they will be made
available to the student and costs involved. These provisions must be recorded in an agreement between the
student’s supervisor and an appropriate senior authority in the Partner. The form of the agreement will vary
according to the arrangements and may vary between an exchange of correspondence and a short research
contract. A copy of the agreement should be retained in the student’s file.
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
9
ii. Programmes involving other academic institutions, research centres or industrial partners
83. Full and part-time research students may spend a part of or all of their registration period undertaking study in
another organisation. This may be an academic institution, a research centre or other workplace appropriate for
the study. In all cases the partner must be able to provide a safe working environment in which the student can
conduct their research satisfactorily. Schools and supervisors should maintain regular contact with students
studying in partner organisations, to monitor their progress and welfare and to ensure that, as far as is reasonably
possible, they become and feel part of the School’s research community.
a. Programmes involving an industrial partner
Research programmes involving an industrial partner or a research centre must be established following
the University’s guidelines in the Code of Practice for Placement Learning (Code 07). This includes the
development of a learning contract and, where appropriate, completion of a health and safety checklist.
b. Programmes involving another academic institution, including joint and dual awards
Where it is intended that the collaboration will apply to only one student a standard agreement should be
completed, using a template provided by the Academic Registry. If the collaboration will apply to several
students (either within or across years), or to a dual or joint award, the procedures described in paragraph
84 must be followed.
84. Those submitting proposals to establish a collaborative research programme must complete an Institutional
Review and Due Diligence Report (Appendix 1) and a Risk Assessment Report (Appendix 2). These documents
will be considered by the External Partnerships Scrutiny Group which may approve the proposal, request further
information, or reject the proposal. As part of the process of gathering further information, the External
Partnerships Group may request that a visit is arranged.
Management of collaborative research programmes
85. For each student, the Head of School (or nominee) must approve the programme of study and local supervisor.
The Head of School must consider:
i. Details of the status and location of the organisation where the study will be undertaken
ii. Details of the intended programme of work
iii. The curriculum vitae or details of the relevant qualifications of the local supervisor. In the case of
dual and joint awards the student must have a designated supervisor in each partner.
iv. A statement by the head of the partner, or other person with appropriate authority, confirming that the
student will be provided with necessary facilities as required during the study period
v. Relevant health and safety documentation, approved by the School Health and Safety Co-ordinator.
86. Documents presented to the Head of School must be kept on the student’s file and should be retained by the
School for monitoring and review processes. The names of the supervisors and details of the arrangements must
be recorded in the student’s personal file.
Application and admission
87. The University’s normal regulations for application and admission apply to students on collaborative research
programmes. In the case of joint and dual awards the precise admission requirements must be agreed in advance
and detailed in the partnership agreement.
88. Schools must ensure that requirements or opportunities to undertake study away from Bangor are clearly
identified in publicity material.
89. Students who will be required to undertake a period of research in a partner organisation must be informed of
this at the time when an offer of admission is made. They must receive details of the programme including
financial implications for themselves, where they will be based, the period(s) involved and arrangements for
local supervision.
Supervision
90. All students who spend periods away from Bangor in a partner organisation will normally be allocated two
named supervisors, one in the University and one in the partner. It is expected that the supervisors will have
been identified by the time the offer of admission is made. Regular contact with the Bangor supervisor may be
by e-mail, video conferencing or other electronic means for students based overseas.
91. The supervisor in the partner must be appropriately qualified and have a good understanding of the student’s area
of research.
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
10
92. Students must be made aware of the standards and procedures for the conduct of research in the Partner. They
must also be made aware of how to seek guidance and assistance where necessary and procedures for reporting
concerns or irregularities.
Generic skills training
93. It is the responsibility of the Head of School (or nominee) to identify the training needs of individual students
and how they are met. Wherever possible, students spending part of their registration period in a partner
organisation should still complete generic skills training in the normal way. Where the length of the student’s
period of study away from Bangor precludes this it is the responsibility of the Head of School (or nominee) to
ensure that equivalent measures are in place.
The study period(s)
94. Students on joint or dual programmes must be fully briefed prior to moving between institutions. This should
include full details of the work the student is expected to complete and local supervisory arrangements. The
briefing should also include details of travel, health and safety arrangements and local cultural or other norms
that the student might be expected to adhere to.
Monitoring arrangements
95. Students on collaborative research programmes are expected to provide written comments on the effectiveness of
the arrangements as part of their normal annual monitoring and review processes. These must be discussed
during the annual supervisory meeting. Any difficulties or remedial actions must be addressed and resolved by
the parties involved. If they cannot be resolved in this way they should be communicated to the Head of School
or the Director of Graduate Studies, who will recommend a course of action.
Examination arrangements
96. Research programmes offered through collaborative partnerships must be examined as specified in the
University’s regulations. This is especially important in the case of dual and joint awards where the procedures
that normally operate in the partner may be different to those that operate in Bangor University. This applies in
particular, to the precise nature of the thesis defence and the procedures to be followed after the examination, for
example in relation to corrections that are required.
Institutional oversight of processes and the maintenance of quality and standards
97. Collaborative research programme arrangements are monitored by:
i. Scrutiny of student’s annual supervisory and monitoring reports. This process is overseen by the
Senate Postgraduate Committee.
ii. Internal quality audits and mid-term reviews. These processes are reported to the Quality Assurance
and Validation Task Group.
iii. Scrutiny of External Examiners’ reports.
98. In addition, the University may conduct specialist audits of particular arrangements, usually prior to an
agreement being renewed, or at other times as required.
Study Abroad
99. The University provides opportunities for students to study abroad, either as a formal part of their programmes
or as additional placements. Where study abroad is part of a programme, the activities must be as defined in the
Programme Specification. As specified in Appendix 8, new exchange partnerships must be approved by the
Director of International Development. For all study abroad placements, the activities (including list of taught
modules where appropriate) must be approved by a student’s School and by the International Education Centre.
All activities must be planned and conducted in accordance with the Code of Practice for Placement Learning
(Code 07). Students must apply for study abroad placements using forms available from the International
Education Centre. Where the study abroad is supported by external sponsorship (e.g. Erasmus), the University
will ensure that it has a record that the student has acknowledged receipt of the grant and full detail of the
placement location and contact details. The International Education Centre is responsible for providing students
with relevant information about study abroad; this must include academic requirements, health and safety,
finance, and cultural assimilation. The University will arrange with the Host Institution for evidence to be
provided for both attendance and achievement.
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
11
100. Students must submit the following documentation before beginning a period of study abroad:
Confirmation of Personal Details
Erasmus Application Form (if relevant)
Erasmus Grant Agreement (if relevant)
Flight/Travel Details
Health & Safety Checklist
Learning Agreement (for study placements)
Study/Work Abroad Agreement
Training Agreement (for work placements)
Information for Students
101. Students enrolled on a collaborative programme will be provided with information about the procedures for
complaints and appeals, making clear the channels through which they can contact the University.
102. The School will be responsible for monitoring the information given by the partner organisation to prospective
students and those enrolled on a collaborative programme, including information provided in the Student
Handbook and on the partner organisation’s web site and Virtual Learning Environment.
103. Students will be provided annually with a named point of contact within the relevant School at the University.
Appeals, Complaints and Academic Misconduct
104. Appeals must be considered under the University’s appeals procedure. For validated Programmes, the partner’s
appeals procedure must be used, as described in the Validation Manual.
105. Complaints by students about the course, the standard of teaching, facilities or other relevant matter, will be
considered under the University’s complaints procedures, or, for validated programmes, the partner’s procedure.
For all programmes, an attempt must be made to resolve the complaint informally. If a student is unhappy with
the way a complaint has been considered by a partner institution, a complaint can be submitted to the
University’s Academic Registrar.
106. The partner institution must maintain a record of all complaints made by students and of the outcome of each
complaint.
Certificates
107. The University will have sole authority for awarding certificates and transcripts relating to the programmes of
study delivered through collaborative arrangements. The only exception is that partners produce transcripts for
students on validated programmes.
Conferment
108. Partners may make arrangements for a ceremony at which certificates are presented or may decide that students
attend the University’s graduation ceremony.
109. Costs incurred by the University for a partner’s ceremonies and for participation in ceremonies must be included
in the Business Plan.
110. Graduates can wear the appropriate academic dress in accordance with the University’s policies.
111. Students who receive a University award become members of the University Alumni.
Publicity Material
112. The University will ensure that it has effective control over the accuracy of all public information, publicity and
promotional activity relating to its collaborative provision, by requiring all such information etc. to be approved
by the School. The School will be responsible for monitoring such publicity. Where publicity is produced in a
language other than Welsh or English, a translation must be provided to the School.
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
12
Appendix 1: Institutional Review and Due Diligence Report
Appendix 1
Institutional Review and Due Diligence Report
An Institutional Review and Due Diligence Report enables the University to confirm that the proposed Partner
institution is, prima facie, compatible in mission and sufficiently financially sound to support the collaborative activity.
This is needed for forming the following types of partnerships: MoU, Articulation, Validation, Franchise, Dual or Joint
Degree Programmes.
The following information may be prepared by relevant academic schools or the International Partnership Office (IPO),
and signed by relevant staff in the IEC and relevant Heads of Schools. (Signatures from Schools may not be necessary
if the proposed partnership is at the Institutional level.)
The Report must be submitted to the External Partnership Scrutiny Group (EPSG) together with an Institutional Risk
Assessment Form. A Business Plan (not necessary for Articulations) and a draft Agreement may be submitted at the
same time or at a later stage.
1. Partner General Information
Name of Institution
Address
Website
Partner Academic Unit involved in
this collaboration
Lead contact for this collaboration in
partner institution
Name
Title
Telephone
Address if different from above
Type of Institution (please tick) University
FE College
Other – please specify
Legal Status (please tick) Publicly funded
Private
Charitable
Range of awards offered
(please tick one or more)
Sub Honours degree
Up to Honours degree
Up to Masters degree
Research Degrees
Total student numbers Undergraduate
Postgraduate
Total number of staff
Brief profile of academic staff, e.g.
percentage of Professors, staff with
PhD qualification
Academic
Administration
Existing links and nature of the links
with other UK HEI’s if any
Courses currently offered in the
broad area by the institution
National and international reputation
of the institution
General ranking, subject specific
ranking, QA rating etc. if available
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
13
2. Resources at Partner Institution
Please list the names and
qualifications of the key staff in the
partner who will be involved in
teaching and assessment in the
programme
This may be provided at a later stage at validation or before final
agreement signing.
Please confirm that the partner has
adequate library, ICT, laboratory and
other physical resources to deliver the
programme
3. Proposed Collaboration
Programme(s)
Type of Collaboration(s)
(please tick one or more)
MoU
Articulation
Dual degree
Joint degree
Validation
Franchise
Other, please specify
Programme(s) Involved
Please specify the name and type of
award
Brief Description of the Proposed
Arrangement.
Please explain how the collaboration
will work
Rationale for the Development
Please explain how the collaboration
fits with the strategic development
plans of the School and how it will
benefit the University and the
partner.
Forecast Number of Students
Proposed Starting Date
Source of Funding
(Please tick one or more)
Fees
HEFCW funded numbers
Other
4. Host School in Bangor
University
Proposing School(s)
Lead Contact(s)
at School(s)
Name
Title
Email &
Extension
Proposed date of first student intake
5. IEC
Lead Contact at
IEC
Name
Title
Email &
Extension
Author of this Report
Date
6. Any Other Relevant Information
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
14
IEC Signature:
Staff Name:
Title:
Date:
Head of School Signature:
Head of School Name:
School:
Date:
Additional Heads of Schools can be asked to sign if more schools are involved in the partnership.
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
15
Appendix 2: Risk Assessment of Collaborative Provision
A Risk Assessment Form is a complementary document to the Due Diligence Report which is needed for forming the
following types of partnerships: MoU, Articulation, Validation, Franchise, Dual or Joint Degree Programmes.
The Form may be prepared by relevant academic schools or the International Partnership Office (IPO), and signed by
relevant staff in the IEC and relevant Heads of Schools. (Signatures from Schools may not be necessary if the proposed
partnership is at the Institutional level.)
The Report must be submitted to the External Partnership Scrutiny Group (EPSG) together with an Institutional Review
and Due Diligence Report.
Note: Where an Institutional Agreement already exists with the partner it will not be necessary to complete a new
risk assessment report. It may be necessary, however, to seek confirmation that the existing report is still valid if a
period of 5 years has elapsed since the last risk assessment report.
Partner Institution: University of Cadiz
Proposed Partnership Type:
(If this is a MoU only, please complete form 1, otherwise form 2)
Proposed Programme and Award:
Relevant School(s): Head of School Signature(s):
Author of the Report: Signature:
Date:
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
16
Form 1
0-5 = Low Risk 6-9 = Medium Risk 10+ = High Risk
Risk Area Criteria Level Score
Partner’s Status University offering taught and research degrees,
international standing
0
University offering taught and research degrees 1
University or College offering taught degrees only 2
Publicly funded FE College 2
Private College or organisation 3
Potential collaboration
projects with BU
(If it is more than one
types of collaboration,
then select the highest
risk level)
Joint research including staff exchange 0
Student exchange and/or study abroad 1
Pathway and/or Articulation 1
Dual degree 2
Franchise 2
Validation 3
Partner’s collaboration
with other UK HEI’s
Partner has experience of collaborating at this level
with research led UK HEI’s
1
Partner has experience of collaborating at a lower or
similar level with new UK HEI’s
2
No experience of collaborating with any UK HEI’s 3
Partner’s resources Large institution (>10,000 students), generally well
resourced
1
Medium or small institution (<10,000 students),
generally well resources
2
Limited resources 3
Total
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
17
Form 2
12-15 Low Risk 16-22 = Medium Risk 23+ = High Risk
Risk Area Criteria Level Score
Partner’s Status University offering taught and research degrees,
international standing
0
University offering taught and research degrees 1
University or College offering taught degrees only 2
Publicly funded FE College 2
Private College or organisation 3
Role of Partner Support centre only & teaching provided by Bangor
staff
1
Teaching provided by a combination of Bangor and
partner staff
2
Teaching delivered by partner with Bangor staff
limited support
3
Partner’s expertise in this
area
Partner has established programmes at this level of
award
1
Partner has established programmes at a level
immediately below the planned level of award
2
Other 3
Partner’s collaboration
with other UK HEI’s
Partner has experience of collaborating at this level
with research led UK HEI’s
1
Partner has experience of collaborating at a lower or
similar level with new UK HEI’s
2
No experience of collaborating with any UK HEI’s 3
Expertise of staff in the
partner institution
Most of the partner staff who will be involved in the
delivery of the programme have relevant expertise at a
level above the level of award
1
Most of the partner staff who will be involved in the
delivery of the programme have relevant expertise at
the level of award
2
Some of the partner staff who will be involved in the
delivery of the programme have relevant expertise at a
level lower than the level of the award.
3
Staff has little relevant expertise 4
Bangor School’s
experience of
collaborative provision
School has prior experience of collaborative provision 1
None 3
Programme This programme or similar programme is provided by
the Bangor school
1
New programme in an established curriculum area 2
New programme in a curriculum area not currently
available in Bangor
3
Qualification Undergraduate or sub-degree 3
Masters 2
PhD 1
Partner’s resources Large institution (>10,000 students), generally well
resourced
1
Medium or small institution (<10,000 students),
generally well resources
2
Limited resources 3
Professional body
recognition
None 1
Course requires professional body recognition 3
Total
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
18
Appendix 3: Establishment of Collaborative provision – Flowchart of process
Text in italics is the documentation that is required at each stage of the process. Numbers in parentheses indicate the
appendix in this document where each can be found.
* It is expected that preparatory work on agreements will begin when the External Partnership Group has approved a
proposal (See paragraph 35). Where necessary, agreements can be completed and signed at other times in the process,
subject to a caveat that any such agreements are subject to approval of institutions and /or validation of programmes.
Expression of Interest
Review and Preparation of Proposal
International Education Centre/School/Academic Registry
Institutional Review and Due Diligence Report (1)
Risk Assessment Report (2)
Business Plan (6)
Programme Outline
Reject
External Partnership
Scrutiny Group Reject
Institutional Visit
Programme Approval Panel
Refer Back
Reject
Agreement
Completed and signed*
Establish Joint
Programme Board
Promotion of programme
and recruitment
External Partnership
Scrutiny Group Reject
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
19
Appendix 4: Checklist for Schools to be used when developing arrangements for collaborative programmes
The following checklist is intended to assist Schools when they are developing arrangements to deliver a programme in
collaboration with a partner organisation. It does not have to be submitted to a University committee. However,
consideration of it will assist Schools when preparing the formal documentation required by the University.
Developing a collaborative programme will normally involve often complex and lengthy discussions with staff at the
partner institutions and within the University. Such discussions should take part prior to the programme being
submitted for approval. Where appropriate consideration has not been paid to academic, financial, operational and
quality assurance issues, a proposal is likely to be referred back to the School for further work.
Schools should also be aware that, once established, the collaborative programme remains their responsibility. Hence,
when considering such arrangements, they must be prepared to commit sufficient time and staff resources to it, to
ensure that quality assurance and enhancement requirements are met.
Programme development
1. What is the rationale for developing this programme?
2. How does it fit with the School’s development plans?
3. How does it fit with the University’s Teaching and Learning Strategy?
4. Have the course and partner been approved by the School Board of Studies or other relevant committee?
5. Does the course require recognition by a professional, statutory or regulatory body? If so which one and how
will recognition be achieved?
6. Is it intended that the course will be accredited and if so by which organisation? By what mechanisms will this
be achieved?
Academic content and delivery
7. Where will the programme be delivered?
8. Is it full time or part time?
9. Is the course new or is it based on a similar programme currently being delivered in Bangor or elsewhere?
10. What parts of the course will be delivered by the staff of the University and by those of the partner?
11. What will the programme consist of e.g. compulsory and optional modules, work placements?
12. Will the course be delivered through the medium of Welsh or English or bilingually?
Admission requirements
13. What will the entry requirements be?
14. How will admissions be processed?
Resources
15. What physical resources are required to run the programme and can they be provided through the proposed
collaboration?
16. Are the teaching rooms suitably equipped?
17. Does the partner have sufficient library, IT and other resources to fulfil their requirements?
18. Are the staff of the partner organisation sufficiently well qualified to deliver assess and monitor the programme?
Course Management
19. Who will be responsible for the academic management of the programme:
a) in the partner,
b) in the University?
20. Which organisation (University or partner) will be responsible for the different functions during the annual life-
cycle of the programme including publicity, selection of students, admission, enrolment and registration,
maintenance of student records, provision of ratified results, issuing of certificates and transcripts?
21. Will the students attend the Bangor University graduation ceremonies?
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
20
Student support
22. What welfare and other support systems will be available to students on the course?
23. How will students on the course provide feedback to the University School?
Funding arrangements
24. How will funding flow from the University to the partner?
25. What fees will students pay and to whom?
26. What financial support will be available to students on the course?
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
21
Appendix 5: Partner documentation
Documentation to support the establishment of a collaborative arrangement
Any collaborative arrangement must meet specific programme and validation requirements that are detailed elsewhere
in this Code of Practice. This appendix lists those documents or information that a potential partner is required to
supply in support of the application.
Partner institution information
Institutional aims or Mission statement
Prospectus
Student handbook
Details of collaboration with other UK HEI’s
Regulations, policies and procedures
Procedures for admission and selection of students.
Procedures for detecting plagiarism and for dealing with unfair practice in general.
Academic regulations for the programme(s) under consideration including procedures for assessment, re-
assessment, progression and award.
Procedures for dealing with complaints.
Health and safety policy.
Policies relating to equal opportunities and diversity.
Policies relating to students with disabilities.
Quality assurance and enhancement
Arrangements for Boards of Examiners and External Examining, including procedures for the appointment of
External Examiners and their role.
In the case of taught programmes, procedures for annual module and course review.
In the case of research programmes, procedures for annual monitoring of progress.
Procedures for obtaining feedback from students.
Reports of relevant reviews by external or public sector review bodies.
Professional development opportunities for staff.
Student support services
Student welfare and support services including provision for students with disabilities.
Tutorial or other support systems.
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
22
Appendix 6: Business Plan
The following list is indicative of the information required for the Business Plan.
1. Funding arrangements (e.g. grant and/or fee income)
2. Is grant funding split with the partner?
3. Is there a minimum income to the University?
4. Other income
5. Projected student numbers
6. External costs (e.g. Board of Examiners or professional body)
7. External Examiner fees and costs
8. Initial and ongoing panel/meetings costs
9. Other Fees/Expenses
10. Indirect Expenditure
School academic and support staff time
Academic Registry staff time
Other University staff time
Other indirect costs
Code of Practice 12: 2016 Version 01
23
Appendix 7: Terms of Reference for the Joint Programme Board
1. To manage the operation and quality of the programme.
2. To oversee applications, admissions and recruitment procedures.
3. To oversee the development of the programme and determine improvements that can be made.
4. To consider end of module reports and determine appropriate actions.
5. To consider an annual review of the programme and periodic institutional reviews of the programme.
6. To make recommendations for minor amendments, as educationally appropriate, to the programme of study.
7. To consider issues raised by student feedback and by the Student-Staff Liaison Committee and to agree
appropriate actions
8. To consider and respond to comments made by External Examiners and agree recommendations for appropriate
action.
9. To consider education and quality issues raised by module teams.
10. To advise the committee(s) that it reports to (in the two institutions) on the above and other matters as applicable.
11. To assure and oversee the immediate quality of the course in terms of teaching and learning, student experience and
outcomes, linking to existing standards for teaching quality in both institutes.
24
Appendix 8: Procedures for different types of partnership
Types of Partnership*1
Approval process Agreement*2 Authorised
signatories
Monitoring &
Institutional
oversight*3
Feedback
mechanisms
Further details
Joint supervision of
research programmes
(where the co-supervisor
is from a partner) and
Research conducted at a
partner (including
research and taught
postgraduate
programmes)
Individual students:
Head of School
approves co-
supervisor.
Groups of students:
EPSG approves
proposal.
Individual students:
School approves
agreement.
Groups of students:
Agreement approved
by Chair of EPSG or
nominee
Individual students:
Head of School
Groups of students:
PVC (T&L) or
PVC (R)
Students reports
to Senate PG
Committee
EE reports to
QAVTG
Annual
monitoring reports
External Examiner
reports
Individual students:
Paragraphs 71-81
Paragraph 83
Groups of students:
Paragraphs 71-81
Paragraph 84
Doctoral Training
Centres involving
partners
EPSG approves
proposal.
Agreement approved
by Chair of EPSG or
nominee
PVC (T&L) or
PVC (Research)
Students reports
to Senate PG
Committee
EE reports to
QAVTG
Annual
monitoring reports
External Examiner
reports
Paragraphs 84
Franchised programmes
(including parts of
programmes)
EPSG approves
proposal subject to
satisfactory Panel
reports.
Agreement approved
by Chair of EPSG or
nominee
PVC (T&L) EE and QA1
forms to QAVTG
Re-approval and
revalidation
reports to EPSG
and QAVTG
IQA and mid-
term review
reports to
QAVTG
Joint Programme
Boards,
School Boards of
Studies,
External Examiner
reports,
Annual
monitoring (QA1)
forms,
Re-approval and
revalidation
reports.
Paragraphs 31-70
25
Types of Partnership*1
Approval process Agreement*2 Authorised
signatories
Monitoring &
Institutional
oversight*3
Feedback
mechanisms
Further details
Validated programmes
delivered by non-
programme-awarding
bodies.
EPSG approves
proposal subject to
satisfactory Panel
reports.
Agreement approved
by Chair of EPSG or
nominee
Vice-Chancellor EE, Moderator
and annual
monitoring
reports to
QAVTG
Re-approval and
revalidation
reports to EPSG
and QAVTG
Moderator reports.
External Examiner
reports,
Annual
monitoring forms,
Re-approval and
revalidation
reports.
Paragraphs 21-23
Joint Programmes
EPSG approves
proposal subject to
satisfactory Panel
reports.
Agreement approved
by Chair of EPSG or
nominee
Vice-Chancellor
Students reports
to Senate PG
Committee
EE reports to
QAVTG
IQA reports to
QAVTG
Re-approval and
revalidation
reports to EPSG
and QAVTG
Annual
monitoring reports
External Examiner
reports
Re-approval and
revalidation
reports
Taught
Paragraphs 31-70
Research
Paragraphs 71-98
Dual Programmes
(Taught)
EPSG approves
proposal subject to
satisfactory Panel
reports.
Agreement approved
by Chair of EPSG or
nominee
Dual Programmes:
Pro Vice-
Chancellor (T&L)
EE and QA1
forms to QAVTG
IQA and mid-
term review
reports to
QAVTG
Revalidation
reports to EPSG
and QAVTG
Joint Boards of
Studies,
School Boards of
Studies
External Examiner
reports,
Annual
monitoring (QA1)
forms.
Paragraphs 31-70
26
Types of Partnership*1
Approval process Agreement*2 Authorised
signatories
Monitoring &
Institutional
oversight*3
Feedback
mechanisms
Further details
Dual programmes
(Research)
EPSG approves
proposal
Agreement approved
by Chair of EPSG or
nominee
Dual Programmes:
Pro Vice-
Chancellor (T&L or
R)
Students reports
to Senate PG
Committee
EE reports to
QAVTG
Re-approval
reports to EPSG
and QAVTG
Annual
monitoring reports
External Examiner
reports
Internal quality
audits
Paragraphs 71-98
Collaboration with other
HEI(s) to provide taught
programmes (including
provision in Welsh)
Individual modules:
Whole or
substantive parts of
programmes
‘Umbrella
agreement’ via the
Coleg Cymraeg
Cenedlaethol
Agreement approved
by Chair of EPSG or
nominee
Head of School
Whole
programmes:
Pro Vice-
Chancellor (T&L or
Research)
New module
approval panel
Programmme
validation events
EE and annual
monitoring
reports to
QAVTG
Audit and
revalidation
reports to EPSG
and QAVTG
External Examiner
reports,
QA1 and QA2
forms
Re-approval and
revalidation
reports
Individual modules:
Code 08
Whole or
substantive parts of
a programme:
Paragraphs 31-70
Articulation
arrangements
EPSG approves
proposal.
Agreement approved
by Chair of EPSG or
nominee
PVC (T&L) IQA reports to
QAVTG. Audit
and revalidation
reports
Marks obtained
by students in
Bangor are
considered by
EPSG and
QAVTG
Partner required to
inform BU of any
major changes to
curriculum.
Annual procedure
to check
programme in
partner still meets
university
requirements.
Paragraphs 24-30
27
Types of Partnership*1
Approval process Agreement*2 Authorised
signatories
Monitoring &
Institutional
oversight*3
Feedback
mechanisms
Further details
Work-based learning
modules
and
Placements
University process
for programme and
module approval.
As defined by Code
of Practice for
Placement Learning
Head of School and
College Director of
T&L
QAVTG
Audit and
revalidation
reports
Boards of Studies,
External Examiner
reports.
Annual
monitoring forms.
PRSB’s where
appropriate
Code 07
Code 08
Study abroad (including
exchanges and student
mobility)
Approval by
International
Education Centre
As defined by Code
of Practice for
Placement Learning
Head of School and
Director of
International
Development
International
Education Centre
Paragraph 99-100
& Code 07
Provision of learning
support, resources or
specialist facilities.
Note:
Generally as a small
module component or
small part of a research
project. For module-
level collaboration and
research conducted at a
partner - see above.
Approval by Head
of School (or
nominee)
Agreement approved
by Head of School
(or nominee)
Monitoring by
annual module
review. Internal
quality audit.
QAVTG
Audit and
revalidation
reports
Annual
monitoring reports
Research students
Paragraphs 71-82
Other students
Procedures as
defined for research
students in
Paragraphs 71-82
*1 Based of the types identified in Chapter B10 of the Quality Assurance Agency’s UK Quality Code (Published December 2012). *2 Agreements have to be proportional to the type of activities. For example, a validatated programme will require an agreement using an approved University template.
An agreememt for a student to use equipment elsewhere can be a concise bespoke document. The agreement of PSRB’s may also be required. *3 Student feedback will also be used for all types of programmes