Docstoc

Title

Document Sample
Title Powered By Docstoc
					                                 Collaborative Handbook
Document Reference:                             Collaborative Handbook
Identifier:                                     QH: A 7
Version:                                        5 00                             Date: Nov 10

Responsibilities:                               Partner Institutions
                                                Faculties
                                                University Quality Office
                                                Student Administrative Services
                                                Admissions Service
Approved By:                                    PVC (L&T)
Originator:                                     University Quality Office

Application to collaborative provision:         Mandatory
Contacts:                                       University Quality Office 01482 466704

Applications for exemptions to:                 ULTAC
Report Exemptions to:                           ULTAC

Summary/ Description:
The Collaborative Handbook sets out the quality assurance framework for collaborative provision. It
details procedures involved in the development, approval, establishment and effective
management of collaborative programmes and focuses on provision delivered by Further
Education College partners and validated by the University. The Handbook sets out the
responsibilities and duties which must be adhered to by all parties involved including FEC partner
institutions, faculties and relevant central University services.

Version 5 00 makes the following changes:
    Updates the handbook to reflect the new University Committee structure
    Adds in new information about contracts and schedules
Version 4 01 makes the following changes:
    Minor housekeeping amendments
    Clarification regarding student access to library facilities
    Clarification of responsibilities in relation to NSS
    Change to intercalation guidance to reflect introduction of University Code of Practice
       Intercalation published at QH: K13
    Updating of Committee responsibilities
    Clarification of arrangements for flow of information between committees involved in
       Collaborative Provision
Version 4 00 of the Handbook made the following specific changes:
    Programme and partnership approval arrangements
    Updated committee details
    Introduction of a requirement for faculties to produce an annual report on issues arising
       from Joint Board of studies meetings
    Updated arrangements in relation to applications for Recognised Teacher Status
    Clarification of arrangements for transcript checking
    Clarification of requirements for reporting on devolved admissions arrangements
    Clarification of role of external examiner
    Changes to unfair means regulations
    Changes to policy on the treatment of borderlines
    New section 17 which sets out key training dates

Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                       QH: A7:1
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
This University code has been written in accordance with the approach approved by QSC to enhance
clarity (Quality Handbook section A: 2) involving the following terminology:
          must = mandatory                     should = advisable              may = desirable
Where these terms are used they are emphasised in bold.



This document is available in alternative formats from the
               University Quality Office




Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                           QH: A7:2
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
                                                         Table of Contents
1.   INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 6
2.   UNIVERSITY STRATEGY FOR COLLABORATIVE PROVISION ............................................. 7
   What is Validation? ......................................................................................................................... 8
3. QUALITY AND STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 9
4. APPROVAL, REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF PARTNERSHIPS ........................................... 9
   4.1 Approval of New Partnerships ............................................................................................... 9
   4.2 Review of Partnerships ......................................................................................................... 9
   4.3 Termination of Partnerships ................................................................................................ 10
5. APPROVAL OF COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES .............................................................. 11
   5.1 Programme Design ............................................................................................................. 11
   5.2 The Approvals Process ....................................................................................................... 12
   5.3 Programmes where the University does not offer Comparable Provision .......................... 14
   5.4 Amendments to Collaborative Programmes of Study ......................................................... 14
   5.5 Withdrawal or Suspension of Programmes ......................................................................... 15
6.      CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS .................................................................................. 16
   6.1 The Agreement .................................................................................................................... 16
   6.2 Fees ..................................................................................................................................... 17
   6.3 Contracts and Schedules .................................................................................................... 17
7. COMMITTEE STRUCTURE FOR COLLABORATIVE PROVISION ........................................ 18
   7.1 Senate and Senate Executive Board .................................................................................. 19
   7.2 University Learning, Teaching and Assessment Committee (ULTAC) ............................... 19
   7.5 Collaborative Provision Forum (CPF) ................................................................................. 19
   7.6 Programme Approvals Committee (PAC) ........................................................................... 20
   7.7 Associate Institutions Advisory Network ............................................................................. 20
   7.8 Faculty Learning, Teaching and Assessment Committees (FLTAC) .................................. 20
   7.9 Joint Development Board (JDB) .......................................................................................... 20
   7.10    Joint Board of Studies (JBoS) ......................................................................................... 21
   7.11    Student Progress Committee (SPC) ............................................................................... 23
   7.12    Quality Enhancement Forum (QEF) ............................................................................... 23
8. COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................................................. 24
9. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ........................................................................................... 24
   9.1 At the University .................................................................................................................. 24
   9.2 At Partner Institutions .......................................................................................................... 25
10.     STAFF AT PARTNER INSTITUTIONS ............................................................................... 25
   10.1    Recognised Teacher Status ............................................................................................ 25
   10.2    Staff Development .......................................................................................................... 26
   10.3    Peer Observation ............................................................................................................ 26
   10.4    Appraisal ......................................................................................................................... 26
11.     MANAGEMENT OF COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES .................................................. 26
12.     ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT ................................................................................... 26
   12.1    Marketing and Communications ..................................................................................... 27
   12.2    Unistats ........................................................................................................................... 28
   12.3    National Student Survey (NSS) ...................................................................................... 28
   12.4    Student Handbooks ........................................................................................................ 28
   12.5    Student Induction ............................................................................................................ 28
   12.6    Notification of Results and Transcripts/European Diploma Supplements (EDS) ........... 29
   12.7    Graduation Ceremonies and the Issuing of Certificates ................................................. 29
13.     MANAGEMENT OF STUDENT RELATED ISSUES........................................................... 30
   13.1    Record Keeping and Archiving ....................................................................................... 30
   13.2    The Application Process ................................................................................................. 30
   13.3    Devolved Admissions Process ........................................................................................ 31
   13.4    For partners without Devolved Admissions Authority ..................................................... 31
   13.5    Student Registration ....................................................................................................... 35
   13.6    Changes to Student Details ............................................................................................ 37
   13.7    Withdrawal from the Programme .................................................................................... 37
14.     ACADEMIC MANAGEMENT............................................................................................... 39
   14.1    Activities Relating to the Assessment Process ............................................................... 39
   14.2    Examination Arrangements ............................................................................................. 41
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                                                                 QH: A7:3
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
  14.3     Boards of Examiners ....................................................................................................... 41
  14.4     Role of the Student Progress Committee (SPC) ............................................................ 44
  14.5     Student Progress Issues ................................................................................................. 44
  14.6     Complaints ...................................................................................................................... 48
  14.7     Personal Supervisors ...................................................................................................... 48
  14.8     Progress Files and Personal Development Plans (PDP)................................................ 48
15.      QUALITY ASSURANCE ...................................................................................................... 50
  15.1     Annual Review of Programmes ...................................................................................... 50
  15.2     Partner Quality Enhancement Reports ........................................................................... 50
  15.3     Audit of Quality Mechanisms .......................................................................................... 50
  15.4     Periodic Review .............................................................................................................. 51
  15.5     External Audit .................................................................................................................. 51
  15.6     Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies .............................................................. 51
  15.7     Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 51
16.      KEY CONTACTS AT THE UNIVERSITY ............................................................................ 53
17       Key training Dates 2010-2011 ............................................................................................. 55
18.      ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... 56
19.      DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................................... 57




Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                                                             QH: A7:4
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
                     COLLABORATIVE
                       HANDBOOK
                        2010/2011




Collaborative Handbook 2010-11       QH: A7:5
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
1.      INTRODUCTION

This Handbook has been prepared to assist members of the University of Hull and
existing and potential UK partners, to understand the procedures involved in the
development, approval, establishment and effective management of collaborative
programmes.

Throughout this document it is assumed that the collaboration involves programmes
delivered by an approved partner institution, normally a further education college offering
higher education in the UK and validated by the University. The key distinction is in terms
of the funding of places which will determine the administration of the programme and
access to University of Hull resources by the student.

The Handbook is subject to regular review and is published as a „live‟ document. The
definitive version can be found on the University Quality Office website at
http://www.hull.ac.uk/quality - Section A7. The University is always interested to receive
comments from partners about the content and format of the Handbook and the
associated quality assurance framework that appears in the University Quality Handbook.
Interested parties can contact the University Quality Officer with responsibility for
collaborative provision for guidance on the availability of these publications and contact
details are given at the end of this section.

Any comments or questions regarding the procedures or contents of this Handbook may
be addressed, in the first instance, to:



University Quality Office
Collaborative Provision

Telephone: 01482 46 6703
Facsimile: 01482 46 6716

E-mail: pam.medhurst@hull.ac.uk

http://www.hull.ac.uk/quality

http://www.hull.ac.uk/quality/collaborative_provision/collaborative_handbook/index.html




Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                QH: A7:6
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
2.       UNIVERSITY STRATEGY FOR COLLABORATIVE PROVISION
The University of Hull places working in partnership high on its strategic agenda and
engagement with learning organisations, business and the community is central to the
University‟s mission of public service. The University has over the years developed a
network of local and regional educational providers that enables the University to meet the
needs of the region, including by:

        widening participation in, and access to, higher education
        broadening the range of opportunities for learners
        providing progression routes, including those for vocationally qualified applicants
        providing development opportunities for staff both within the partner institutions
         and the University.

The fundamental principle overriding all types of partnership or collaborative provision is
that the University retains ultimate responsibility for the academic standards of awards
granted in its name. In addition, through quality assurance and enhancement processes,
the University ensures that the quality and standards of collaborative programmes are
comparable to on-campus programmes. The University places particular emphasis on the
following:

        there should be no differentiation in the titles of awards or other qualifications
         awarded in partner institutions compared with those awarded in the University
        students registered on collaborative programmes are recognised as studying
         towards an award of the University of Hull
        the University recognises those staff in partner institutions who teach on
         collaborative programmes as being appropriately qualified and experienced for the
         purposes of teaching and assessment through a formal process
        ideas for new programmes will be suggested at the Joint Development Board
         (JDB)
        each programme is developed through mutual co-operation and collaboration and,
         once approved, is overseen by the Joint Board of Studies (JBoS) or equivalent
        the student learning experience must be comparable to that of on-campus
         students
        effective and regular communication between partner institutions and the
         University is essential
        student documentation should clarify at every point the source of certification and
         expectations of the student
        the agreements between the University and partner institutions need to be specific
         and managed by a contract
        the University is sensitive to matters of confidentiality and competition between it
         and its existing partner institutions
        the University, at all times, must safeguard its reputation as a provider of
         educational programmes of high quality.

The use of the terms validated and franchised in relation to collaborative programmes is
no longer sufficient to reflect the complexity of some collaborative arrangements. In order
to clarify arrangements for the administration of collaborative provision and to set out
more clearly student entitlement in each case it will be more useful to distinguish this type
of provision according to the funding arrangements. Generally collaborative provision is
funded in one of two ways:




Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                  QH: A7:7
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
Direct funding –                 College HEFCE numbers
                                 Funding from HEFCE directly to FEC
                                 Formerly described as validated

Indirect funding –               University HEFCE numbers
                                 Funding from HEFCE to University
                                 Formerly described as franchised

The administrative processes for quality and standards are determined by the nature of
the funding and are the same for each type of arrangement with the following exceptions
only:

       Production of transcripts/EDS (see section 12.5)
       Maintenance of the student academic record (see section 13.1)
       Administration of statutory returns (see section 13.1)
       Management of Boards of Examiners (see section 14.3)

Where more than one Partner Institution is involved in the delivery of the programme,
responsibility for all matters relating to the student lies with the lead Partner who has been
allocated the student numbers for the programme concerned.

What is Validation?
Validation is defined by the University as “The process by which the awarding institution
judges that a programme developed and delivered by another institution or organisation is
of appropriate quality and standard to lead to the University’s award.” Features of a
University of Hull validation arrangement include:

       partner institutions, with support and guidance from the University, undertake the
        majority of the administration and promotion
       teaching staff are appointed by partner institutions and through a formal process
        approved as Recognised Teachers by the University
       Recognised Teachers at partner institutions mark the students‟ work which is then
        moderated by the University and reviewed by the external examiner appointed by
        the University, in accordance with the University‟s procedures
       academic and administrative issues at discipline level are discussed and resolved
        through JBoS or equivalent, involving staff from the University and partner
        institutions, and by regular academic and administrative support from the
        University.




Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                  QH: A7:8
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
3.       QUALITY AND STANDARDS
The University‟s on-campus quality assurance framework is applied to collaborative
provision with appropriate modifications and additions following careful consideration of
the guidance in the Quality Assurance Agency‟s (QAA) Code of Practice. Specified
committees and individuals are responsible for the creation, implementation, monitoring,
review and enhancement of the quality assurance framework which is designed to enable
the University to discharge its responsibilities for the quality and standards of all University
of Hull awards.

The quality assurance framework is expressed in a series of regulations and codes of
practice. The University maintains the standards of its awards by making key elements of
the quality assurance framework mandatory for partner institutions. At the heart of this
approach are the University‟s programmes regulations which govern the eligibility of all
candidates for the University‟s awards. Applying the same regulations ensures
consistency for all programmes irrespective of location of delivery. This approach is
reinforced by a number of University codes of practice which partner institutions must
apply, including conduct of boards of examiners, the nomination and appointment of
external examiners, and the use of unfair means. Throughout this Handbook reference is
made to the relevant regulations and codes of practice in the University Quality Handbook
(QH :).

4.       APPROVAL, REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF PARTNERSHIPS
4.1     Approval of New Partnerships
The University must undertake, with due diligence, an investigation to satisfy itself about
the standing of a potential partner institution and its capacity to fulfil its role in the
arrangement. In addition, the University must assure itself that the educational objectives
of the prospective partner institution are compatible with its own.

The University has revised its Code of Practice on Educational Partnerships (QH:N). The
Code covers all forms of partnerships including matriculation, progression and exchange
agreements, and partnerships for sole or joint delivery of modules and/or programmes
leading to University of Hull credits/awards. The Code covers the initiation, review,
extension, renewal and termination of partnership arrangements with public or private
educational institutions and organisations. Such institutions and organisations include
universities, colleges, public or private training providers whether in the UK, or overseas.

The University‟s Learning, Teaching and Assessment Committee (ULTAC) will be the
final arbiter of the interpretation and application of the code.

4.2      Review of Partnerships
The University periodically reviews its partnerships in order to ensure their continued
suitability, sustainability and benefit. ULTAC in consultation with the sponsoring
faculty/ies, will conduct a review of the partnership prior to any renewal of the legal
agreement. The review will:

        consider whether there has been any change in the circumstances of the
         partnership and how these changes relate to stipulations outlined in the current
         partnership approval
        monitor outputs of the agreement with regard to the University‟s requirements for
         the assurance of quality and maintenance of academic standards with reference to
         the operation of programmes/modules.

A report of the review must be submitted to the next available meeting of the ULTAC with
such recommendations as deemed appropriate.
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                    QH: A7:9
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
4.3     Termination of Partnerships
In the event that the University and/or a partner institution wishes to bring the partnership
to an end, discussions must take place between representatives of senior management
from both institutions in consultation with the affected faculty/ies and in accordance with
the terms set out in the agreement. Individual University departments or faculties are not
permitted to act on behalf of the University in these situations. The final recommendation
of SMT will be reported to ULTAC which will formally take the decision to terminate if
appropriate. The Chair of ULTAC will establish an exit group to oversee the exit from the
partnership. The University‟s primary concern will be to ensure that all existing students
are given every possible opportunity to complete their studies in a suitable environment to
enable them to qualify for the University‟s award. The exit group will develop an exit
strategy detailing how the interests of the students will be protected. The exit strategy
should cover:

       the reasons for the termination of the partnership – this will be necessary for any
        prospective institution wishing to work with the partner institution in the future
       the date from which the exit strategy will commence, and projected period
        necessary to fulfil obligations to students in accordance with clauses set out in
        agreement
       the plan for the communication of the decision and subsequent activities to all
        parties concerned e.g. relevant departments, faculties at both institutions, external
        examiners, current students and prospective students (if appropriate)
       the financial arrangements during the exit period including possible charges for the
        additional administration arising out of the decision to terminate the partnership
       the responsibilities and expectations of both parties during the exiting phase. It is
        expected that the relationship will continue as set out in the agreement unless
        otherwise specified. In some instances, students might complete their studies
        outside the expected exiting phase i.e. those who have deferred or intercalated;
        agreement must be obtained to manage these particular students.

Activities and progress during the exiting phase must be monitored by the relevant Joint
Development Board (JDB) and reported to ULTAC. It is essential during this period that
both institutions co-operate fully and meet their obligations to ensure that students‟ studies
are not adversely affected.

If the termination results in the possible transfer of students to another educational
institution, then the third party must be involved in the negotiations of the exit strategy.
The University expects to be consulted upon and agree the wording of any communication
to continuing students informing them of the transfer and be given an opportunity to
discuss student concerns should agreement not be obtained.

It is the responsibility of the University Quality Officer (Collaborative Provision) to liaise
with the University Solicitor to initiate the appropriate mechanisms to terminate the
agreement between the two institutions. There are further details about the termination of
a partnership in the Collaborative Provision Agreement.

QH: N       Educational Partnerships




Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                 QH: A7:10
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
5.      APPROVAL OF COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES
The code of practice on the approval of collaborative programmes and modules sets out
the requirements for a new programme proposal and the process for its consideration.
This section provides a brief explanation of the process and should be considered with
reference to the code. In addition to programme approvals (QH:H1), the code also covers:
the approval of programmes where the University does not offer comparable provision
(QH:H2); amendments to existing programmes (QH:H3), and the withdrawal of
programmes (QH:H5).

5.1     Programme Design
      5.1.1    Modules
Each programme of study leading to a University award is made up of a number of
modules – self-contained units of study that are taught and assessed either within a single
semester or over two semesters. The University uses a decimal system of credits with the
majority of modules being 20 credits. Modules of 10, 30, 40 or 60 credits may be used
depending on the type of programme and programme stage. Credit ratings are based on
the total time which a typical student will spend in order to complete the module
successfully, that is, including class contact time, private reading and study, revision, and
completion of assignments or examinations. Each single credit corresponds to a notional
ten hours of study time. A 20 credit module therefore demands 200 hours of student time.

Module Levels
A single level is assigned to each module, indicating the academic standard of that
module:

 Level 3                 preparatory undergraduate level
 Level 4                 introductory undergraduate level
 Level 5                 intermediate undergraduate level
 Level 6                 advanced undergraduate level
 Level 7                 masters level.

      5.1.2 Credits, levels and stages - Undergraduate Qualifications
For the purposes of progression each degree programme is divided into stages, where
each stage shall consist of 120 credits as follows:

For 360 credit Honours degree programmes:
 The Certificate stage           first 120 credits at level 4
 The Diploma stage               second 120 credits, with at least 100 credits at level 5
 The Honours stage               final 120 credits, normally at levels 5 or 6 with at least 100
                                 credits at level 6

For 480 credit Honours degree     programmes involving a Preliminary Certificate stage first
year:
 The Preliminary Certificate      first 120 credits at levels 3 and 4, with at least 100 credits at
 stage                            level 3
 The Certificate stage            second 120 credits at level 4
 The Diploma stage                third 120 credits with at least 100 credits at level 5
 The Honours stage                final 120 credits normally at levels 5 and 6 with at least 100
                                  credits at level 6

For 300 credit Ordinary degree programmes:
 The Intermediate stage         first 180 credits, normally at levels 4 and 5, including credits
                                transferred from the Certificate and Diploma stage of an
                                Honours degree programme
 The Final stage                final 120 credits, normally at levels 5 or 6, including credits

Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                       QH: A7:11
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
                                  transferred from the Diploma stage of an Honours degree
                                  programme, with at least 60 credits at level 6

For 240 credit Foundation degree programmes:
 Certificate stage              First 120 credits at level 4
 Intermediate stage             Second 120 credits with a minimum of 100 credits at level 5

For 360 credit Foundation degree programmes involving a Preliminary Certificate stage first
year each stage shall be as follows:
 Preliminary certificate stage    First 120 credits with at a minimum of 100 credits at level 3
 Certificate stage                Second 120 credits at level 4
 Intermediate stage               Third 120 credits with a minimum of 100 credits at level 5

QH: B3 University Programme Regulations Chapter III Foundation Degrees
QH: B4 University Programme Regulations Chapter IV Honours Degrees

      5.1.3 Credits, levels and stages - postgraduate qualifications
For taught masters degree programmes:
 The Certificate stage         First 60 credits at level 7 with a maximum of 20 credits at
                               level 6
 The Diploma stage             Second 60 credits with a maximum of 20 credits at level 6
 The Masters stage             Final 60 credits of which a maximum of 20 credits at level 6

For full details of all postgraduate qualifications see University Programme Regulations
Chapters V-VIII.

QH: B5 University Programme Regulations Chapter V PGCE
QH: B6 University Programme Regulations Chapter VI Postgraduate and Graduate Certificates
QH: B7 University Programme Regulations Chapter VII Postgraduate and Graduate Diplomas
QH: B8 University Programme Regulations Chapter VIII Taught Masters Degrees

5.2      The Approvals Process
The initiative for a programme normally originates from within a partner institution
interested in establishing a collaborative programme and this should be discussed in the
early stages with the academic contact in the relevant University faculty(ies). Proposals
should be complementary to the operations of the University faculty involved. The
sponsoring faculty should establish an effective working relationship with the partner
institution and the institution will be expected to seek approval for the programme through
its own management approval structures i.e. with the approval of the Senior Management
of the partner institution. A proposal may involve more than one University faculty, in
which case all relevant parties should be involved in the development of the submission
and should advise the partner institution on the requirements of the University‟s Code of
Practice on Programme Approvals.

It is expected that either party will be responsible for their own costs incurred in
developing the proposal e.g. costs associated with visits to or from the University to
discuss academic or administrative arrangements.

IMPORTANT:

The code specifies the documentation which must be submitted at each stage of
approval. Incomplete or incorrect documentation may cause delays.

It is the responsibility of partner institutions to ensure that the deadlines for
submission of appropriate documentation at all the three stages of approval, as
specified in the code, are adhered to.


Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                    QH: A7:12
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
Partner institutions should allow additional time for proposals to be considered and
approved at faculty level before they are submitted to the University Quality Office
by the faculty.

The deadlines quoted in the code of practice refer to the latest date that proposals
can be submitted to the University Quality Office, proposals can be submitted by
the faculty at any time in advance of these dates.

       5.2.1     Development Consent
Development Consent is the first stage of the approval of a new programme. It provides a
means through which the University and partner institution can formally signify their
intention to develop a programme for delivery (or part delivery) by the partner institution
leading to an award of the University. It enables fundamental matters to be addressed to
ensure that the programme is appropriate for a University of Hull award and can be
supported in a way which will enable the quality of the learning opportunities to be
assured, and the standard of the award to be maintained. The application for
Development Consent must be developed by the Partner Institution in consultation with
the relevant University department(s) and must be endorsed by the relevant Dean(s). It
will be useful if the partner seeks the input of the university academic contact at this stage.
The application will be determined by the Programme Approvals Committee (PAC).

For new partnerships, Development Consent for the programme should only be
considered following the approval of the new partnership (see Section 4.1).

     5.2.2    Planning Permission
Planning permission is the process through which the University gives approval for a full
programme proposal to be developed. It provides an early check that the programme
proposal is appropriate for development and enables the University to schedule the
approval panel to consider full approval of the programme once developed.

The application for planning permission will be considered by a Faculty Planning
Permission Committee (FPPC) chaired by a member of the faculty. Membership should
include a member of Programme Approvals Committee (PAC). Prior to submission, the
application must be endorsed by: the head of the relevant University department(s); and
the HE Manager or equivalent at the partner institution. The university academic contact
should be available to support partners with the development of the application. The
FPPC will consider applications against the criteria as set out in the code of practice and
make one of the following decisions:

       to grant permission to advertise for a time limited period not exceeding 18 months
       to grant permission to advertise with conditions for a limited period not exceeding
        18 months
       to defer the application pending submission of further information
       to reject the application.

Planning permission permits the partner institution to advertise the programme as long as
it is made clear in all forms of publicity that the programme is „subject to approval‟.

      5.2.3     Full Approval
Full approval is the process through which the University confirms that recruitment to, and
delivery of, a programme of study may commence. The application for full approval must
be submitted to the University Quality Officer, Collaborative Provision who is responsible
for establishing a Full Approvals Panel (FAP) to consider the application. Again, prior to
submission the application must be endorsed by the head of the relevant University
department(s), the Dean(s) and the HE Manager or equivalent at the partner institution.

Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                  QH: A7:13
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
The University academic contact should be available to support the partner in the
development of the full proposal.

The FAP must be chaired by a member of (PAC) (see section 7.6 for full details of this
committee) and must include at least one other member of PAC or the ULTAC standing
panel. The Panel must be advised by the relevant department or academic consultant.
The FAP must consider applications against the criteria as set out in the code of practice
and make one of the following recommendations:

         to approve the programme
         to approve the programme with conditions or recommendations
         to defer the decision pending further information
         to reject the programme.

Following the FAP the Secretary of the FAP will produce a report using the pro forma set
out in the code of practice (QH: H1 Annexe 7). The FAP report with the recommendation
to PAC will be circulated to the partner institution, the head of the relevant University
department, the dean and the Head of Student Administrative Services (SAS).

PAC will receive the recommendations of the FAP via the FAP record and will make one
of the following decisions:

         to approve the programme
         to approve the programme with conditions or recommendations
         to defer the decision pending further information
         to reject the programme.

Following approval by PAC, the University Quality Officer (Collaborative Provision) is
responsible for ensuring that the relevant legal agreement between the University and the
partner institution and the collaborative provision register are updated.

QH: H 1       Code of practice on the approval of collaborative programmes and modules
              Chapter 1: New programmes of study

5.3      Programmes where the University does not offer Comparable Provision
The University has developed procedures to deal with any instances where partner
institutions wish to offer programmes in a discipline in which the University does not offer
a comparable programme of study. The purpose is to require arrangements to be put in
place, primarily through the engagement of an academically qualified individual or
individuals in the discipline in question, to promote the quality of learning opportunities
and ensure academic standards comparable with such provision elsewhere in the UK.
Partner institutions may be permitted to submit proposals which will be considered under
the code only following a successful audit of the partner institution‟s quality assurance
mechanisms.

QH: H 2       Code of practice on the approval of collaborative programmes and modules
              Chapter II: Approval of non-comparable programmes and the appointment of academic
              consultants

5.4   Amendments to Collaborative Programmes of Study
The code of practice splits amendments to programmes into „major‟ and „minor‟. Major
amendments are defined as follows - a change:

         to the title or award
         to the location of delivery
         to the mode of delivery

Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                      QH: A7:14
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
         to the entry criteria for the programme
         which means the programme would not now be in accordance with the applicable
          University programmes regulations
         to the programme outcomes that necessitates a concomitant change to the
          programme‟s module structure or constituent module specifications in order to
          maintain outcome alignment
         to the programme‟s module structure or constituent module specifications that
          necessitates a concomitant change to the programme outcomes in order to
          maintain outcome alignment.

Proposals to add a new location or add a new mode of delivery should be treated as new
programmes (development consent will be required) under Chapter I of the code of
practice for the approval of collaborative programmes. Major amendments require the
approval of PAC, however, prior to submission, the application must be endorsed by the
head of the relevant University departments, the HE Manager at the partner institution and
the JBoS.

„Minor‟ amendments are changes to an existing programme which are not a major change
and require University faculty approval only. However, as with major amendments prior to
submission, the application must be endorsed by: the head of the relevant University
departments; the HE Manager at the partner institution and the JBoS.

Note, for both major and minor amendments, that where appropriate, and in consultation
with the relevant professional, statutory and regulatory body (PSRB), the processes of
University approval will be conducted in parallel with the relevant PSRB. In addition,
students must be consulted and their written agreement to the changes obtained if the
proposed amendments apply to current students.

QH: H 3      Code of practice on the approval of collaborative programmes and modules
             Chapter III: Amendments to collaborative programmes of study

5.5     Withdrawal or Suspension of Programmes
The withdrawal or suspension of recruitment of a programme requires the approval of
PAC. Applications must be made by the partner institution through the relevant JBoS and
thereafter through the appropriate faculty committee. Applications must be supported by
documentation as specified in the code of practice and for withdrawal where the
programme has students registered on it an exit strategy must also be submitted. Please
note that the most recent edition of the code introduces a procedure for the temporary
suspension of a programme. However, temporary suspension of recruitment of a
programme that has students on other years will still result in a programme charge being
raised for the programme.


QH: H 4      Code of Practice on the approval of collaborative programmes and modules
             Chapter IV: Withdrawal of a collaborative programme of study




Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                     QH: A7:15
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
6.       CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS
6.1     The Agreement
Once a new partnership has been approved the negotiation of a suitable agreement is
progressed by a University Quality Officer (Collaborative Provision) and the University
Solicitor. The University has a standard form of agreement that is amended by
negotiation. It is worded at an institutional level with the approved programmes listed in a
Schedule appended to the agreement. In the first instance, the wording of the agreement
can be agreed between the two parties pending the approval of the programmes to be
listed in the Schedule. The agreement sets out the responsibilities and duties of each
party in order to establish clear and mutual expectations of the relationship. If the
programme is one within an existing partnership and the terms and conditions remain the
same, the current agreement will be amended accordingly and the new programme
details added to the Schedule. The agreement refers to:

        the parties and programme(s) covered
        duration and date of review
        financial terms
        copyright and intellectual property rights
        arrangements for resolution of disputes and termination

There will also be statements to clarify the responsibilities for the following:

        marketing and the monitoring and review of
        recruitment of students and the monitoring and review of
        enrolment and registration of students
        programme management
        programme review and monitoring
        resource management and availability, including staffing
        monitoring of student progress
        provision of learning materials
        arrangements for assessment
        student support and counselling
        student discipline, complaints and appeals
        provision of library and computer services
        assessment arrangements
        appointment of internal and external examiners
        appointment of lecturers
        the use of the University‟s name

The University Solicitor and the University Quality Officer (Collaborative Provision) will
draft the agreement, using the standard template, constructed on the basis of outline
details provided by the faculty, based on the programme proposal. The draft agreement
will be sent to the partner institution for consideration and comment.

When a final version of the agreement is arrived at which is acceptable to all parties
concerned, the University Quality Officer (Collaborative Provision) will request the Solicitor
to prepare the engrossment (or relevant legal format), of which two copies are required.
For an agreement to be legally binding, when executed as a deed, two authorised parties
on behalf of each partner must sign it. For the University this is usually the Vice-
Chancellor and PVC Learning and Teaching. For a partner institution it would normally be
the Principal and Chief Administrative Officer. Subsequent to signature, each party will
hold a copy of the deed. The University copy will be held in the deed store and copies
sent to the University Quality Office and the relevant faculty.
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                     QH: A7:16
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
At the very latest an agreement must be approaching a state of readiness for signature by
the time full approval has been given to the programme proposal. Delivery of the
programme must not commence and students must not be registered with the University
until a signed agreement is in place.

6.2     Fees
The University has a standard fee structure in place for FEC collaborative programmes.
Faculties and departments are not authorised to agree fees on behalf of the University.
Although collaborative programmes have not been designated a profit-making activity, the
University expects to cover its direct and indirect costs. The standard fee reflects this and
has been calculated taking into consideration the following factors:

       start up costs which include the scrutiny of programme documentation at
        departmental, faculty and University levels, the site visit to the partner institution by
        members of PAC, drawing up an agreement and obtaining legal approval
       processing of student applications, registration and student progress
        documentation and subsequent maintenance of student records where applicable
       appointment of external examiners and payment of fees and expenses
       moderation of student assessments by University academic staff
       annual monitoring and review of programmes
       University resources necessary for the management of the collaboration e.g.
        academic and administrative members of staff
       attendance of University members at Examination Boards, JDBs and JBoS, with
        associated expenses
       appointment of academic staff at partner institution as Recognised Teachers of the
        University and costs associated to their access to University library and computing
        facilities
       Other: approval of amendments to programmes, periodic review, issue of award
        certificates, attendance of graduands at degree ceremonies, monitoring of terms
        and conditions set out in the agreement, and marketing review.

A minimum number of students per intake will be set as a condition within the agreement
to ensure a financial break-even. Circumstances may also prescribe the inclusion of a
maximum number of students per intake to ensure that the programme does not stretch
beyond available resources, thus affecting quality. The financial terms will reflect where
possible the funding made available to the institutions. It needs to be determined whether
the students will be part of an institution‟s bid for HEFCE or LSC funding or be entirely
self-funding.

For students on directly funded programmes, partner institutions set and collect tuition
fees (and external funding if applicable) and pay an agreed fee to the University. The
arrangements will depend upon the nature of the relationship between the partner
institutions and the principles in the agreement. Instructions for payment, when applicable,
will be available from the University‟s Finance Office. In any case, the fee will normally be
reviewed annually at an agreed date and it is the responsibility of the University Finance
Office to initiate the review.

For students on indirectly funded programmes the tuition fee is agreed with the university
and collected by the partner institution and any external funding is collected by the
University and an agreed percentage is paid to the partner institution.

6.3 Contracts and Schedules
6.3.1 Contracts




Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                    QH: A7:17
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
The University has a contract in place with each of the partner colleges. This is held
centrally at the University by the UQO and by the relevant office in the partner college.
The contract is the legal agreement between the parties and details information including:
         Definitions used within the document

           Principal obligations

           Responsibilities and duties of the University

           Responsibilities and duties of the College

           Intellectual property

           Taxation

           Resolution of disputes

           Termination of contract

           General information

The current contractual arrangements were signed in 2007 and are due for review by
August 2011 and renewal by August 2012. This is done on the instruction of the SMT by
the Solicitor‟s Office at the university, co-ordinated by the UQO. Any queries about the
contracts should be directed to the Quality Officer, Collaborative Provision in the first
instance.

6.3.2 Schedules
There are four schedules attached to the contract. Schedule 1 gives payment details in
regard of University HEFCE numbers (indirect funding). Schedule 2 gives payment
details in regard of students funded by College HEFCE numbers (direct funding).
Schedule 3 is updated yearly and lists the programmes of study at the partner and shows
students numbers for each programme on a spreadsheet. Schedule 4 is also updated
yearly and gives the costs per programme cluster and per student FTE, depending on the
particular arrangement with each partner college. This is sent to the partner for
information and requires signing by the HE Manager or equivalent and returning to UQO
to ensure receipt of the schedule.

Schedule 3 is produced by UQO in collaboration with the finance officer with responsibility
for collaborative provision. These are updated yearly and should be checked closely by
the partner institution to ensure that the information therein is accurate. Once agreed then
invoices are raised from this schedule. On the schedule programmes are shown in
programme clusters and costs are per cluster. The cluster definition is
      An FD programme plus an honours top up
      A programme delivered in different modes or in different locations
      A group of clearly cognate pathways.

The majority of new programmes will create a new cluster. Discussion of which cluster a
programme will be placed in should take place at planning permission stage.

We are currently working on an update of the timetable for the schedule production which
will be inserted as soon as it is available

7.      COMMITTEE STRUCTURE FOR COLLABORATIVE PROVISION


Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                QH: A7:18
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
The University has a number of committees which oversee the management of its
collaborative activities. This section aims to provide an understanding of the reporting and
management structures and describes the key committees with oversight of, or impact on,
collaborative provision.

7.1     Senate and Senate Executive Board
Senate, chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, is ultimately responsible for the quality of the
University‟s programmes and the standards of its awards. The Senate Executive Board
(whose membership includes members of SMT, Deans ) advises Senate on the key areas
of the University‟s activity and is intended to ensure the integration of the following areas:
     learning, teaching and assessment (through ULTAC)
     quality and standards (through ULTAC)
     research (through University Research and Enterprise Committee)
     educational partnerships (ULTAC).

7.2    University Learning, Teaching and Assessment Committee (ULTAC)
ULTAC has responsibility for strategic considerations relating to enhancing learning,
teaching and assessment and reports to Senate through the Senate Executive Board. It is
chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor Learning and Teaching.



7.5     Collaborative Provision Forum (CPF)
The Forum is chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor Learning and Teaching with
membership from University Faculties and the University Quality Office and representation
from six partner institutions and the University Students‟ Union. This is the key forum in
relation to collaborative provision and it has the following remit:

Draft Terms of Reference (as at Nov 2010)

Accountable for (actions by the Forum):

       Receiving relevant reports from external bodies with a view to identifying strengths
        and areas for improvement, disseminating good practice and, where appropriate,
        requiring corrective action.

Responsible for (actions on behalf of the Forum):
     Supporting partner institutions in preparation for external reviews and
      accreditations
     Maintaining and publishing the University‟s Collaborative Provision Register.

Consulted on:
      The development of University Programmes Regulations and University codes of
       practice relating to the quality and standards of collaborative provision (primarily by
       RCPC)
      The application of University codes of practice to collaborative provision (by
       RCPC)
      Proposals for new/revised national expectations/frameworks applicable to quality
       and standards of collaborative provision, notably arising through the QAA
       Academic Infrastructure and the Bologna Process (primarily by UQO).

Informed on:
      Developments in national or international arrangements for, or expectations of,
       quality assurance, enhancement and/or academic standards (primarily by UQO)

Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                 QH: A7:19
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
       Decisions by PAC to grant Development Consent for new UK educational
        partnerships.
       Decisions by PAC to approve new UK educational partnerships.



7.6    Programme Approvals Committee (PAC)
Reporting to ULTAC this committee has delegated authority to approve new collaborative
programmes, major amendments to existing collaborative programmes and the withdrawal
of such programmes in accordance with the code of practice on the approval of new
collaborative programmes. Full details of the responsibilities and accountabilities of this
committee can be found on the university website.

7.7     Associate Institutions Advisory Network
Membership of the Associate Institutions Advisory Network consists of representatives
from each member partner institution (11-19 schools, Sixth Form and FE colleges in the
sub-regions) and University Faculties with representation from Student Recruitment and
other relevant University services. It is chaired by the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Learning and
Teaching). The Associate Institutions Advisory Network serves as a forum for members of
all pre HE level providers to discuss related pre HE agendas, to enhance the
effectiveness of partnerships in the provision of activities/opportunities for staff and
students in promotion of learning support and progression to HE.

7.8     Faculty Learning, Teaching and Assessment Committees (FLTAC)
Each University faculty has structures to achieve effective oversight of collaborative
provision principally through a learning, teaching and assessment or equivalent
committee.

7.9     Joint Development Board (JDB)
There is a JDB for each partner institution to provide a forum for supporting the strategic
relationship, including broad matters of academic provision between the College and the
University. The JDB must meet at least once a year and the membership is constituted
from a small group of senior management and officers from both institutions. All JDBs are
chaired by the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Learning and Teaching).

The board is responsible for:

       considering plans for the development of the portfolio in the short-to-medium term
       overseeing the contractual relationship governing collaborative provision and
        accompanying financial arrangements
       considering any institution-level issues arising from the College‟s Quality
        Enhancement Report, Periodic Subject Review, Partner Institution Audit and QAA
        and other reviews
       considering the relevant Higher Education strategies of both institutions
       supporting the establishment of appropriate sub-committees to oversee the
        operation of collaborative programmes (Joint Boards of Studies or equivalent).
       developing/facilitating supportive and joint activities – e.g. dissemination of good
        practice in learning and teaching, growth of scholarly activities, shared social
        events
       resolving any disputes that arise from the operation of the collaborative provision
        processes

The JDB reports to ULTAC and the governing body of the partner institution. It is required
to submit an annual report to inform the governing bodies and senior managers of both


Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                QH: A7:20
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
institutions, as to progress of the relationship. The annual report will provide information to
support the:

       confirmation of the agreed development agenda
       evaluation of progress towards that agenda
       denote actions for the policy makers of the institutions
       raise awareness of institutional issues
       report on programme and recruitment activities
       report on other activities, such as staff development.

7.10     Joint Board of Studies (JBoS)
       7.10.1 Introduction
At discipline level, the University delegates the routine oversight of collaborative
programmes to University faculty/ies by means of a JBoS, which reports to the relevant
FLTAC, JDB and CPF via annual summaries. Specifically, the JBoS is responsible for
reviewing programmes drawing on feedback from annual monitoring and external
examiners‟ reports and for identifying opportunities for enhancing the programmes. Where
a partner institution operates more than one programme in the same discipline these may
be covered by one JBoS providing that membership is revised accordingly and subject to
prior agreement by the University.

     7.10.2 Membership
Typical membership of a JBoS is:

       3 members nominated by the University
       3 members nominated by the partner institution
       1 student member per programme covered by the JBoS

From these, a Chair and a Deputy Chair is appointed (alternating between the two
institutions). The Chair or the Deputy Chair must be a University member of staff. Where a
programme spans more than one University faculty the JBoS should include membership
from every faculty that is involved. Where membership of a JBoS is to differ from the
above, the University must be satisfied that there is adequate and effective University
representation.

Meetings of the JBoS are scheduled by agreement between the faculty and partner
institution but are usually held at least once per University semester and are fully
recorded. Minutes and actions from these meetings are considered by the relevant
FLTACs. They should be available for audit and may be useful supporting material should
the partner institution wish to propose a further collaboration within the discipline.

     7.10.3 Terms of Reference
Standard terms of reference for a JBoS are:

       to consider and make recommendations to University and partner institution
        bodies as appropriate on all matters relating to the association between the
        University and the partner institution at programme level including proposals
        concerning the content, structure and form of assessment of the programme(s)
        and procedures for the admission and progress for students
       to encourage and discuss programme development within the academic discipline.

Matters considered by the JBoS and falling under the responsibility of the appropriate
faculty/ies include all academic matters associated with the programme of study such as:

       recruitment
       admissions criteria
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                  QH: A7:21
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
       student progress and retention
       professional body registration and requirements
       teaching - personnel and methods
       accuracy and appropriateness of materials used at programme level e.g. student
        handbooks, course materials
       student support including resources
       assessment strategy
       staff development for both academic and support staff
       maintenance and oversight of academic standards
       new programme developments and amendments to existing programmes
       annual reporting including summaries of student feedback and monitoring of action
        taken
       external examiner reports and University responses
       student representation e.g. staff/student committees or equivalent
       report on marketing and publicity materials
       preparations and actions for reviews and audits carried out by the University, QAA
        or PSRBs
       monitor action plans arising from audits and reviews
       monitor applications for Recognised Teacher Status (RTS) and receive report on
        training, development and proficiency of staff with RTS
       at the autumn meeting to receive a report listing all staff involved in the delivery
        and support of University of Hull awards confirming all have the necessary level of
        RTS approval
       monitor the application process if devolvement of admissions has been authorised
       receive report on use of student handbooks and confirmation of compliance with
        UCoP
       receive confirmation that student guides have been issued

The University Quality Office has produced standard templates for JBoS agendas which
may be of use to partners and faculties. Copies can be obtained via the university faculty.

The JBoS does not have the authority to consider and decide on any individual cases of
student progress (including appeals and complaints) but should if appropriate discuss and
consider issues of principle or process. Cases which fall under this category should be
referred to either the Boards of Examiners, the appropriate committee within the partner
institution or the University (i.e. SPC).

The location of the JBoS may alternate between the University and the partner institution.
Where a meeting takes place on partner institution premises, the University expects the
partner institution to service the meeting.

At the end of each academic year faculties are required to produce, in consultation with
partners a single summary report (one for each partner) highlighting issues arising from
JBoS meetings at each partner institution for consideration by each individual JDB.
Copies of annual summaries together with details of any action taken should be included
in the Quality Enhancement Report (QER). Urgent matters arising at JBoS meetings may
be considered outside of the formal JDB meeting if appropriate. A brief report
summarising all faculty annual summaries should be produced by the JDB secretary for
consideration by ULTAC.

QH: C 1         Recognised Teacher Status
QH: J 9         Approval of Collaborative Provision Publicity and Marketing Information
QH: K 10        Student Handbooks: Collaborative Provision Templates A and B




Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                       QH: A7:22
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
7.11 Student Progress Committee (SPC)
SPC awards qualifications on behalf of Senate as well as dealing with individual student
cases, including overseeing all matters of academic discipline e.g. termination of
programme of study and academic appeals for both on-campus and collaborative
students. SPC also considers and adjudicates cases involving individual students
including matters relating to intercalation, extensions to periods of study and repeat
periods of study. SPC reports to ULTAC and is chaired by an experienced member of
academic staff who is an ex officio member of ULTAC.

7.12 Quality Enhancement Forum (QEF)
The QEF provides an informal forum to discuss matters relating to quality and
collaborative provision and to share good practice and experience. The QEF comprises
representatives of the University, its faculties and partner institutions. The discussions
contribute to the deliberations of CPF.




Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                              QH: A7:23
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
8.       COMMUNICATIONS
Contact details for University staff associated with collaborative provision can be found at
the back of the Handbook for reference. If partner institutions are unsure of whom to
contact then, in the first instance, they should contact the University Quality Officer
(Collaborative Provision) who will direct them to the appropriate faculty or University
representative as appropriate.

The day-to-day contact regarding programme administrative management issues normally
takes place through direct contact between departmental and faculty administrative staff
at the University and at the partner institution. Indeed, it is essential that a strong link is
built at that level, not only to ensure that the mechanics of running the programme
progress smoothly, but also to provide a useful link to academics in either institution. This
link is supported by the roles that academic staff perform at the University and at partner
institutions which would normally be the Academic Contact and Programme Leader
respectively (see Section 9).

If partner institution staff have queries relating to general quality assurance and regulatory
issues then they should in the first instance contact their Higher Education Manager or
equivalent.

9.       ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
9.1     At the University
For each programme or set of programmes within an academic discipline, the University
will provide a named contact who will be an academic member of the University faculty
nominated as Academic Contact or equivalent. On behalf of the faculty, the Academic
Contact will be responsible for those areas identified in this Handbook and specifically for:

        providing guidance to ensure that the programme of study and syllabus is
         appropriate for the named award of the University prior to PAC approval
        advising on the appropriate quality processes and on the submission of
         appropriate documentation
        overseeing the moderation of assessment tasks and student output in accordance
         with the UoH code of practice on Moderation
        representing the University on the Board of Examiners and advising accordingly
        where appropriate, attending any final exhibition, performance or other summative
         outcome
        advising on the appointment of external examiners and liaising with external
         examiners accordingly
        advising on programme development and quality enhancement of the subject, in
         line with University of Hull expectations of the student experience
        liaising with Faculty Collaborative Provision administrative staff as necessary over
         routine administration, and any problems that arise
        liaising, where appropriate, with Faculty Validation Co-coordinators/the
         Collaborative Provision Administrator, seeking their advice and guidance on
         generic quality issues, and keeping them informed on subject specific issues
        acting as the main contact within the faculty for the purposes of admissions,
         examinations, annual reporting etc. and liaising, where appropriate through Faculty
         Collaborative Provision administrative staff, with central University administration
         on such matters
        being member of relevant Faculty collaborative committees, and the appropriate
         JBoS (where they will help to co-ordinate items for discussion)
        reviewing annually programme specific marketing and recruitment information and
         reporting this to the JBoS
        identifying areas for development for University and partner institution staff
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                  QH: A7:24
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
         providing guidance and support in the preparations for relevant external audits,
          and representing the area of work in internal and external review processes.

For academic disciplines where the University does not offer comparable provision, the
University should provide an academic contact to provide the appropriate leadership and
management responsibilities and an academic consultant from outside the University to
give subject-specific guidance

In addition to the above, the University will nominate a member of staff within each faculty
who will be the administrative contact for the partnership and who will be responsible for
supporting the administrative functions as specified in this Handbook.

9.2     At Partner Institutions
The University requires partner institutions to similarly nominate a lead academic contact
for each programme or set of programmes e.g. Programme Leader and identify those
members of staff who will be providing administrative support for the programmes as
specified in this Handbook e.g. Programme Administrator. Partner institutions should aim,
where possible, to liaise with the University via the sponsoring faculty, except for matters
relating to the agreement, fee negotiation and the identification of newly proposed
programmes.

The University requires partner institutions to provide the appropriate academic guidance
and leadership before, during and after module/programme boards (see Section 14.3.1)
for details of the role of the Exam & Assessment Co-ordinator. If this role is not to be
carried out by the Programme Leader, then partner institutions should nominate another
academic member of staff to fulfil this role.

10.       STAFF AT PARTNER INSTITUTIONS
10.1 Recognised Teacher Status
The University requires that staff at partner institutions who are involved with the teaching
and delivery of collaborative programmes leading to University awards must be appointed
as Recognised Teachers of the University. Furthermore, it is expected that anyone being
appointed as a Recognised Teacher will have a period of induction, support and training
for staff development purposes at the partner institution. Where an applicant has less than
3 years teaching experience, such induction and support is mandatory.

There are two entry routes, one is qualification based and the other is experience based.
For entry by academic qualification the qualification must be relevant to the discipline and
should be at least honours level but preferably masters level. For entry by experience staff
should possess no less than 3 years relevant teaching experience including sustained
engagement in relevant scholarly activity or relevant professional qualifications or no less
than 3 years other relevant professional/industrial experience. To teach at masters level
an applicant must possess a masters degree or equivalent.

      Level at which delivering/supporting   Essential              Desirable

      Foundation Degree (levels 4 & 5)       Honours degree         Masters degree

                                             Honours degree plus
      Honours (level 6)                      PGCE      in HE (or    Masters degree
                                             equivalent)
                                             Masters degree plus
      Masters Degree (level 7)               PGCE      in HE (or    Doctorate
                                             equivalent)


Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                  QH: A7:25
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
Teaching any part of a programme will disqualify applicants from the role of external
examiner. Further information on the process of appointment, the roles and
responsibilities of both University faculties and partner institutions in relation to
Recognised Teacher status can be found in the Quality Handbook.

Recognised Teachers have access to the library and to computing facilities, including the
University intranet, on the University campus and will be issued with the relevant
usernames and passwords on appointment.

QH: C 1     Recognised Teacher Status

10.2 Staff Development
The University expects partner institutions to have an appropriate staff development policy
for staff involved in programmes leading to University awards and to provide suitable
opportunities for support staff in clerical and administrative roles.

The University is keen to foster the development of the relationship with partner
institutions and to assist with the development of partner institution staff. Staff at partner
institutions may attend events and courses offered by the University‟s Staff Development
Office subject to the availability of places and payment of a fee if appropriate. Academic
staff at partner institutions are encouraged to enhance their scholarly activities through
establishing links with academic counterparts in University departments and faculties and
by registering for research degrees offered by the University. Staff from partner institutions
can also apply to act as part of a supervisory team for University of Hull PhD students in
the same way as any other external supervisor. Full details can be found in the University
Code of Practice: Postgraduate Research Students.

The University is committed to working with partner institutions to develop both the
academic programmes and the supporting procedures. The University Quality Officer
(Collaborative Provision) will assist in arranging bespoke staff development programmes
as identified by the two institutions normally through the JBoS and JDBs.

QH: L1      Postgraduate Research Students
www.hull.ac.uk/staffdevelopment email: sds@hull.ac.uk

10.3 Peer Observation
The University expects partner institutions to have a peer observation scheme for staff
that deliver programmes/modules leading to University awards. The scheme must be
appropriate and relevant for the provision of higher education.

QH: C 2 Peer Observation of Teaching [For information]

10.4 Appraisal
The University expects partner institutions to have an appraisal scheme for staff that
deliver programmes/modules leading to University awards. The scheme must be
appropriate and relevant for the provision of higher education.

11.     MANAGEMENT OF COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES
The successful operation of a programme requires a mixture of administrative and
academic activities. This Handbook includes information in sections covering
administrative issues, student related management activities, academic management and
quality assurance issues. If there are any aspects of programme organisation and
management about which you would like further information or guidance, please contact
the University Quality Officer (Collaborative Provision) for advice.

12.       ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT

Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                 QH: A7:26
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
This section covers some of the administrative responsibilities, which do not relate to
students directly, but which must be managed effectively to meet the University‟s
expectations, as outlined in the Agreement. It will be of interest to those staff that carry out
or manage the administrative tasks related to collaborative programmes both at partner
institutions and at the University. It should be brought to the attention of the Programme
Leader (or equivalent) at the partner institutions and the Academic Contact at the
University and other appropriate officers.

A key aspect of the relationship between the University faculty and the partner institution
is the ability to schedule dates for the various meetings and tasks that are necessary to
enable students‟ results to be processed in time to meet the various deadlines for the
ratification of results and invitations to graduation ceremonies. It is considered good
practice for partner institutions to work with faculties to produce an academic calendar
detailing planned dates for JBoS meetings, receipt and return of assessment tasks and
output and Boards of Examiners meetings. In this way we can work together to ensure
that all of these processes operate as smoothly as possible.

12.1 Marketing and Communications
The University has responsibility for the accuracy of all public information relating to its
awards including marketing and promotional materials e.g. prospectuses, web pages and
press releases plus material distributed at careers fairs and open days. The University
recognises that it is not always feasible to obtain approval prior to publication and as a
consequence has delegated the responsibility to partner institutions in accordance with
the following principles:

       all material should be a true representation of the relationship with the University
        and should not be misleading to the reader
       material must be of a quality comparable with that produced by the University
       material must only be included within reputable publications and should create a
        positive image of the University
       compliance with the University of Hull visual identity – no alteration of the logotype
        is permissible
       for new partnerships, advertising material must not be published in any format until
        the proposed partnership has been granted prima facie approval in accordance
        with the code of practice on educational partnerships
       for new programmes, advertising material must not be published until planning
        permission has been granted in accordance with the code of practice on the
        approval of collaborative programmes
       all use of the University‟s name or visual identity in an international context
        (advertising, recruitment fairs, news release etc.) must be approved by the
        University in advance of publication.

Guidelines on marketing including the use of the University‟s Visual Identity are available
on www.hull.ac.uk/marketing The Marketing and Communications Directorate at the
University will be happy to offer advice on general marketing matters and advice on
design and University publications.

With regards to marketing and communications, it is the responsibility of the partner
institution to inform the JDB annually of which partner institution officers and/or
committees are responsible for internally approving publicity and marketing information,
and of the steps which are taken internally to ensure accuracy and adherence to the
general principles above. The JDB will be responsible for approving annually the partner
institution‟s marketing and recruitment information - including relevant sections of the
partner‟s prospectus. The UQO is responsible for reviewing annually a sample of each
partner institutions‟ marketing and recruitment information, the outcome of the review will

Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                   QH: A7:27
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
be reported to the JDB. In addition the University Academic Contact (or other faculty
representative) is responsible for reviewing annually a sample of programme specific
marketing and recruitment information and for reporting the outcome to the JBoS.

QH: J 9      Approval of Collaborative Provision Publicity and Marketing Information

12.2 Unistats
It is the responsibility of the partner institution to inform the University Quality Officer
(Collaborative Provision) who in the partner institution has responsibility for the accuracy
of the information published on the unistats.com web-site. The university is only
responsible for data for indirectly funded students. It is the responsibility of the partner
institution to make returns to the relevant bodies (HEFCE/HESA) for all directly funded
students.

12.3      National Student Survey (NSS)

NSS results are reported against the institution that students are taught at regardless of
funding arrangements. It is the responsibility of each partner institution to make suitable
arrangements for the survey to be completed each year.

12.4 Student Handbooks
Partner institutions are required to provide each student with a handbook at the level of
the appropriate organisational unit (department or equivalent) or programme. The
handbook must be distributed to students at the start of their studies. The University has a
template which provides text which must be included in all handbooks and guidance on
other information which should be inserted by the partner institution and provides advice
on what to include. Using the template ensures compatibility and accuracy of the
information provided across all provision. The template is updated annually and partners
must ensure that the latest version of the template is used.

QH: K 10     Production of Student Handbooks by Partner Institutions
             Template A: Collaborative Provision – Undergraduate
             Template B: Collaborative Provision – Taught Postgraduate

12.5 Student Induction
Partner institutions are required to give all students a formal induction. Induction is based
on the premise that retention can be increased by enhancing the speed and effectiveness
with which students settle into all aspects of institution and University life. Induction should
recognise the diversity of students‟ experience, needs and expectations. Reasons for
diversity will include whether the student is a home or an overseas student, the age and
educational background of the student and the type of accommodation in which the
student is staying. Induction should cover: academic requirements of the programme;
student support available; health and safety issues; departmental arrangements and
student representation. In addition to the standard information given, partner institutions
should take the opportunity to inform students of the relationship between the two
institutions and clarify the role the University plays. Partner institutions will wish to note the
University guidelines and expected to have in place mechanisms for the welcome,
orientation and induction of students which are comparable with this code of practice. This
code is provided for information to partner institutions. Increasingly it is recognised as
good practice that induction should be a continual process during the early weeks and
months that a student attends, rather than a one-off event on arrival.

Students should also receive a copy of the booklet “Guide for students on                  validated
programmes leading to an award of the University of Hull” which is updated                 annually.
Copies will be distributed to partner institutions at the start of each academic           year and
these must be provided to students by the partner. This document is also                   available
electronically on the University Quality Office website.
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                         QH: A7:28
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
QH: K 7     Welcome, Orientation and Induction [For information]

12.6 Notification of Results and Transcripts/European Diploma Supplements
(EDS)
Partner institutions are responsible for notifying all results to students (and for providing
appropriate feed-back and academic guidance) at the end of each assessment process.
Results may never be „published‟, for example on a noticeboard or through any means by
which one person may see the results of another student identified as that student.
Results must not be given orally, especially over the telephone, and must never be
given to a person other than the student without the written consent of the student.

Partner institutions must produce a transcript at the end of the final stage and may choose
to produce a transcript at intermediate stages. Transcripts must record all modules where
the assessment has been attempted, including fails, although the higher of the two fail
marks must be recorded. The transcript should indicate that the programme was delivered
by the partner institution but is a University of Hull award.

In September 2006, the University devolved the responsibility to partner institutions to
initiate the production of the transcripts/EDS for students on directly funded programmes
whilst retaining the authority to monitor the accuracy of the data prior to being despatched
to the students. A code of practice has been developed to ensure that students on
collaborative programmes receive consistent and accurate information with regard to their
award and enable the University to meet external expectations set out above It is a
requirement of the code that an agreed sample of finalist‟s transcripts must be seen by the
relevant University faculty/department to check that the partner institution is using the
template and letterhead agreed by the Head of Student Administrative Services. Faculties
must also check that details of the final award are accurate; any anomalies should be
reported to the Head of Student Administrative Services. Faculties should record that an
accuracy check has been undertaken on a copy of the approved pass list.
Transcripts/EDS for students on indirectly funded programmes will normally be produced
by the University.

QH: K 12    Production of transcripts of academic record/European Diploma Supplements for
            students on collaborative programmes

12.7 Graduation Ceremonies and the Issuing of Certificates
Students who have been awarded qualifications at Foundation Degree, Degree or
Postgraduate level will be entitled to attend and have their awards conferred at a
University graduation ceremony. From January 2008 onwards, the certificates issued will
be the same as those awarded for successful completion of on-campus programmes with
additional wording specifying the location of teaching. Students are responsible for their
expenses in attending the ceremony, as for on-campus students. The Degree Ceremonies
Office will contact graduands with details of the ceremony and action to be taken for the
hire of appropriate academic dress. As students of the University, those who graduate
with a degree will become Alumni of the University. Students unable to attend the
University ceremony may graduate in absentia.

The University recognises that partner institutions may want to hold their own award
ceremonies. However, with the exception of Grimsby Institute of Further and Higher
Education and Bishop Burton College they must inform students that their degrees will not
be conferred until after the appropriate University ceremony has taken place. Students
who owe tuition fees will not be permitted to receive a certificate and this should be stated
clearly in the Student Handbook.



Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                QH: A7:29
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
13.    MANAGEMENT OF STUDENT RELATED ISSUES
This section looks at the procedures involved in the general, day-to-day running of a
collaborative programme. These procedures may involve staff at all levels of
management, from clerical to more senior management staff and this information is
designed to give those staff with such responsibilities some guidance on the University‟s
expectations and requirements. It will also be useful for those members of staff involved in
the academic management of collaborative programmes to ensure the efficiency of
administrative procedures.

Partner institutions must ensure that the requirements of the legal agreement are met,
particularly those relating to intake dates and minimum and/or maximum numbers for an
intake. Intake dates are agreed and detailed in the Agreement. Partner institutions must
consult faculty representatives if minimum numbers have not been achieved. This is
particularly important where the partner has devolved admissions. Partner institutions
must also make arrangements to inform students if the start date is postponed due to the
failure to meet the minimum numbers required.

13.1 Record Keeping and Archiving
For students on directly funded programmes:
Partner institutions will be expected to take responsibility for maintaining a full record of
the student‟s academic progress, including module marks and periods of study, as well as
personal data. Partner institutions should complete all statutory returns required for higher
education students, including HESES and HESA. The University must be provided with
basic information about each student enabling it to maintain a basic record to facilitate the
production of student cards and statistics. Up-to-date and accurate information is
especially important for the Degree Ceremonies Office who issue invitations to graduation
ceremonies and produce certificates. Finally, partner institutions are reminded of their
legal duty to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998.

For students on indirectly funded programmes:
The University will normally take responsibility for maintaining a full record of the students‟
academic progress, including module marks and periods of study as well as personal
data. The university will complete all statutory returns required for HE students including
HESES and HESA.

Full details of the University‟s policy in relation to the archiving of all documentation can
be found on the portal. The section on Academic Administration provides details of the
retention period for all relevant documents.

13.2 The Application Process
The application process for collaborative programmes can be complicated because
prospective students apply initially to the partner institution and may not understand that
their application may also have to be accepted by the University. The University must
assure itself that admissions procedures are consistent across all partner institutions and
equivalent to its own activities. It is the partner institutions‟ responsibility to ensure that
prospective students are aware of the University‟s involvement in the programme. It is
important that the procedures are adequately understood and essential for partner
institutions without devolved admissions to provide all required documentation to enable
the University to reach a speedy decision regarding applications, thereby ensuring an
efficient service to the applicants.

If a partner institution is a registered member of UCAS, then the expectation is that UCAS
rules will be followed by the partner institution at all times even though the offer for
admission is with the University.

Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                  QH: A7:30
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
Partner institutions must ensure that students applying for part-time study are eligible and
satisfy immigration and fee status requirements.

Prior to the University receiving applications for new programmes, faculties must liaise
with the Student Recruitment and Admissions Service to make the appropriate
arrangements to receive and process applications from partners without devolved
admissions or with devolved admissions but paper-based registration.

13.3 Devolved Admissions Process
The University has developed a framework whereby the admissions process may be
devolved to partner institutions who can demonstrate the ability to comply with the
University requirements specified in the code of practice. The University must ensure that
arrangements for admission to collaborative programmes comply with the precepts in
Section 10 of the QAA Code for Student Recruitment and Admissions (September 2006)
and must demonstrate that consideration has been given to:

       entry requirements and academic prerequisites
       recognition of foreign qualifications and credits
       arrangements for the accreditation of prior learning and the assessment of prior
        experiential learning
       language proficiency
       information about the status of students in relation to the awarding institution
       cultural assumptions about higher education learning methods.
With the above in mind, partner institutions are required to have in place policies and
procedures to deal appropriately with, amongst other things; APL, English language
proficiency, equal opportunities monitoring, applicants with disabilities, risk assessment
processes to deal with applicants with criminal convictions, making student offers,
induction, staff development, and complaints regarding admissions matters. In addition,
partner institutions must demonstrate the ability to monitor and oversee the process.
Consideration will be on a partner-by-partner basis and partner institutions must apply to
ULTAC for the authority to make offers on the University‟s behalf. Partner institutions
should contact the University Quality Officer (Collaborative Provision) for further guidance.

Applications not meeting the published entry criteria must be deemed “special cases” and
should be dealt with using the procedure outlined in 13.4 below which is now included in a
new university code of practice QH: J10.

Those partners who have devolved admissions authority and are not using electronic data
transfer to notify the University‟s Student Administrative Services (SAS) of students who
have registered on UoH programmes must provide the appropriate University faculty with
details of students who have registered in order that they can be entered onto the
University‟s Academic Information System. This will enable the appropriate registration
forms to be generated (see 13.5.2 below). In addition these partners should provide the
Faculty with copies of completed applications and offer letters in order that a student
record can be created in advance of the registration process.

Partners are reminded that the University Code of Practice on Devolved Admissions QH:
J1 requires partners with devolved admissions authority to produce a report     to be
included in the annual PQER..

QH: J 1                 Devolution of Admissions Decisions to Collaborative Partners
QH: J 1 annex 2         Implementation Report Template
QH: J10                 Applications Procedure: Collaborative Provision

13.4 For partners without Devolved Admissions Authority
Partner Institutions not having authority to make their own admissions decisions should
follow the procedure set out below.
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                     QH: A7:31
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
     13.4.1 The Application Form
Students apply for a place on the programme using an application form, which is normally
prepared by the partner institution. The application form must be approved by the Head of
Student Recruitment and Admissions at the University to ensure that it meets the
University‟s requirements and includes information required by HESA.

       13.4.2 Managing the Application Process
Partner institutions must send by fax/post the applications that are to be considered to the
relevant University faculty together with supporting documentation using specific
admissions criteria agreed during the approvals process. The faculty is responsible for
verifying that the qualifications and/or experience of the applicant are commensurate with
the approved admissions criteria. Partner institutions must ensure that students are aware
that any application is subject to further consideration and final approval by the University.

Where students are passing from one University of Hull programme to another e.g.
Masters after successful completion of an Advanced Diploma, students must make a
formal application for the second programme and receive a formal offer letter. The student
would otherwise not be able to register for the second programme of study. If a student
wishes to transfer from one programme offered by the partner institution to another, it will
be necessary to withdraw formally from the programme the student is currently registered
for before being accepted onto the other programme. (See Para 13.6.4 below).

Guidelines for the admission of students to a particular programme are outlined within the
programme regulations and partner institutions should satisfy themselves that applications
meet with the pre-requisites before submitting them for consideration by the University.
The pre-requisites should comply with the University‟s matriculation and English language
requirements, see http://www2.hull.ac.uk/student/admissions/internationalapplicants.aspx. The
University‟s decision on applications is final. As mentioned in Section 9, each programme
will be allocated an administrator, located within the sponsoring faculty. Partner
institutions must ensure that applications are sent to the Administrator (UoH) with
complete documentation. Incomplete applications must be placed on hold, and not
processed until all required information is received. Generally, the requirements are as
follows:

       an approved application form
       a check sheet, detailing the pre-requisites with a recommendation by the
        Programme Leader at the partner institution
       copies of relevant academic certificates, on which it has been noted that the
        original documents have been seen by partner institution staff and who are
        satisfied by the authenticity. The University retains the right to see the original
        documentation including IELTS certificates or equivalent and NARIC assessments,
        if deemed appropriate.
       at least one reference; normally an academic reference although some
        departments may ask for an additional work reference.
       evidence of the student‟s proficiency in English language (if appropriate)
       interview report (if appropriate).

      13.4.3 Special Cases
In exceptional circumstances where applicants do not possess the standard entry
requirements, the partner institution can recommend the applicant for acceptance as a
special case. In addition to the standard supporting documentation, the partner institutions
should submit an interview report carried out by staff from the partner institution, which
details discussions conducted with the applicant regarding their application. Examples of
areas where an interview report are especially helpful include:

Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                 QH: A7:32
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
         a student who does not seem to fulfil the academic entry requirements but has
          extensive work experience which may compensate
         a student who has performed poorly during his/her most recent study, due to ill
          health or other circumstances (these cases should also be supported by academic
          references).

Each special case will be considered individually on its merits by the Dean of the relevant
University Faculty. If a partner institution receives an application about which they are
uncertain, they should contact the faculty Administrator at the University for guidance.

       13.4.4 Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL)
Where it is expected that students might routinely be granted exemptions, by virtue of
prior experience/qualification, from specific aspects of the programme this should normally
be declared within the initial programme documentation. Thereafter exemptions are at the
University‟s discretion, in discussion with the partner institution. The University
programme regulations specify the number of credits that must be passed in order to gain
a University award.

QH: J 7       Accredited Prior Learning
QH: B         Programme Regulations

      13.4.5 Approval of Applications
Applications submitted by the partner institutions are considered in two stages: first by
staff in the department/faculty and then by the University Admissions Officer. If an
academic recommendation is approved, the University will prepare a formal offer letter for
the applicant. Partner institutions receive notification of all decisions and the offer letters
are sent to successful applicants via the partner institution.

The pressure from applicants who are keen to learn the outcome of their application is
well understood within the University and every effort is made to ensure rapid decisions
concerning applications. The University will endeavour to confirm decisions within five
working days of receiving the complete application, and provide official acceptance letters
normally within ten working days. However, this turnaround can only be achieved if full
documentation is provided with each application. The University reserves the right to
request additional information to support any application and may grant an applicant
conditional acceptance dependent on receiving additional information, for example,
satisfactory references.

The University will ensure that staff absences do not normally delay the processing of
applications and, although the Admissions Office has periods of high levels of activity, it
will seek to maintain a regular flow of acceptance notifications throughout busy times.

      13.4.6 The Formal Offer
Offers of places on programmes of study leading to University awards are the
responsibility of the University. Offers are made through the University‟s Admissions
Office, which will issue a letter of acceptance. Applicants will receive either:

         a formal unconditional offer letter stating details of the programme, its location and
          the start date for which the applicant has been accepted,
OR
         a formal conditional offer letter stating details of the programme, its location and
          the start date for which the applicant has been accepted, but also including the
          conditions which the offer is subject to.

In the event of a conditional offer being made, the requirements must be fulfilled before a
student commences a programme unless the letter of acceptance specifically states
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                   QH: A7:33
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
otherwise. Examples of conditional offers include the receipt of a satisfactory reference or
the successful completion of another award.

Partner institutions may not, in any circumstance, issue acceptance on behalf of the
University. No student may commence any programme until the partner institution has
received confirmation of official acceptance. In exceptional circumstances, an application
may be made immediately prior to the start of an intake. The partner institutions may allow
the applicant to attend classes, or receive module study material, but it is the responsibility
of the partner institution to make clear in writing to the applicant that continued
participation on the programme is conditional on a formal acceptance by the University. In
these instances, it is expected that the partner institution include of copy of the letter with
the application. The University must also be immediately informed of such a decision and
partner institutions must therefore ensure that they have procedures in place to cater for
students whose applications are subsequently rejected by the University.

        13.4.7 Summary of Application Process for Partner Institutions without
        Devolved Admissions Authority

         the partner institution sends the completed application, with a recommendation by
          the Programme Leader together with copy certificates, references and evidence of
          English language proficiency (where appropriate), to the designated Administrator
          (UoH)
         the application is scrutinised by the Academic Contact and a recommendation is
          made
         the Admissions Office review and where appropriate approve the recommendation
         the partner institution is notified of the decision
         the formal offer letter is produced and sent to the applicant, via the partner
          institution
         in the event of an application being rejected the partner institution may choose to
          write a letter to the applicant, but the Admissions Office produces no formal
          rejection letter. In such cases the partner institution will be kept informed.

QH: J10       Application Procedure: Collaborative Provision
QH: J 3       Equality Opportunities Code of Practice for the Admission of Students
QH: J 5       Complaints Procedure for Student Admissions
QH: J 6       Consideration of applicants who declare a prior criminal conviction

       13.4.8 English Language Proficiency
For all University programmes, applicants whose first language is not English should
submit evidence of English language proficiency. The applicant may be regarded as
proficient, in respect of admission to undergraduate and postgraduate degree
programmes when he or she has achieved one of the qualifications or tests approved by
the University for admission to undergraduate and postgraduate degree programmes. A
list of such programmes is available from the Admissions Office. Admissions Tutors for
individual programmes may, at their discretion, place additional requirements within
individual offers. Some applicants may not hold any of the qualifications accepted and
may wish to be considered on the basis of substantial use of English in their profession.
The procedure for consideration in this way is explained below. However, applicants
should be aware that special cases of this nature will be considered individually by the
University and there is no guarantee that applicants will be accepted on the basis of
references and other information provided to the University. Consideration of the
application may also take longer than an application which fulfils the University‟s
requirements. Applicants are recommended to take IELTS wherever possible.

If an applicant wishes their English Language proficiency to be considered on the basis of
use in the applicant‟s profession, it is necessary for the applicant to:

Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                        QH: A7:34
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
       sign the application form to certify that the applicant has completed it
       discuss the application with the partner institution. If it is agreed that the applicant‟s
        English language proficiency should be considered as a special case, an interview
        report should be completed by the partner institution and forwarded to the
        University with the application to support the case
       provide academic and/or professional references that specifically mention the way
        in which English is used by the applicant (e.g. through report-writing, written and
        oral communication).

In addition, applicants who do not hold any of the qualifications may also demonstrate
their English skills through successful academic study taught and assessed entirely in
English within recent years. If this is the case, then this should be clearly indicated on the
application form.

       13.4.9 Applications from Staff Members at Partner Institutions
The University‟s normal policy is that, for quality assurance reasons, it is not possible to
accept members of staff of our partner institutions on programmes that the partner
institution administers. However, it is possible to consider applications of this nature as a
„special case‟ where the partner institutions can assure the University that appropriate
safeguards are in place. In order to consider applications in this way, the University
requires a detailed report from a senior member of staff at the partner institution (e.g.
Principal, HE Director etc). This report should include:

       a description of the nature of the staff member‟s work at the partner institution
       an explanation of actual and potential access to student records, the work of other
        students and confidential material related to the programme (examination papers
        and scripts, student results etc.)
       assurance from the partner institution that the applicant will have no advantage or
        disadvantage over other students on the programme or access to programme-
        related information which is not available to the other students, because of his/her
        professional role within the organisation.
Partners with Devolved Admissions authority should act in accordance with the code of
practice QH: J 1. It should be noted that this code of practice makes an exception for
certain agreed teacher training programmes.

13.5    Student Registration
      13.5.1 Period of Study
The normal period of study or registration period is stated in the approved regulations.
The regulations also give an indication, for collaborative programmes, of the maximum
time from the date of registration that is permitted for a student to complete a part-time
programme. So, the period of study relates not only to the length of the programme, but
also to the expected length of registration of any given student. Should the Agreement
with the partner institution cease for any reason, every effort will be made to ensure that
any students already registered, or accepted to be registered, are able to complete their
studies.

QH: B   Programme Regulations

      13.5.2 New Students
Once the student details have been entered into the University Academic Information
system (AIS), registration forms will be produced by SAS and sent to the administrative
contact at the partner institution who should arrange for them to be checked and signed
by the student. The registration form is a two page document, the first sheet of which
contains the declaration which must be signed by the student and returned to the
University the second sheet is the student University e-mail, user id and password; this is

Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                     QH: A7:35
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
for the student to keep. (The box in the top right hand corner of the top sheet should be
ignored as this is for on-campus use only.)

The declaration covers:

       Agreement to abide the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations of the University of
        Hull as applicable
       Consent to the University processing the student‟s personal data for business
        purposes
       Acknowledgment that providing false or incomplete information could render the
        student‟s admission/registration invalid

Student Administrative Services at the University will then register the students once the
top page of the registration form has been returned with a student signature.

If the student is not registered on the University’s central record system they will
not be entitled to receive a University of Hull award. Partner Institutions are urged to
ensure that the students complete the Registration form in the presence of a member of
staff. Students who require a University of Hull student ID card must attach a photo (name
printed on reverse) to the Registration Form. The student can also obtain an ID card by
visiting SAS in the Venn Building at the Cottingham Road campus during office hours.
Where the student does not collect the card in person, cards will be returned to the
student via the partner institution once registration is complete.

The University should receive the returned registration sheets within 2 weeks of
them arriving at the partner, all completed by the students.

       13.5.3 Continuing Students
Students whose programme of study is longer than 12 months must have their student
record „rolled-over‟ on the University‟s Academic Information System (AIS). Partner
institutions must send lists of student names and registration numbers for students who
have returned to complete subsequent years to the appropriate Administrator (UoH). In
addition partner institutions must also indicate the students who have not returned to
complete their studies. The Administrator (UoH) will check the lists against his/her records
and forward to SAS for processing. Electronic files will be sent to partners from SAS
before the start of the new academic year to help with this exercise.

        13.5.4 International Students
It is the partner institution‟s responsibility to advise students about visas and other Home
Office requirements. As a consequence partner institutions must ensure that staff receive
adequate training to provide guidance on issues relating to visas and students must be
made aware of whom to contact if they have this type of query.

In addition, partner institutions must ensure that international students are aware of the
need to register with the Police if appropriate.


       13.5.5 Access to library facilities
Partner institutions are asked to note that students will not be able to apply for a student
card or use any of the university facilities until they have been registered with the
University. Partners are also asked to remind students that it will take 24 hours for their
library card to become activated once they have registered with the university. Student
Administrative Services at the University will inform students of this delay in their initial
email to students.


Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                QH: A7:36
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
13.6 Changes to Student Details
It is vital that any changes in student details are notified to the University as they occur.
The recording of accurate data on the student records ensures that any documentation is
issued correctly. To assist with this process there are forms available for these changes
on the SAS website. All forms must be completed, checked by the Administrator at the
partner institution, SIGNED BY THE STUDENT and sent together with copies of relevant
documentation to the appropriate Administrator (UoH) for processing. Upon receipt the
Administrator (UoH) will check the details before processing the forms themselves or
through to the appropriate department at the University central administrative services.
The areas covered by the forms are:
      13.6.1 Changes to Name/Title or Marital Status
The form should be completed with the student‟s present full name (i.e. their name before
the changes have taken place), their new details, and when the change takes effect. It is
expected that the partner institution will have verified the new details by checking the
appropriate official documentation e.g. a marriage certificate/deed poll before sending the
application and copies of supporting documentation through to the Administrator (UoH) for
checking and amending the details on the AIS. The University issues letters and final
degree certificates printed with the name recorded on the Candidate List and the AIS. The
University will not alter a certificate post-issue.

     13.6.2 Change of Address
The forms should be sent through the Administrator from the partner institution to the
appropriate Administrator (UoH) for checking and to amend the details on the AIS.
Important documentation such as degree certificates and result letters are issued
according to the addresses recorded on the AIS. Failure to notify the University of a
change in address may lead to these documents not being received by students and
potentially impacting on their academic progress.

       13.6.3 Emergency Contact Details
Partner institutions must request from students an emergency contact at the point of
registration. The term „emergency contact‟ is used so that students can give details of
their legal „next of kin‟, a friend or relative of their choice. Students aged 18 or over at the
point of registration have the right to refuse to provide this information. The emergency
contact should only be used when there is serious concern about the welfare of an
individual student and its use without explicit written permission by the student should only
be authorised by the Principal of the partner institution or his/her delegate. Using the
emergency contact without explicit written permission from the student could result in a
legal challenge under Data Protection or Human Rights legislation. Partner institutions
must have the appropriate procedures in place to ensure that all staff are aware of the
correct protocols when dealing with such situations.

QH: K 4     Student Emergency Contact: Staff Guidelines

      13.6.4 Change of Programme of Study
This form must be used when a student changes from one University programme to
another offered through the same partner institution. The form should be completed with
the student‟s name, old programme details and new programme details. The Programme
of Study refers to the Programme Codes used by the University. The form must be signed
by the student and the Programme Leader giving permission for the change. The
completed forms should be sent to the Administrator (UoH) for processing through to
SAS.

13.7 Withdrawal from the Programme
Partner institutions must notify the University immediately of any student that withdraws
from the programme, and to give the reasons for withdrawal. The student should complete
a withdrawal form, and the partner institution should forward the form to the appropriate
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                   QH: A7:37
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
Administrator (UoH) who in turn will forward to the SAS for processing. Copies of a
withdrawal form can be obtained from the Administrator (UoH) or via the University portal.
It is the partner institutions‟ responsibility and the relevant faculty to ensure that the
completed modules are considered at the next Board of Examiners and the results
processed accordingly. In cases where the student is assumed to have withdrawn
following a consistent and lengthy pattern of non-attendance and the student cannot be
contacted the form SAS-DW (available via the University portal) should be completed and
returned to the faculty.




Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                              QH: A7:38
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
14.       ACADEMIC MANAGEMENT
This section looks at issues arising from the academic management of the collaborative
programme, including activities relating to the assessment process, the management of
Board of Examiners, the role of the University‟s SPC and other academic matters.
14.1 Activities Relating to the Assessment Process
The Agreement between the University and the partner institution will outline the
respective responsibilities with regard to assessment. This includes anonymous marking
and second marking carried out by the academic staff at partner institutions and the
moderation process carried out by University academic staff.

The University Code of Practice on Assessment Procedures (QH: F1) must be applied for
all modules and programmes classified as collaborative provision unless expressly stated
in the text. The code includes specific guidance on anonymous marking and second
marking. Partner institutions, as part of the code, are required to develop their own
policies for overlength assessment, late submissions and feedback on assessment for
consideration and approval by ULTAC.

QH: F 1     Assessment Procedures

      14.1.1 Moderation
Moderation is a standard feature of collaborative provision. It is a process by which the
University assures itself that any work undertaken by the student is set and assessed in a
consistent and fair manner, to ensure parity of standards and that the level of
achievement reflects the required academic standards comparable to programmes on
campus and nationally. The University has developed a code of practice that applies to
two specific processes: the scrutiny of summative assessment tasks; and the scrutiny of
the process of marking student output arising out of those tasks. Partner institutions must
however ensure that their internal processes for the approval of assessment task and the
moderation of student output are rigorous and not reliant on the University processes or
the external examiner.

It should also be noted that the external examiner must be consulted on all draft
assessment tasks, irrespective of their format, level or stage within a programme. The
precise range of tasks which the external wishes to see, and the timing of the
consultation, must be discussed with the external examiner in advance. In the event of
disagreement the University Moderator has final responsibility for determining assessment
tasks.

The code of practice devolves the responsibility to University faculties in determining what
must be moderated and sets out criteria for guiding the decision subject to the minimum
standards defined. Prior to the commencement of a programme University faculties will
liaise with partner institutions to agree what proportion of student output will be moderated
for the forthcoming academic year. Volume will depend on a number of criteria including:
the length of time the partnership has been established; the length of time the programme
has been running; the experience of the lecturer at the partner institution; the level of the
module and contribution to the overall degree classification.

It is considered to be good practice for partner institutions to submit reassessment tasks
for moderation at the same time as the primary tasks.

Due to the nature of some assessment tasks it may not always be practical to carry out
the moderation process as set out by the code. In these cases, University faculties will
liaise with partner institutions to facilitate this process such as attending, where possible,
presentations, exhibitions, and performances.
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                 QH: A7:39
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
QH: F 19     Application of the moderation process on programmes delivered by partner institutions
             leading to awards of the University
QH: D1       External Examining

       14.1.2 External Examiners
An external examiner is appointed by the University for every programme. The
appointment will be for 3 years in the first instance with the option to extend for one year.
The proposal for appointment is made in consultation with partner institutions. There may
be more than one external examiner for a programme depending on the subject areas and
an external examiner may be responsible for more than one programme. External
examiners are nominated via the faculty through the University approvals procedures and
subsequently through the Examinations Office of the University. Appointments are
approved by ULTAC on behalf of Senate. External examiners receive a formal letter of
appointment together with an initial briefing. The University requires there to be at least a
3 year break in association before an external examiner can be reappointed to an
institution regardless of whether that external examiner acted for the University or another
institution. The 3 year rule also applies to members of academic staff who have previously
worked at the partner institution or at the University of Hull.

The role of the external examiner is to assist the University in discharging its responsibility
for the quality and standards of the education it provides and the awards it offers by:

        assisting in the comparison of academic standards across higher education
         awards and institutions
        verifying that standards are appropriate for the particular award for which the
         external examiner takes responsibility
        ensuring that the assessment process, including the conduct of boards of
         examiners, is fair, equitable, rigorous and fairly operated in the marking, grading
         and classification of student performance, and in the exercise of any discretion
         (within regulations) on the part of the board of examiners
        providing externality of opinion and objective advice in cases which are difficult to
         resolve (where it has not been possible to resolve the matter internally) or for
         which an external opinion is invaluable, such as those falling below the pass mark
         or close to a threshold, or where the marking for a whole batch of student outputs
         is judged to be significantly over or under-marked
        providing externality of opinion and objective advice on the processes involved in
         teaching and assessment.
        identifying good practice worthy of commendation/wider dissemination.

External examiners are not permitted, and must not be asked, to undertake any of the
following:

        Setting assessment tasks (whether coursework, examination scripts or other)
        First or second marking of student output
        Revising the marks awarded for the output of individual students other than
         through giving an opinion in specific cases at the request of the internal examiners.

External examiners are required to make an annual written report using the University
proforma. External examiners' reports are in the first instance sent to the University
Quality Office. The JBoS must monitor action taken upon examiners' reports as well as
the manner in which they are brought to the attention of the appropriate persons. In
addition to the above any issues relating to the partnership will be raised at ULTAC and
may be referred to the relevant JDBs for consideration. Partner institutions will have the
opportunity to respond to the issues raised by the external examiner which should be
communicated through the relevant department at the University. External Examiners
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                     QH: A7:40
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
should be notified of where they can obtain copies of report forms but must never be sent
the hard copy (as forms must be submitted electronically). It is the University department‟s
responsibility to inform the external examiner of actions being taken or reasons for not
taking action.

It should also be noted that the external examiner is entitled to be consulted on all draft
assessment tasks, irrespective of their format, level or stage within a programme. The
precise range of tasks which the external wishes to see, and the timing of the
consultation, must be discussed with the external examiner in advance. The opinion of the
external examiner on the validity of assessment tasks is persuasive but not binding. In the
event of disagreement the University Moderator has final responsibility for determining
assessment tasks.

QH: D 1       External Examining
QH: D 5       External Examiners’ Report Form (Updated annually)

14.2 Examination Arrangements
Partner institutions may operate examinations under their own, well-defined procedures,
providing that the University is satisfied that appropriate levels of security are maintained.
Examination regulations are expected to be in every way as rigorous as those of the
University. The University provides instructions to invigilators and to students regarding
conduct during examinations e.g. the use of unfair means.

It is the partner‟s responsibility to arrange examination times and deadlines for other
assessed work and make these known to students, together with any penalty in case of
late submission/failure to submit assessed work. For example, the partner institution will
need to explain to students:

         the attendance requirements for the programme
         the consequences for missing a teaching session without prior notice
         the penalties for submitting work after an agreed deadline. (e.g. mark no higher
          than the pass mark awarded for submission after a deadline without prior
          permission)
         exceptions to the above – for example in the case of illness or emergency – in this
          case, claims normally need to be substantiated by documented evidence
         mitigating circumstances and absence with good cause procedures.

When a student has declared a disability or a health problem, partner institutions must
ensure that a formal process exists to assess student requirements and ensure that where
appropriate alternative examination arrangements are in place.
QH: F 1       Assessment Procedures
QH: F 8       Regulations Governing the Use of Unfair Means

14.3    Boards of Examiners
      14.3.1For students on directly funded ) programmes:
Partner institutions must operate a two tier system of Boards of Examiners, albeit
membership of the two tiers may be identical as set out in the code of practice referenced
below. Module Boards must be established to determine the marks for each module,
taking into account claims for mitigating circumstances and absence with good cause.
Marks must be awarded according to the University standard scale unless the module has
been specifically designated and approved as „pass/fail‟. University regulations empower
Module Boards to deny students reassessment where the student has failed the module
and not satisfied the attendance and/or submission requirements for the module (provided
these requirements were published at the outset and appropriate records of attendance
were maintained). It is expected that the Academic Contact will represent the University at
Boards of Examiners meetings and advise accordingly.
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                 QH: A7:41
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
Programme Boards must be established to determine the progression of each student
between the stages of each programme and to the award. A Programme Board may
never change a mark or other decision of the Module Board. Careful attention must be
paid to the regulations governing progression, compensation and condonement and
degree classification. All recommendations for award must be communicated by means of
a formal Candidate list signed by the Chair of the Programme Board, the Academic
Contact from the University and the external examiner for the programme. These lists will
be forwarded to the University Examinations Officer via the Administrator (UoH) for
processing.

The UQO visits a sample of Boards of Examiners meetings to observe the process in
order to:

       identify examples of good practice worthy of wider dissemination
       observe the regulations and procedures in operation and to identify scope for
        enhancement
       identify any areas of concern.

It is the responsibility of the partner institution to ensure that Chairs of Boards of
Examiners meetings are adequately trained and have a good understanding of the
University regulations. The University will provide training for partners on an annual basis
and on request. The UQO also has available a “Key Concepts” guide covering the main
items likely to be of interest to Chairs and staff involved in these meetings. It is expected
that a representative from the partner institution will chair the Boards.

Partners should be aware that the university approved changes to its policy on the
treatment of borderline cases effective from September 2008 which are mandatory for
collaborative provision.

      14.3.2 For students on indirectly funded programmes:
The University faculty/department will normally make the necessary arrangements for
Boards of Examiners meetings for students on indirectly funded programmes unless
specifically requested by the partner institution.

QH: D 2 Boards of Examiners

      14.3.3 Role of the Exam & Assessment Co-ordinators
The University will work with partner institutions to ensure that all parties are aware of the
responsibilities and activities involved in advance of, during and after Module and
Programme Boards. For on-campus activities, each department appoints Exam and
Assessment Co-ordinators to oversee and ensure the smooth running of the process. This
position is normally held by an academic member of staff who takes on the role as part of
their duties. It is not expected that Exam and Assessment Co-ordinators deal personally
with the activities but rather ensure that the duties have been carried out accurately and to
the deadlines specified. In addition, it is expected that they will be a point of contact for the
University department/faculty representatives and external examiners. Partner institutions
must consider making such appointments or adopting a similar approach.

       14.3.2 Actions to be taken in advance of Module and Programme Boards
Module Board and Programme Board Grids
It is the partner institutions‟ responsibility to prepare the mark grids used at Module and
Programme Boards. Examples of good practice are available from the University Quality
Officer (Collaborative Provision). It is advisable for the Administrator (UoH) to receive
copies before the meetings take place in order to check that all the students are registered
and on the correct programme, however, it is acknowledged that time constraints do not
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                    QH: A7:42
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
always allow for this. Any recommendations for alterations to marks by the University
moderator and/or the external examiner must be considered by the Module Board and the
appropriate changes made to mark grids. It is considered good practice to hold a „mock‟
board in advance of the actual board meeting where possible in order that potential issues
can be identified and investigated. Please remember that the Boards must be quorate in
order for any decisions to be made (see QH: D2 for definition).

Candidate Lists
The Administrator (UoH) must prepare candidate lists for those students being considered
by the Programme Boards in the standard University format.

Mitigating Circumstances & Absence with Good Cause
Partner institutions must consider cases of mitigating circumstances and absence with
good cause prior to the Boards and the recommendations must be reported to, and
approved by, Module and/or Programme Boards as appropriate (see Section 14.5.3).

Cases of Unfair Means
Cases of unfair means identified before the appropriate Module Board must be
investigated in accordance with the approved procedures. If an investigation has already
taken place, the decision of the Unfair Means Panel must be reported to the Module
Board and the decision for the module made accordingly. If the investigation has not yet
taken place, the mark grids should indicate that the decision has been deferred as “under
investigation for the use of unfair means” (see Section 14.5.4).

Moderator Reports
The Administrator (UoH) should make available the moderator reports to the Academic
Contact or equivalent to review and understand any particular issues that have arisen
during the assessment period. It is good practice to make the moderator reports available
to the External Examiner.

Students in Debt
It is the partner institution‟s responsibility to flag any students who are in debt before the
Boards take place. If a student owes fees to the partner institution the students‟ results
should still be considered at the relevant Boards. Their results should be processed and a
separate candidate list produced for them and signed off by the appropriate parties. The
candidate list is not processed but placed on hold in the appropriate file with the
Administrator (UoH).The candidate list will stay on hold until the partner institution informs
the Administrator (UoH) in writing that the student has paid all outstanding fees and is now
eligible to have his/her results processed. Students who owe tuition fees will not receive a
certificate and this should be clearly stated in the student handbook.

      14.3.3 Actions During Module and Programme Boards
The Chairs of both Module and Programme Boards must ensure that the meetings are
conducted in accordance with the relevant code of practice. A sample of typical agendas
for Module and Programme Boards with guidance on writing minutes can be obtained
from the University Quality Officer (Collaborative Provision). It is the partner institutions‟
responsibility to minute the meeting and to make available to members of the Boards the
following:

       agendas
       minutes of the last meetings
       module /programme board grids
       copies of moderator reports
       external examiner comments (if available)
       list of any non-compensatable and non-condonable modules

Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                 QH: A7:43
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
         programme regulations and other relevant guidelines in operation e.g. treatment of
          borderline cases.

During the meeting, and in addition to the Administrator from the partner institution, the
Administrator (UoH) should make appropriate notes on the grids and in the case of the
Programme Board complete the candidate lists with the recommendations for student
progress. The candidate lists must be signed after the Boards by the Chair, external
examiner and the Academic Contact.

QH: D 2 Boards of Examiners

       14.3.4 Actions Post Module and Programme Boards
The Administrator (UoH) must send the completed and signed candidate lists to the
University Examinations Officer for processing. Partner Institutions should be aware that
results must be confirmed by the University‟s Student Progress Committee (SPC) before
they can be released to students. The partner institution may then officially notify students
as detailed previously. Following the Board, the partner institution must distribute the
minutes to the members of the Boards. The Administrator (UoH) should check the minutes
against the notes he/she made on the Module/Programme Board Grids and student lists.
It is the responsibility of the Administrator (UoH) to ensure that minutes and grids are
signed appropriately.

A set of approved minutes signed by the Chair, signed candidate list(s), a set of signed
mark grids for each module and programme board will constitute the official record.
Partner institutions and the relevant University department/faculty offices will be expected
to keep a copy of the documentation for their own records.

SPC approves end of stage and final results for all students and partner institutions
should be aware of the dates of the Committee’s meetings when planning their own
Programme Boards to coincide with the two degree ceremonies each year. Any
alternative approval arrangements should be made with the Head of SAS.

Results must not be released to students until ratified by SPC.
QH: B         University Programme Regulations
QH: D 2       Boards of Examiners

14.4      Role of the Student Progress Committee (SPC)
The underlying principle adopted in matters of student progress is that students on
collaborative programmes should be treated as if they were students on on-campus
programmes. The body responsible for monitoring student progress in the University is
SPC. The JBoS has a responsibility to oversee student progress which is monitored
through the annual and periodic review procedures.

The structures and procedures are intended to ensure that students are treated in the
same way as other University students. However, the University respects the autonomy of
its partner institutions and endeavours to ensure that students are not disadvantaged
through the additional application of University procedures.
14.5   Student Progress Issues
      14.5.1 Extension to the Dissertation Period (Post graduate Masters only)
A postgraduate student‟s study period is normally the programme length (1 or 2 years
dependent on the regulations). Students should complete their study at the end of this
study period, but the University recognises that some may not complete the programme
requirements on time, due to mitigating circumstances. It may be possible for these
students to be given an extension of study. Common grounds for an extension to the
period of study are medical or personal.
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                QH: A7:44
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
To request an extension of up to 12 months the student must, prior to the end of their
study period, submit their request in writing to the Academic Contact at the University via
the Programme Leader. The request should be supported by the Programme Leader at
the partner institution and documentary evidence attached substantiating his/her claims. If
the circumstances are personal or employment orientated, a statement from the student‟s
supervisor or a letter from their employer substantiating the circumstances should be
attached. All documentation is then forwarded to the Academic Contact (UoH) who has
the authority to grant the first 12 month extension on behalf of the Head of Department. If
a student requires a further extension beyond the 12 months then this would need to be
approved by the University Senior Tutor attached to the relevant faculty. However these
extensions are only granted in exceptional circumstances. Students will receive a letter
from the University via the partner institution which indicates their new date of completion.

QH: B     Programme Regulations

       14.5.2 Intercalation
Circumstances may arise which cause the student to require a break from their studies
rather than complete them according to the usual duration of the programme. For
example, if a student‟s employer sends him/her out of the country on business, or in cases
of illness or family crisis. Intercalation is essentially a legitimate interruption of the period
of registration. A student may apply to intercalate for any length of time, but permission is
only granted in circumstances where it is not possible for the student to study.
Intercalation should not be used as a device for extending the period of study. Once the
student resumes study s/he has the same time to complete the programme as was
available prior to the period of intercalation. During the period of intercalation the student
is not expected to study and is not liable to pay fees. Although there is no officially
designated minimum or maximum period for intercalation the University does require that
each stage of study must be completed within a period of 3 years.

To apply for a period of intercalation the student must inform the partner institution in
writing of the details of the request, including the timescale and the reasons for requiring
the break. The Administrator at the partner institution should complete the relevant
Intercalation form on behalf of the student and this should be endorsed by the Programme
Leader. If appropriate, letters of support from employers or other sources may be
included. Guidance on the development of a suitable application form is available from the
Administrator at the University or from the University Code of Practice published at
QH:K13. The partner institution should forward the application to the Administrator (UoH).
The application should be considered by the Academic Contact (UoH) to ensure that the
intercalation is being appropriately applied. The Academic Contact (UoH) has the
authority to grant up to 12 months intercalation on behalf of the Head of Department. If a
student requires to intercalate beyond the 12 months then this would need to be approved
by the University Senior Tutor attached to the relevant faculty. The form and attachments
are then sent to the SAS who will ensure that the application is considered by the relevant
Senior Tutor when appropriate. If an application for intercalation is approved, SAS will
write to the student and the student‟s registration details will be amended accordingly. It is
only in exceptional circumstances that the University will consider processing an
intercalation request retrospectively.

QH: B            Programme Regulations
QH: K13          Intercalation

      14.5.3 Mitigating Circumstances & Absence with Good Cause
To ensure consistency with students undertaking University awards elsewhere, provisions
for the consideration of mitigating circumstances should be the same or equivalent. The
University has an approved form for mitigating circumstances and incorporates absence
with good cause which can be adapted for use within the partner institution if considered
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                    QH: A7:45
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
appropriate. The partner institution must establish a sub-committee of the Boards of
Examiners so that confidentiality can be respected. It is good practice for discussions to
take place with the external examiner(s) to ensure that they are satisfied with the
mechanism and can be involved to the extent they deem appropriate. The Mitigating
Circumstances Committee must meet in advance of the Board of Examiners and should
make recommendations to the Module Board which has final decision on all cases. The
meetings of the Committee should be minuted and a copy available for reference at the
Module/Programme boards when appropriate. Applications submitted more than seven
days after the event must be referred to the University‟s Student Progress Committee for
a determination as to whether there are good grounds for the delayed submission.

QH: D 2       Boards of Examiners

      14.5.4 Unfair Means
The University has regulations on the use of unfair means governing plagiarism, cheating
and similar forms of academic misconduct which must be followed by Partner Institutions.
It has been established after extensive consultation and detailed legal advice to ensure
compliance with the Human Rights Act. Unfair Means is defined as conduct which may
gain students an illegitimate advantage or benefit for him/herself or another or which may
create a disadvantage or loss for another. The following provides examples of the kind of
conduct which constitutes „unfair means‟ but is not an exhaustive definition:

         „cheating‟ in an examination by possessing materials prohibited in the examination
          room
         „cheating‟ in an examination by using materials prohibited in the examination room
         falsifying the results of laboratory, field-work or other forms of data collection and
          analysis
         impersonating another during an examination or other assessment or related event
         conspiring with another or others to have work completed by another candidate,
          including offering work, whether for sale or not, for use by another without
          acknowledgement
         collusion (where the work submitted is the result of the work of more than just the
          student making the submission but which the student making the submission
          claims to be his or her own work without acknowledging the contribution of other
          students)
         using false statements, or presenting false evidence, in support of a request to
          withdraw from an examination, obtain an assessment extension, or explain any
          form of absence or default
         falsifying a transcript or other official document
         submitting work for assessment which is substantially the same work as submitted
          for a previous assessment (sometimes referred to as „self-plagiarism‟
         plagiarism as briefly defined below and fully defined in the university code of
          practice QH: F08.

Plagiarism is a specific form of „unfair means‟. It is work which purports to be a
candidate‟s own but which is taken without acknowledgement from the published or
unpublished work of others. Such unattributed taking is plagiarism whether from articles,
books, computer programs, data, essays, papers, reports, or any other material originated
by another person, whether obtained from written, printed or electronic sources, including
via the Internet, the World Wide Web (WWW) or any other computer-based or networked
system. It is plagiarism whether the medium is literary (essays and reports), graphical
(designs, diagrams, graphics), electronic (computer programs) or mathematical (proofs). It
is dishonest to seek credit for work which is not one‟s own. It is also intellectually futile,
depriving the student of the opportunity to develop her or his own powers of expression
and reasoning - the main reason for a university education. Partner institutions are
required to follow the University‟s Unfair Means regulations.
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                   QH: A7:46
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
QH: F 8       Regulations governing the Use of Unfair Means by candidates in pursuit of the award of
              any academic or professional qualification of the University of Hull

      14.5.5 Academic Appeals
Appeals on collaborative programmes are governed by the University Academic Appeals
regulations. Partner institutions must establish regulations and procedures which comply
with the precepts in the QAA Code of Practice and follow the general principles set out in
Part 1 of the University‟s regulations:

         impartiality of decision makers
         distinction between appeals and complaints
         academic judgement
         privacy and confidentiality.

Partner institutions must designate an officer or committee responsible for its appeals
procedures and inform the Secretary of the SPC as to the identity of that officer or
committee. The partner institution regulations must provide the student with a right of final
challenge (not appeal) to the University where the following conditions are satisfied:

         that the partner institution‟s appeal procedures have been exhausted, and
         that the student can demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the body which
          made the final decision was not constituted in accordance with the regulations and
          procedures of the partner institution, or acted outside its jurisdiction.

The partner institution is responsible for keeping a record of specified information and
making an annual report to the SPC. The annual report must be sent to the Head of SAS
at the end of January each year to cover the previous academic year. Where the appeal
is against a decision which was taken by the University (e.g. termination of programme of
study) the appeal will be handled at the University rather than the partner institution.

QH: E 1       Academic Appeals
              Part V – Candidates registered for programmes validated by the University of Hull

       14.5.6 Academic Discipline
The University operates a system of discipline regarding attendance and submission
requirements so that students are not simply allowed to drift through a year without
attending (irrespective of whether public funds are being claimed by, or on behalf of, the
student). However, any mechanism should be flexible enough to identify genuine
problems, where support rather than discipline is appropriate, and to provide opportunities
for students to explain and improve their conduct.

Mechanisms should be established for warnings to be issued, and ultimately for a
programme of study to be terminated where the misconduct is sufficiently extensive.
However, the University will not delegate that final decision to the partner institution.
Partner institutions should establish two levels of written warning, the first within the
department, and the second out of the department. That latter must not be issued unless
the student has been given the opportunity to explain his/her conduct, and must be based
on new defaults subsequent to the first warning. Partner institutions must establish the
criteria for issuing warnings in terms of the level of defaults triggering action. Where both
warnings have been issued and conduct remains unsatisfactory, the student should be
advised that a recommendation will be made to the University that the programme be
terminated. The student should be given the opportunity to advance reasons why the
programme should not be terminated. The level of formality of this process should be
carefully considered e.g. should the student be accompanied by a person of his/her
choosing. Both „sides‟ of the case should then be set out in writing to SPC who will make
the final decision.
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                         QH: A7:47
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
Partner institutions should note that there is a distinction between „termination of
programme‟ (activated as described above) and „academic failure‟ (where a student has
insufficient credits to progress on an award, determined by the Programme Board in
accordance with the relevant programme regulations).

14.6 Complaints
Complaints by students on collaborative programmes are governed by the University
Complaints Regulations. Partner institutions must establish regulations and procedures
which comply with the precepts in the QAA Code of Practice and follow the general
principles set out in Part 1 of the University‟s regulations:

         aims
         definition of complaints
         confidentiality
         application of the University policy on harassment
         vexatious and malicious complaints
         who may complain
         legitimate incidental expenses.

The regulations of partner institutions must provide for a person responsible to determine
the complaint through making an investigation and formal report to the complainant. It is
the partner institution‟s responsibility to make the complainant aware of their right to
complain to the University Complaints Investigation Officer within 21 days of the decision
if s/he remains dissatisfied.

Partner institutions must designate an officer or committee responsible for its complaints
procedures, inform the University Complaints Investigation Officer of the identity of that
officer or Committee, and deposit a copy of its appeals regulations with the Complaints
Investigation Officer. The partner institution shall ensure that an appropriate committee or
other body receives an annual report of complaints lodged. The partner institution shall
keep under review their complaints regulations and procedures.

In addition, the partner institution must include in its annual PQER the following
information relating to complaints from students undertaking programmes leading to
University of Hull awards:
     the number of complaints made and whether upheld or rejected
     the nature of the matters raised and any remedial action recommended and taken
     the ethnic origin, gender and any disability of the complainant.
QH: E 2       Investigation and Determination of Student Complaints
              Annex 4 Complaint to University Complaints Officer (Collaborative Provision)
QH: I9        Partner Quality Enhancement Reports

14.7 Personal Supervisors
Partner institutions must allocate personal supervisors to students in accordance with the
guidance for the University‟s own on-campus provision or operate an equivalent system.
The University guidelines provide information to staff and students in terms of the
allocation and role of supervisors, changing supervisors, record-keeping and
confidentiality.

QH: K 6       Personal Supervisors: Guidelines for Staff, Undergraduates and Taught Postgraduate
              Students

14.8 Progress Files and Personal Development Plans (PDP)
The QAA expects all Higher Education Institutions to provide support and guidance on
Progress Files and Personal Development Planning to all students. Partner institutions
must have a model for the implementation of progress files and PDP. Further information
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                        QH: A7:48
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
about the approach and models the University has adopted is available in the Quality
Handbook.

QH: K 8     Personal Development Plans




Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                         QH: A7:49
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
15.       QUALITY ASSURANCE
The University‟s approach to quality assurance has been covered previously. Because of
the nature of its collaborative activities the University needs to review both the academic
and institutional issues of each partnership regularly. Appropriate procedures have been
developed and continue to evolve in the light of experience as set out in the Quality
Handbook. Further information and guidance is available from the University Quality
Officer (Collaborative Provision).

15.1 Annual Review of Programmes
Most collaborative arrangements are dealt with at faculty level and the faculty bears
responsibility for the overall review of collaborative programmes in the same way that it
bears responsibility for programmes offered by the faculty. The mode and scope of review
is set out in the codes but this is extended to cover additional organisational issues in the
case of programmes offered at other institutions. Annual programme reports are prepared
by partner institutions in consultation with the Academic Contacts (UoH), approved by the
JBoS and submitted to the FLTAC for inclusion in the relevant faculty Quality
Enhancement Reports.

Programme modules are also reviewed annually, to include a summary of the student
feedback given for each one and any action taken as a result of that feedback. Full
information on external examiners‟ reports and action taken should also be included.

QH: I 1     Annual Monitoring of Programmes (including pro forma)

15.2 Partner Quality Enhancement Reports
Partner Institutions are required to submit on an annual basis a Partner Quality
Enhancement Report (PQER) covering all provision leading to a University of Hull award.
Each PQER should cover an academic session and should be received by the UQO no
later than the first working day in February in the following calendar year.

QH: I 9     Partner Quality Enhancement Reports

15.3 Audit of Quality Mechanisms
To enable the University to review the implementation of the expectations set out in this
Handbook and to gain feedback from partner institutions, it will periodically conduct audits
of the mechanisms through which partner institutions implement the University‟s
framework for the assurance of quality and the maintenance of standards. The audits are
focused at the level of the partner and will embrace the entirety of the provision delivered
by the partner institution and that lead to University awards. In addition, the audits are
designed to be supportive to, and developmental for, the partner institution without
compromising the University‟s ability to assure quality.

Each audit is the responsibility of a panel chaired by a member of the University‟s ULTAC
and comprises academic and administrative staff experienced in collaborative provision.
Each panel consider a self-evaluation document written by the partner institution, together
with the documentation specified in the code of practice. Following meetings with senior,
teaching and support staff and students of the partner institution, the panel produces a
report for approval by ULTAC, setting out recommendations to both the partner institution
and the University and identifying examples of good practice and strengths. Each partner
institution produces an action plan in response to the recommendations. Relevant JDBs
and ULTAC are then responsible for monitoring and implementation of the action plans.

As partner institutions are now subject to QAA Integrated Quality and Enhancement
Review (IQER) this process is currently under review and partner institutions will be kept
informed as to the progress of the review.
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                QH: A7:50
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
QH: I 4     Quality Audit of Partner Institutions

15.4 Periodic Review
All programmes are subject to a full review every five years, at a time laid down in the
rolling review timetable approved by the University‟s ULTAC. The aim is to ensure that
collaborative provision is subject to effective scrutiny of, and self-reflection by, all involved
in the delivery of programmes. There is an emphasis on constructive feedback from peers
in a way which promotes the enhancement of the student learning experience and of
quality systems.

Where a subject is delivered both by a University department and a partner institution, the
entire subject – both in its on-campus and collaborative forms will be included in the
review. Where the collaborative provision overseen by a department is insubstantial, that
provision will be included in the periodic review of on-campus provision. Where the
collaborative provision is substantial, the review will be conducted as a discrete process
concurrently with the on-campus review. The Chair of ULTAC will make the decision
whether the collaborative provision is substantial or not.

All collaborative subjects therefore, will be subject to review at no more than five yearly
intervals in accordance with the published schedule. Full details of when each review is
scheduled can be found in the university schedule of periodic reviews as shown below.

QH: I 7     Periodic Review of Collaborative Subjects in Partner Institutions
QH: I 6     Schedule for Periodic Reviews

15.5 External Audit
Partner institutions must inform the University of any Academic Audit or review carried out
by an external body affecting any programme leading to a University award e.g. QAA
reviews, IQER or Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs) reviews. It is
essential that the University is involved as the outcome of such audits will not only impact
on partner institutions but the University. It is important therefore that the University is
consulted and participates in preparations and receives reports through the relevant
Committees e.g. JBoS and JDBs. Notification of such events should in the first instance
be reported to the University Quality Officer (Collaborative Provision).

15.6 Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies
It is the University‟s responsibility to inform any PSRB which has approved or recognised
a programme that is the subject of a possible or actual collaborative arrangement, of its
proposals and of any final agreements which involve the programme. As a consequence
the University must be informed of any PSRB requirements by partner institutions at the
programme approvals stage. Subsequent issues which arise should be brought to the
attention of the JDBs.

15.7 Monitoring
The University and partner institutions receive feedback on programmes from three main
sources, as follows:

      15.7.1 Student Feedback
As a minimum it is expected that partner institutions will collect feedback from students
following teaching on each module and will have in place mechanisms for acting upon
such feedback and informing students of action taken. Examples of good practice are
available from the University Quality Office. University faculties are expected to monitor
feedback through the JBoS. It is the responsibility of partner institutions to summarise the
student feedback, positive and less positive aspects of this feedback, and action taken, in
the annual report for the programme. Partner institutions are also encouraged to look at

Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                    QH: A7:51
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
other forms of obtaining feedback through establishing focus groups, comments boxes,
electronic feedback and surveys.

       15.7.2 Student Representation
The University of Hull and the Students‟ Union are jointly committed to implement an
effective and coherent system of student representation at all levels of the institution. The
University‟s commitment is driven by the overriding objective of continuing to improve the
student learning experience. It is founded on the belief that listening to students and
treating students as partners, with shared ownership of their learning, results in much
improvement, both for current and future students.

The University‟s guidelines for student representation set out a number of fundamental
principles which must be adhered to by all partner institutions. The code of practice also
contains examples of good practice which partner institutions may find useful This will
normally take the form of a staff/student committee, membership being elected students
on the programme and academic and administrative staff involved with the programme,
preferably to also include representation from areas such as the library and IT. Partner
institutions need to ensure that for each programme:

         there is a formal means through which staff and students can regularly
          communicate on all issues affecting the student experience either through
          personal comment or via a representative
         there are effective mechanisms for logging and responding to issues raised by
          students, reporting back on actions or not taken
         there is sufficiently wide dissemination within the academic areas of issues raised
          and to be raised and actions taken
         the Student Union (or equivalent) in partner institutions is properly informed of
          activities relating to student representation on a yearly basis.

The student experience includes: academic matters (relating to any aspect of modules
and programmes including their delivery and assessment); curriculum design and
development (both module and programme); learning resources and pastoral care and
other forms of student support. Items which should not be discussed at these meetings
include issues relating to individual members of staff or students or personal complaints
and personal grievances. These areas should be referred to the appropriate meeting or
procedures.

This committee should meet at least as regularly as the JBoS and the meeting be fully
recorded, with the result of resolved actions being noted, in order that the minutes are
able to be audited and are received by the JBoS. The annual and periodic reviews should
take account of the activities of this committee.

Partner institutions are also expected to encourage student representation and
attendance at appropriate department/faculty and institution level committees.

QH: K 2       Student Representation




Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                 QH: A7:52
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
16.     KEY CONTACTS AT THE UNIVERSITY

University Quality Office
Lynne Braham                     Head of Quality                 l.j.braham@hull.ac.uk
                                                                 01482 46 6576
Dr Pam Medhurst                  University Quality Officer      pam.medhurst@hull.ac.uk
                                                                 01482 46 6703

Pro-Vice-Chancellors’ Office
Professor Glenn Burgess          Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning   pvc-lt@hull.ac.uk
                                 and Teaching)                   01482 46 5633
Ms V Parker                      Senior Advisor – Partnerships   v.l.parker@hull.ac.uk
                                                                 01482 46 5023

Collaborative Provision Forum
Professor Glenn Burgess          Pro-Vice Chancellor (Learning   pvc-lt@hull.ac.uk
                                 and Teaching)                   01482 46 5633
Dr Amanda Wilcox                 Deputy Chair and Director of    a.wilcox@hull.ac.uk
                                 Administrative Services         01482 46 6450

Faculty of Arts and Social
Sciences
Professor Valerie Sanders        Acting Dean                     v.r.sanders@hull.ac.uk
                                                                 01482 46 6918
Ms Jenny Parsons                 Faculty Administrator           j.a.parsons@hull.ac.uk
                                                                 01482 46 6188
Mrs Dorothy Kasiri               Faculty Administrator           d.a.vahid-kasiri@hull.ac.uk
                                 (Collaborative Programmes)      01482 46 6797
Mr Duncan Holt                   Validation Co-ordinator         d.holt@hull.ac.uk
                                 (Scarborough Campus)            01723 35 7386
Mr Charles Cooper                Validation Co-ordinator (Hull   c.e.cooper@hull.ac.uk
                                 Campus)                         01482 46 6331

Faculty of Science
Mr Derek Wills                   Dean                            Dean.Sci@hull.ac.uk
                                                                 01482 46 5377
Ms Elizabeth Pearson             Collaborative Provision         e.h.pearson@hull.ac.uk
                                 Administrator                   01482 46 6662

Ms Eva Gorski                    Faculty Administrator           e.m.gorski@hull.ac.uk
                                                                 01482 46 5585

Business School
Professor Mike Jackson           Dean                            m.c.jackson@hull.ac.uk
                                                                 01482 46 3002
Ms Lynda Buckingham              Academic Director UK            l.m.buckingham@hull.ac.uk
                                 Validated Programmes            01482 46 3487
Ms Lorraine Russell              Quality and Research            l.russell@hull.ac.uk
                                 Administrator                   01482 46 3644
Dr Barbara Allan                 Chair HUBS EPC                  barbara.allan@hull.ac.uk
                                                                 01482 46 3067

Faculty of Education
Mrs Dina Lewis                   Dean                            d.lewis@hull.ac.uk
                                                                 01482 46 6134
Mrs Kathryn Watson               Faculty Administrator           k.watson@hull.ac.uk
                                                                 01482 46 5402
Ms Shirley Bennett               Academic Contact                s.bennett@hull.ac.uk
                                                                 01482 46 6754
Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                QH: A7:53
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
Ms Azumah Dennis                 CES Programmes Director            carol.dennis@hull.ac.uk
                                 Teaching in the Lifelong           01482 46 6930
                                 Learning Sector (Cert Ed and
                                 PGCE)
Ms Angela Shaw                   CES Programme Director FD          a.shaw@hull.ac.uk
                                 Learning Support                   01482 46 9645
Ms Penny Willis                  CES Quality Administrator          p.r.willis@hull.ac.uk
Ms Hermione Ackroyd              CES Collaborative Provision        h.ackroyd@hull.ac.uk
                                 administrative support             01482 46 6870
Ms Sue Hamilton                  CES FD Learning Support            s.j.hamilton@hull.ac.uk
                                 administrative support             01482 46 6950

Scarborough Campus
Ms Heather Davies                SSE Early Childhood                h.davies@hull.ac.uk
                                 Studies/Policy and Practice        01482 46 7312

Faculty of Health and Social
Care
Mrs Chris English                Dean                               c.english@hull.ac.uk
                                                                    01482 46 5845
Mr Steve Himsworth               Senior Lecturer / Quality          s.himsworth@hull.ac.uk
                                 Coordinator                        01482 46 4688
Ms Pat Moody                     Collaborative Administrator        p.moody@hull.ac.uk
                                                                    01482 46 4662

Marketing and
Communications Directorate
Martin Bull                      Head of Publications               m.bull@hull.ac.uk
                                                                    01482 46 6634

Student Administrative
Services
Derek Ord                        Head of Student Administrative     d.j.ord@hull.ac.uk
                                 Services                           01482 46 5980
Paul Bird                        Student     Records      Officer   p.a.bird@hull.ac.uk
                                 (Responsibility   for   Partner    01482 46 6589
                                 College student data)
Joanna Micklethwaite             Student     Records      Officer   j.micklethwaite@hull.ac.uk
                                 (Exams,     Timetabling     and    01482 46 6825
                                 Customer Services)
Student Admissions Service
Sheila Dowling                   Head of Admissions                 s.c.dowling@hull.ac.uk
                                                                    01482 46 5328

Degree Ceremonies Office
Ms Jane Barr                     Senior Assistant                   j.l.barr@hull.ac.uk
                                                                    01482 46 5890
Miss Christine Fountain          Secretary                          c.a.fountain@hull.ac.uk
                                                                    01482 46 5278

Student Complaints
Ms Jill Byron                    University Complaints Officer      g.l.byron@hull.ac.uk
                                                                    01482 46 5835
Mrs Hilary Drysdale              Secretary (to above)               h.i.drysdale@hull.ac.uk
                                                                    01482 46 5831
Dr Amanda Wilcox                 Deputy Complaints Officer          a.wilcox@hull.ac.uk
                                                                    01482 46 6450




Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                   QH: A7:54
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
17      KEY TRAINING DATES 2010-2011

Event                            Date and Time                    Target audience

Unfair means                     Monday 15 November 2010          This event is mandatory for
(Mandatory for new chairs        Tuesday 19 April 2011            new chairs and secretaries of
and secretaries)                 10.15 – 12.15                    Unfair Means Adjudication
                                                                  Panels including those at
                                                                  partner institutions.

Admissions refresher                                              Partner    Institutions  with
                                 Tuesday 23 November 2010         devolved admissions authority
                                 2.15 – 3.45

Programme       development                                       Partner and on campus staff
and approval                     Tuesday 7 December 2010          involved    in   developing
                                 10.15 – 12.15                    programmes

Update on changes to             TBC
Quality    and    Standards
Framework      (Collaborative
Provision)

Module and Programme                                              Partner    Institution   staff
Board Briefing for Partner       Monday 16 May 2011               involved   in     boards    of
Institutions                     2.15 – 3.15                      examiners meetings



If any of the dates are not convenient please contact the UQO and we will try to arrange a bespoke
session at a time to suit.




Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                     QH: A7:55
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
18.     ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS

ACB         Associate Colleges Board
AIS         Academic Information System
APL         Accredited for Prior Learning
CPF         Collaborative Provision Forum
FAP          Full Approval Panel
FASS        Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
FEC         Further Education College
FHSC        Faculty of Health and Social Care
FLTAC       Faculty Learning, Teaching and Assessment Committee
FoE         Faculty of Education (formerly Institute for Learning)
FoS         Faculty of Science
HEFCE       Higher Education Funding Council for England
HESA        Higher Education Statistics Agency
HUBS        Hull University Business School
IELTS       International English Language Testing System
IQER        Integrated Quality Enhancement Review
JDB         Joint Development Board
JBoS        Joint Board of Studies
NARIC       National Academic Recognition Information Centres
OIA         Office of the Independent Adjudicator
PAC         Programme Approvals Committee
PDP         Personal Development Plans
PPC         Planning Permission Committee
PSRB        Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies
PQER        Programme Quality Enhancement Report
QAA         Quality Assurance Agency
QEF         Quality Enhancement Forum
QH          Quality Handbook
RTS         Recognised Teacher Status
SAS         Student Administrative Services
SCOP        Standing Conference of Principals
SMT         Senior Management Team
SPC         Student Progress Committee
TQI         Teaching Quality Information
UQO         University Quality Office
URS         University Registrar and Secretary
UUK         Universities UK




Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                       QH: A7:56
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
19.     DEFINITIONS

Academic Infrastructure has been developed by the QAA in cooperation with the whole
of UK higher education. It is a set of nationally agreed reference points that help to define
both good practice and academic standards. It addresses all award-bearing activity,
wherever or however provided. It incorporates the Code, the Framework for Higher
Education Qualifications, subject benchmark statements, and guidance on programme
specifications, the definition of each of which is given below.

Accreditation is used to describe a process by which an institution without its own degree
awarding powers, or which chooses not to use its awarding powers, is given wide
authority by a university or other awarding institution to exercise powers and responsibility
for academic provision. The awarding institution exercises only limited control over the
quality assurance functions, but remains ultimately responsible for the quality and
standard of the award.

Accreditation of Prior (Experiential) Learning (AP(E)L) is a process by which
individuals can claim and gain credit towards qualifications based on their prior learning
and, sometimes, experience. Credit should only be given where there is evidence that the
experience or learning has resulted in the student achieving the appropriate and clearly
expressed learning outcomes.

Agent is used in this code to describe a third party employed by the Awarding Institution
to fulfil certain functions in order to facilitate a collaborative arrangement. An agent is not
normally directly involved with the delivery of the programme.

Articulation is used in this code to describe a particular form of formal credit-rating and
transfer agreement between two institutions, one of which agrees to recognise and grant
specific credit and advanced standing to applicants from a named programme of study
pursued in the other.

Award is any UK higher education award or qualification as defined by the Framework for
Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ).

Awarding Institution is a university or other higher education institution empowered to
award degrees, diplomas, certificates or credits by virtue of authority given to it by statute,
Royal Charter, or the Privy Council, or under licence from another authorised body. It is
the UK institution whose academic award is the award to which a programme of study
leads.

Benchmark information is a term used to define explicit national statements of academic
standards or outcomes for individual subjects. Benchmark information of this type
provides a reference point against which outcomes can be measured. The QAA is
developing 'benchmarks' of this sort in respect of a number of subject groupings as part of
its national quality assurance process.

Code of Practice (the Code) is a suite of inter-related documents published by the QAA
which, taken together, form an overall code of practice for the assurance of academic
quality and standards in higher education for the guidance of higher education institutions
subscribing to the QAA.

Collaborative Provision denotes educational provision leading to an award, or to specific
credit toward an award, of the University delivered and/or supported and/or assessed
through an arrangement with a partner organisation.

Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                  QH: A7:57
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10
Direct Funding

Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (the FHEQ) for institutions in England,
Wales and Northern Ireland sets out the descriptors of the five levels of higher education
qualifications awarded by universities and colleges in England, Wales and Northern
Ireland.    Qualification descriptors consist of a statement of the outcomes and
achievements that a student should be able to demonstrate for the qualification to be
awarded and a statement of the wider abilities that the typical student could be expected
to have developed in the process of attaining that award.


Indirect Funding

Level is a broad indicator of the relative demand, complexity, depth of study and
autonomy of learning associated with a particular award. Descriptions of the levels of UK
higher education awards are given in the FHEQ.

Level descriptor is a statement that provides a broad indication of learning appropriate to
attainment at a particular level, designed to support the assignment of specified learning
outcomes to particular modules.

Partner, or partner organisation, is the term used to describe the institution or other body
or individual with which the awarding institution enters into an agreement to collaborate.
In this handbook, the partner will normally be a further education college in the UK
providing higher education and consequently the term partner institution is used
throughout.

Programme (of study) is the approved curriculum followed by a registered student. A
programme may be multidisciplinary, or refer to the main pathway through a modular
scheme.

Professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs) is used to denote organisations
which are authorised to accredit, approve or recognise specific programmes in the context
of the requirements for professional qualification.

Programme specifications provide concise published statements about the intended
learning outcomes of programmes of study, information about the teaching, learning,
learning support and assessment methods used to enable the learning




Collaborative Handbook 2010-11                                                QH: A7:58
University Quality Office
Version 5 00 – Nov 10

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:10/15/2011
language:English
pages:58