Collaborative Provision Implementation and Quality Assurance Monitoring

3.1 Key University Collaborative Provision Roles

3.1.1 The University must be confident that courses running at partner institutions:

• Maintain academic standards.
• Protect students.
• Manage institutional risk.
• Ensure regulatory compliance.

3.1.2 To do this the University provides additional support to all collaborative provision partners. All partners must be assigned a Designated Academic Liaison Officer, a Registry Link Officer and, where appropriate, either an Institutional Liaison Officer or a Partnerships Success Manager.

Designated Academic Liaison Officer (DALO) Role

3.1.3 Schools must appoint a DALO when Collaborative Provision for a course has been approved. The DALO is responsible for academic elements relating to the course running at the partner institution and should be an experienced academic. Schools should acknowledge the time associated with the role in terms of workload remittance:

• Visits partner locations to look at academic issues (x2 visits in first year at least x1 visit subsequent years) and reports best practice or any issues to the Dean and Registry Link Officer.
• Attends the Annual Executive Meeting (see AEM section) (if there is no ILO). Note: the AEM is a key Collaborative Provision quality indication and must be held once a year. An independent academic should Chair the AEM.
• Advises and monitors APEL and APLA procedures used by the PI in conjunction with Quality Assurance.
• Manage any problems or issues that arise during the provision, contacting Registry or your school for support.
• Oversees the quality assurance procedures of the course to make sure introduction materials are appropriate and that students are briefed on University matters thoroughly.
• Attends student panels and course committee meetings.
• Makes sure a system of peer observation of teaching is in place.
• Makes sure students have a Personal Academic Tutor assigned.
• Makes sure that any Assessment Meetings held off-campus are chaired by a member of University staff.
• Passes on module/lecture delivery schedules and other information to ensure that PI courses follow the agreed timetable.
• Prepares an annual DALO report which identifies actions to take in the following year.
• During validations, the DALO will be considered part of the course team and will attend to support the partner institution.

Registry Link Officer Role

3.1.4 All collaborative provision partners must have a Registry Link Officer assigned from the Reviews and Partnership team to:

• Provide a link and extra support for the partner institution, DALO and professional services (ie course administration and student casework).
• Signpost the DALO and partner to any areas or staff as required.
• Identify problematic areas such as affiliate accounts for staff at partner institutions with courses that fall outside of the usual timeframe.
• Ensure new partners and DALOs have made links with computing and library services to induct any partner teaching staff, where appropriate.
• Ensure courses are set up by course publications following validation and approval.
• Ensure DALO visits take place during the first year of a new partnership, signposting any guidance.
• Ensure Annual Executive meetings are arranged and held at the appropriate time.
• Support Annual Executive meetings and attend if required.
• Circulate Regulation updates to the DALO (and partner) in August, where relevant.
• Arrange meetings between the DALO, partner and other University staff members to address issues if required.

Institutional Liaison Officer/Partnerships Success Manager Roles

3.1.5 Where collaborative provision is based overseas or spans more than one school, then that provision must have either an Institutional Liaison Officer or a Partnerships Success Manager appointed to:

• Maintain regular contact with the Partner’s Senior Leadership Team.
• Visit at least once a year to attend the AEM. Note: this is a key Collaborative Provision quality indicator and must be held once a year.
• Meet with students where concerns have been identified by the DALO.
• Make sure the Contract of Collaboration is re-issued every five years subject to review and confirmation from PVC(T&L) that the partnership is to continue.
• Support the DALOs in maintaining the quality of the student learning experience and the standards of awards at the PI.
• Meet DALOs regularly to confirm assessment processes and external examining are conducted under University regulations.
• Prepare a short report on ILO activity, highlighting any issues arising and matters for further action.

 

3.2 Annual Evaluation at Partner Institutions

3.2.1 For franchised and designed and delivered partnerships, the DALO and schools are responsible for liaising with partner institutions to ensure that annual evaluation reports are prepared by the partner and submitted as part of the University’s annual evaluation process.

3.2.2 For ODUPLUS partnerships, the annual evaluation report must be written by the University’s teaching team and submitted as part of the University’s annual evaluation process.

3.2.3 An annual evaluation report including information specified in the University’s Quality Assurance Procedures for Taught Courses and Research Awards must be produced for each collaborative provision course. The DALO must add a report outlining:

• The number of visits undertaken by staff at the University to the partner institution in the period covered by the report.
• The number of visits undertaken by staff at the partner institution to the University in the period covered by the report.
• The nature of contact between the two institutions.
• A summary of any issues raised and dealt with – or any outstanding issues.
• Confirmation that all publicity and marketing material relating to University provision, including information on websites, was reviewed and approved.

 

3.3 Student Panels

3.3.1 Student panels must be held by partner institutions in franchise and designed and delivered arrangements. In ODUPLUS arrangements, student panels must fall into the usual University processes. The Designated Academic Liaison Officer must work with the partner institution to make sure:

• Student panels operate in line with University regulations and expectations.
• Student panel rolling logs are received by course committees (unless there is an ODUPLUS arrangement).

 

3.4 Course Committee

3.4.1 The partner institution in franchised and designed and delivered arrangements must:

• Hold course committees.
• Include the DALO as member.
• Submit course committee minutes to the University.

3.4.2 DALOs must attend the partner institution’s course committee or nominate a suitable academic staff member to attend in their place.

 

3.5 Teaching Staff at Partner Institutions

3.5.1 The school and DALO responsible for a collaboration provision course must monitor the academic credentials of teaching staff employed at partner institutions in franchised or designed and delivered arrangements.

3.5.2 Following teaching staff approval at a validation event, any CVs of new/additional teaching staff at a partner institution must be approved by the school’s Senior Leadership Team ahead of teaching beginning.

3.5.3 Teaching staff at partner institutions must normally be qualified to one level above the course they are teaching. The Director of Registry and Academic Development must be consulted if teaching staff at a partner institution do not have the required level of qualification.

 

3.6 Assessment and Examinations

3.6.1 There must be parity of assessment arrangements between courses running at partner institutions and the equivalent courses running at the Queensgate Campus. Any local arrangements must be agreed at validation along with issues concerning examinations and time differences.

3.6.2 External Examiners must be involved in monitoring assessments at partner institutions and must comment on the standards of students at partner institutions.

3.6.3 The procedures for assessment and examination of all students enrolled on collaborative courses must be governed by the examination regulations of the University, see the Regulations for Taught Awards for further information.

 

3.7 Course Assessment Meetings (CAMs)

3.7.1 Assessment marks for Collaborative Provision courses must be considered at the University’s Course Assessment Meetings (CAMs). The CAM has responsibility for ratifying the performance in modules based on the moderated marks brought forward; ratify student progression and ratify degree classifications and conferment of awards. A CAM schedule will be produced annually at the start of the academic year and the dates and deadlines for marking and moderation must be adhered to if they are to be presented at the relevant CAM.

PI Holds their own Course Assessment Boards

3.7.2 In some circumstances and where approved as part of the validation process and reflected in the Contract of Collaboration, the PI may hold their own CAMs. In such cases:

• A Course Assessment Meeting will be established at the partner institution. Note: where the agreement is a franchise, the CAM must be chaired by a member of University staff.
• The external examiners for the course will be sent both coursework and examination papers and scripts for moderation ahead of a CAM taking place and must approve the marks.
• If the agreement is with an overseas partner, schools may:
• specify that one or more of the external examiners will be from the UK and one or more will be from the region or country in which delivery takes place who are familiar with UK HE practice.
• use the same external examiner who examines the on-campus version of the course (where applicable, and where the workload for the external examiner is deemed to be acceptable) to verify that the standard of work of students off campus is commensurate to the work of students on campus.

 

3.8 Changes to Approved Provision

3.8.1 Partners cannot make changes to an approved collaborative provision course without prior notification and approval by the University. Partners must contact their DALO and Registry Link Officer in the first instance for information and advice on the correct University process to follow.

3.8.2 If a partner changes a course without University permission, APB will be notified to consider the risk involved for the University and will suggest a course of action involving the partner.

3.8.3 Changes such as requests for a different start date, a different mode of delivery or delivery at a different campus must be made via a DALO and the Registry Link Officer. APB will need to consider the impact of the change in the first instance and suggest the appropriate process to address it.

 

3.9 Student Casework at Partner Institutions

3.9.1 All elements of student casework at partner institutions must be:

• Discussed as part of the (re)validation process.
• Included in the contract of collaboration.

3.9.2 Relevant staff at new partner institutions must receive training on student casework before teaching begins, and the DALO must make sure that any new staff at the partner institution employed to teach on University courses are aware of the University regulations and procedures.

3.9.3 The DALO must make sure that the partner institution issues students with the Regulations for Taught Students during their induction and that all staff and students are aware of how to access them at a later date.

3.9.4 The DALO and Registry Link Offer must offer continuing advice and support to partner institutions for all elements of student casework

Partner Institutions and Academic Misconduct Regulations

3.9.5 The University of Huddersfield’s Academic Misconduct policy and processes apply to all courses and all partner institutions.

3.9.6 The DALO must monitor the partner’s use of the University policy and processes relating to academic misconduct.

3.9.7 The partner institution must notify the DALO about any academic misconduct cases concerning students on University courses.

3.9.8 The DALO must make sure that the partner institution issues students with section 10 of the Regulations for Taught Students during their induction and that all staff and students are aware of academic misconduct regulations and procedures.

3.9.9 Relevant staff at new partner institutions must receive training on academic misconduct before teaching begins, and the DALO must make sure that any new staff at the partner institution employed to teach on University courses are aware of the University regulations and procedures.

3.9.10 Students at partner institutions must complete the mandatory University Academic Misconduct module as part of their induction.

CP Student Casework at Partner Institutions.pdf

CP Student Complaints

3.9.11 Student complaints at partner institutions must normally follow the University of Huddersfield’s Regulations and Procedures outlined in Section 13 of the Regulations for Taught Students. However, this may depend on the subject matter of the complaint:

• The University will carry out all stages of complaints relating to academic matters.
• The partner institution will address the informal stage of complaints that relate to the environment or other matters related to non academic matters at the partner institution. The University will address all subsequent stages.
• Where complaints from collaborative provision students cover both academic and non academic matters, the partner institution must work with the University to draft a joint response.

3.9.12 Partner institutions must liaise with their DALO and the Registry Link Officer if they receive complaints from students on University courses so that the University can provide advice and support.

3.9.13 The DALO must make sure that the partner institution issues students with the Regulations for Taught Students during their induction and that all staff and students at the partner are aware of how the complaints procedure works.

CP Student Complaints.pdf

CP Results Appeals

3.9.14 Student results appeals received by partner institutions must be passed onto the University via the DALO and Registry Link Officer. All results appeals follow the University of Huddersfield’s Regulations and Procedures outlined in section 9 of the Regulations for Taught Students and the partner institution must not attempt to address the issues raised.

3.9.15 The DALO must make sure that the PI issues students with the Regulations for Taught Students during their induction and that all staff and students are aware how the Appeals procedure works – also see the workflow below. 

CP Results Appeal.pdf

CP Fitness to Practise Procedures

3.9.16 Student Fitness to Practise Procedures only apply to certain courses such as teaching, health care and social work. It is important to discuss any courses where Fitness to Practise Procedures apply with any new partner institutions during validation.

3.9.17 Partner institutions follow the University of Huddersfield’s Regulations and Procedures outlined in section 11 of the Regulations for Taught Students The DALO must make sure that the PI issues students with the Regulations for Taught Students during their induction and that all staff and students are aware how the Fitness to Practise Procedures work.

3.9.18 The partner institution will usually be responsible for invoking and completing the first informal stage. The outcome must be reported back to the DALO at the University. Subsequent stages of the procedure will usually be completed by the school/University.

CP Fitness to Practise Procedures.pdf

CP Support to Study Procedures

3.9.19 Where a partner institution has concerns surrounding a student’s physical or mental health, they are usually responsible for invoking Support to Study Procedures at stage 1, as outlined in the Regulations for Taught Students. They should also inform the DALO, the school and Registry Link Officer for support and advice.

3.9.20 The University will consider factors such as the contract, the issue concerned and whether the partner feels confident in carrying out the procedure before agreeing the final approach. The University will usually be responsible for the formal stages of the procedures.

CP Support to Study Procedures.pdf

CP Extenuating Circumstances

3.9.21 Extenuating Circumstances at partner institutions must follow the University of Huddersfield’s Regulations and Procedures outlined in section 8 of the Regulations for Taught Students. The DALO must make sure that the partner institution issues students with the Regulations for Taught Students during their induction and that all staff and students are aware how the Extenuating Circumstances procedure works.

 

Disciplinary

3.9.22 In cases where collaborative provision students are subject to disciplinary procedures:

• In the first instance the PI should contact the DALO to discuss the issue.
• The DALO and school should then check the contract with the partner institution and discuss the disciplinary issue with the Registry Link Officer.

3.9.23 Normally the process to be followed will depend on factors such as who reports student numbers to Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), the contract of collaboration and whether the issue concerns teaching, learning and assessment. Registry and Academic Development will support and advise the school and partner institution throughout the process. See the workflow below. 

CP Student Disciplinary.pdf

Partner Institution Student Withdrawals

3.9.24 In instances where partner institutions are considering withdrawing a student, they must first inform the DALO. The University must be fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal to support the partner’s decision should the student subsequently follow the University complaints procedure.

Attendance Monitoring

3.9.25 Partner institutions must monitor collaborative provision student attendance and engagement with University courses in line with University regulations. This must be discussed during (re)validation and outlined in contracts of collaboration where relevant.

3.11 Additional Sites for Delivery of Approved Collaborative Provision

3.11.1 Where collaborative provision partners request to deliver University courses at a different site to that approved at validation, the partner must supply a rationale for this change (email reviewsandpartnership@hud.ac.uk). APB must consider the risk involved in the request and advise on the appropriate action, which may include a DALO visit to the location. If a DALO carries out an additional site approval visit, they must complete a risk assessment form.

3.11.2 APB must approve all additional delivery sites at partner institutions before they can be added to University systems. The new delivery location will align with normal revalidation cycles.

3.11.3 For the Education Consortium, should teaching move to a different room at the validated location, this may not require a DALO visit as generally the risk involved is low. The DALO must request a statement from the partner institution to confirm the required classroom resources are still available to students.

 

3.12 Partner Mergers with Another Institution

3.12.1 If a PI is planning to merge with another institution, the partner and/or DALO must notify the Reviews and Partnerships team with details of the merger. Once the merger is complete and if the merger creates a new legal entity, then the University must hold a validation event in the following academic year to consider the impact on:

• Teaching staff at the partner.
• Delivery location.
• Computing and library facilities.

3.12.2 The usual (re)validation regulations apply to partners who have undergone a merger and APB must approve the report of the event. The Legal Office must issue a new contract of collaboration and the Reviews and Partnerships team will work with the Curriculum Data Team to amend University systems.

 

3.13 PI Name Changes

3.13.1 When a partner changes its name, the partner and/or DALO must notify the Reviews and Partnership team. If this is simply a name change and no new legal entity is created, then the Legal Office must be notified to amend the contract of collaboration and The Reviews and Partnerships team must work with relevant teams to update University systems. The partner will not need a validation event in this instance.

 

3.14 Monitoring Publicity Produced by Collaborative Partners

3.14.1 All partner institution publicity material for University courses should be approved by the University ahead of publication. This includes any publication or promotion on social media.

3.14.2 The Reviews and Partnerships team will periodically perform an audit of collaborative partners’ websites to make sure that the correct wording and logo is used in association with University courses.

3.14.3 Where the publicity material is not in English, partners must supply a translation to be checked before publication.

 

3.15 Minimum Qualifications of Teaching Staff

3.15.1 Teaching staff at partner institutions must be qualified to a level above the course they are teaching on to carry out marking and moderation. Should teaching staff at collaborative provision partners not hold qualifications at a level higher than the course they are proposed to teach, the partner and DALO must submit a rationale for approval by APB.

3.15.2 If staff have a qualification equal to the level of a University course being taught, they may teach but not carry out marking or moderation activities. Where no member of staff at the Partner Institution has appropriate qualifications, then marking and moderation must be undertaken by appropriately qualified staff at the University. The school must confirm they have the necessary resources and agree to assume this responsibility as part of the validation. Following the validation, if there are any staff changes this will be considered as part of the CV approval process.

3.15.3 For Consortium members, this requirement does not apply to the Postgraduate Certificate in Education or the Postgraduate Diploma in Education as these awards are not full Masters awards. In this instance, marking and moderation is permitted to be carried out by staff with a level 7 qualification. For full Master awards, staff must be working towards, or possess, a level 8 qualification.

 

3.16 Research Qualifications and Culture for Staff at PIs

3.16.1 The University must support collaborative partner research and staff development.

3.16.2 Validation events must consider:

• The level of qualifications and teaching experience at HE level.
• The level of research and scholarly activity undertaken already.
• Their potential for the publication of one article or equivalent relevant output, related to the subject area being taught, per year per partnership.
• Their potential for HEA recognition.

3.16.3 To make sure HE ethos continues to develop at HEIs, the DALO should advise partners of the support available from the school or University, including:

• Membership of school Research centres to help staff at Partner Institutions to engage in joint research activity.
• Monitoring these activities as part of the on-going discussions with the partner as well as via the partner’s own internal processes (i.e. appraisal).
• Commenting on research initiatives at PIs as part of the Annual Evaluation Process.

 

3.17 Mid-term Reviews

3.17.1 Mid-term reviews should normally be held in the third year of a five year validation and are a barometer of the health of a collaborative provision partnership ahead of revalidation.

3.17.2 A mid-term review will assess the student experience of a University course and include a meeting with the partner to consider elements raised through student feedback and any issues the University or partner have encountered.

3.17.3 The Reviews and Partnerships team will organise the mid-term review, preparing relevant data from student panels and course committees and circulate the agenda.

3.17.4 APB must approve minutes and actions recorded by mid-term reviews.

Mid-term Review Panel and Attendees

3.17.5 There is no formal quoracy but the panel must include a chair from an independent school and will include appropriate staff from Registry and Academic Development.

3.17.6 The attendees from the partner institution must normally include the teaching team and at least one senior leader.

 

3.18 Revalidation

3.18.1 A revalidation event must usually take place in the academic year before a CP contract ends. The risk associated with each partner revalidation will be considered on an individual basis. Normally overseas revalidations carrying the most risk will be conducted at the partner institution and the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) must approve any deviations from this.

3.18.2 It is possible that in some circumstances revalidation may be delayed. In this situation, APB must consider and approve the delay and the Legal Office must be notified so that they can formally extend the existing contract.

3.18.3 The revalidation event will mirror the procedures and documentation involved in the initial approval but must also include a rationale document which analyses the performance of the course and the experience of the students in the validation period.

3.18.4 APB must approve the revalidation report before teaching begins and the Legal Office must issue a new contract for the partner.

 

3.19 Requests for Exceptions to Normal Teaching Arrangements for Collaborative Provision Partners

3.19.1 The University recognises that Collaborative Provision partners may be affected by exceptional political, security, or local circumstances (including but not limited to armed conflict) which may impact their ability to deliver programmes in accordance with contractual requirements. In such cases, the partner must notify the University promptly.

3.19.2 The DALO must work with the partner and school to create a rationale for the alternative provision outlining the anticipated duration. The rationale must also consider and suggest a way to mitigate the impact on assessments.

3.19.3 APB must consider and approve all requests and following APB approval the Reviews and Partnerships team will notify all relevant teams.

 

3.20 Exit Strategies

3.20.1 Any partner wishing to terminate a partnership must notify the University. The DALO must work with the Reviews and Partnership team and partner to create an exit strategy outlining how remaining students will be supported (see Appendix 12 – Exit Strategy Template).

3.20.2 Where a partner contract ends and there are no plans to continue the collaboration, the DALO must work with the Reviews and Partnership team and partner to create an exit strategy which outlines how any remaining students will be supported.

3.20.3 All exit strategies must be approved by APB.

3.20.4 The DALO and partner must write to remaining students using the letter template in Appendix 13 – Exit Strategy – Letter to Students Template as a guide.