UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK
Process for Review of Collaborative Provision
1.
Responsibility for Review
Responsibility for the management of academic quality and standards rests with the Academic
Quality and Standards Committee (AQSC), although the Collaborative, Flexible and Distributed
Learning Sub-Committee (CFDLSC) has specific responsibility for matters relating to collaborative
provision, reporting to AQSC. Oversight of the process therefore lies with AQSC, but with
responsibility for the operation of the process and for following up the outcomes resting with
CFDLSC.
2.
Purpose of Review (aims and objectives)
The purpose of the Review process is as follows:
(a)
To assure the University and other interested parties (e.g. applicants, students, employers)
of the standards and quality of the collaborative partner(s) under review, the collaborative
arrangement(s) and the Department’s management of its partnerships;
To promote the enhancement of the quality of education offered through the partnership(s);
To consider the strategic direction of the arrangements and the courses involved;
To assess progress in relation to the outcomes and recommendations of the Department’s
previous review(s);
To determine in the light of the above, whether or not the arrangement(s) should be renewed
for a further period, and if so on what basis.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(f)
3.
Types of Review
The University operates three types of review:



Self-assessment
Paper-based review
Full Review Variant
Which form of review will be undertaken will be informed by scale of the collaborative provision of a
department and the outcomes of the risk assessment exercise used to identify risks associated with
partnerships which is also applied during the approval process. This assesses risk based on a
number of factors including the location of the partner; the nature of the collaboration; the status of
the partner; level of study; teaching quality assurance processes in the partner institution. The
intention of the varied approach to the review process is to ensure that a proportionate level of
scrutiny is given to partnerships, thereby maintaining academic rigour while not imposing an unduly
burdensome process. The type of review to be applied to a particular department will be approved
by the CFDLSC in the year prior to the scheduled review date.
4.
Timing of Review
Reviews will be undertaken approximately every five years. However all partnerships are expected
to have a collaborative contract in place which sets out the respective responsibilities of the partners
for a given period of time. Where a department is operating only a single collaborative course
reviews should therefore be scheduled to take place approximately eighteen months prior to the end
1
date of a contract to ensure that there is ample time to either confirm renewal, amend aspects of the
partnership or give notice that a partnership will be terminated.
The schedule of reviews will be drafted by the Teaching Quality Office and will set out the academic
year in which it is expected each collaboration will be reviewed. It will be considered on an annual
basis by the CFDLSC and approved by the AQSC. An indicative schedule is attached at Annex B,
although the timing of the Reviews may need to be revised in light of the timing of the next
Institutional Teaching and Learning Review.
In the year prior to the scheduled review, the Teaching Quality Office will consult with the
Department on a suitable term for the review and seek approval from the CFDLSC of the list of
courses to be included within the scope of the Review.
5.
Review Process
(a) Self Assessment
Departments will prepare a self-assessment document which will include description and
reflection on the following (Further details are given at Annex A):
 Overview of the collaboration(s)
 Detail of the strategic rationale for the collaboration(s)
 Review of the management of the collaboration(s)
 Review of the quality assurance arrangements (including provision for student
evaluation and student representation).
 Review of legal agreements
 Publicity, admissions, student support and guidance
 Details of assessment and examination
Based on their reflections the Department will make a recommendation to the CFDLSC as
to whether the partnership(s) should be amended, on what basis and noting any
amendments in the management of the programme(s) that will be made in light of the
review. The document will be considered for approval by CFDLSC at a standard meeting of
the Committee.
(b) Paper Based Review
(i)
Panel Membership
The panel will consist of the following:
 Chair of the CFDLSC (or his/her nominee)
 A representative of the CFDLSC appointed by the Committee
 A representative of the Department
 A representative of the Registrar will act as Secretary to the Group
 A student representative, normally a sabbatical officer of the Students’ Union
The panel will be approved by the CFDLSC in advance of the Review.
(ii)
Documentation
The Department will submit documentation to the Secretary of the panel three weeks
in advance of the meeting. Documentation will include:
 A self-evaluation document
 Student Handbook(s)
 Copy of last review report and Department’s response
2





(iii)
Copy of the contract(s)
Statistics showing the numbers of students enrolled on the course(s) for the
last three years, including progression and classification data
Either Student Staff Liaison Committee (SSLC) reports or SSLC minutes for
the previous three years.
External Examiners’ reports for the previous three years.
Annual course review reports for the previous three years.
Meeting
Prior to the meeting the Chair and Secretary will prepare a list of issues to be
addressed by the panel. The Secretary will arrange a meeting for the panel to discuss
the issues identified and any other issues they may raise. The panel will identify any
areas of good practice and will make recommendations which will include:


(iv)
Whether the partnerships are to be renewed;
If they are to be renewed whether any changes in the management of the
partnerships are to be put in place.
Report of the Review Panel
The Secretary will draft the Review Report within two weeks of the review meeting.
The report will include the panel membership, names of the partner(s) and courses
under review and will consist of a commentary on the issues covered in the Review
meeting. It will set out the commendations and good practice identified by the Panel
together with the recommendations. All panel members will have the opportunity to
comment on a draft copy of the report and the final version will be approved by the
Chair of the panel. The report will then be forwarded to the department and
collaborative partner(s) who will have the opportunity to comment on any factual
inaccuracies. The Chair will approve any amendments to the report and the final
version will be provided to the Department and collaborative partner(s), following
which they may make a formal response. Both the report and the response will then
be considered for approval by the CFDLSC.
(c) Full Review Variant
(i)
Panel Membership
The panel will consist of the following:





Chair: Chair of the CFDLSC (or his/her nominee)
A representative of the CFDLSC appointed by the Committee
One external member from another institution, professional body or industry
within the UK1.
A representative of the Registrar will act as Secretary to the Group
A student representative, normally a sabbatical officer of the Students’ Union
The size and membership of the review panel may be varied according to the size
and complexity of the collaboration, subject to the approval of the CFDLSC. The
external member will be nominated by the Department and approved by the Chair of
1
The external member should not be the current or recent (last three years) external examiner for the course.
3
CFDLSC. The panel membership will be approved by the CFDLSC in advance of the
Review.
(ii)
Documentation
The Department will submit documentation to the Secretary of the panel three weeks
in advance of the meeting. Documentation will include:
 A self-evaluation document
 Student Handbook(s)
 Copy of last departmental review report and Department’s response
 Copy of the contract(s)
 Statistics showing the numbers of students enrolled on the course(s) for the
last three years, including progression and classification data
 Either Student Staff Liaison Committee (SSLC) reports or SSLC minutes for
the previous three years.
 External Examiners’ reports for the previous three years.
 Annual course review reports for the previous three years.
 Minutes of the meeting of the course management group(s) for the previous
three years.
(iii)
Review Meetings
Pre-Meeting
This meeting will take place at least a week prior to the Review meeting. The Chair
and Secretary will review the paperwork, identify any issues that the panel should be
addressing, together with any points of clarification or requests for further
information. The list of issues identified will be circulated to panel members in
advance of the Review meeting. At this point the agenda and schedule of meetings
will be finalised.
Site Visit
For collaborations within the UK, the meetings will be held at the collaborative
partner’s site. It is recognised that this will not always be possible for overseas
organisations and for these reviews, meetings will take place via video-conferencing
wherever possible. Where departments operate multiple collaborations, the panel will
seek to meet with staff and students of at least one partner. This partner(s) selected
will have a risk scoring typical of those collaborations operated by the department,
based on the risk scoring methodology for collaborations, Alternatively where there
are concerns with the operation of a particular collaboration, based on evidence
presented to the panel, the panel may select this partner. The Chair will brief panel
members on the purpose and format of the Review, and will request that members
identify any further issues that they would like to raise, in addition to those set out in
advance by the Chair and Secretary. This will form the detailed agenda for the
following meetings.

Meeting with University Team
The panel will meet with the team from the University responsible for the
management of the course(s). They will explore how the Department ensures
the maintenance of quality and standards on the course(s), including the quality
of facilities and resources and related issues arising from the documentation.
4
(iv)

Meeting with Students
The panel will meet with a group of students representing those following
different modes of study and different courses, where appropriate, to explore
the students’ experiences on the course.

Meeting with Collaborative Partner Team(s)
The panel will meet with representatives of the partner’s team, which may
include the head of the organisation or head of department, staff responsible for
the specific course(s) offered, a tour of the premises, a meeting with support
staff. The panel will explore issues arising from the documentation, the
operation of the collaboration and future developments.

Final Panel Meeting and Feedback
The panel will meet in camera to reflect on its discussions and will draw
together its findings, including identifying any recommendations and
commendations. The panel will decide at this point whether the collaboration(s)
should continue, and if so, on what basis. The panel will feed back the key
findings to departmental staff and, where it is considered appropriate,
representatives of the collaborative partner(s). It is for the panel in discussion
with the Department to determine who should be present at this meeting.
Report of the Review Panel
The Secretary will draft the Review Report within the two weeks of the review
meeting. The report will include the panel membership, names of the partner(s) and
courses under review and will consist of a commentary on the issues covered in the
Review meeting. It will set out the commendations and good practice identified by the
Panel together with the recommendations. It should include a clear recommendation
as to whether the collaboration should be continued, and if so, on what basis. All
panel members will have the opportunity to comment on a draft copy of the report
and the final version will be approved by the Chair of the panel. The report will then
be forwarded to the Department and collaborative partner who will have the
opportunity to comment on any factual inaccuracies. The Chair will approve any
amendments to the report and the final version will be provided to the Department
and collaborative partner, following which they may make a formal response. Both
the report and the response will then be considered for approval by the CFDLSC.
Approved by the Senate 4 July 2012
M:\Quality\Committees\CFDLSC and Collaborative Provision\Collaborative Review\Process for Review of Collaborative
Provision_approved by Senate.doc
5
Annex A
Self-Evaluation Document
The self-evaluation document should be succinct and provide an evaluation of the collaborative
arrangement(s). The document should be drafted by the Department, in consultation with
collaborative partner(s). It should reflect the strengths of the partnership(s) and what developments
may be needed. The following sets out broadly the sections that should be included within the selfevaluation document, with an indication of what topics might be covered within each section.
1. Overview of the collaboration
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
Name of department
Name of partner organisation(s)
Award and title of programme(s) covered by the collaboration(s)
Start and end date of collaborative contract(s)
Type of collaboration(s)
Accrediting bodies (where applicable)
2. Strategic rationale for the collaboration
2.1
2.2
2.3
Outline of strategic rationale for the collaboration(s).
To what extent are the collaboration(s) meeting original aims and objectives.
To what extent are the collaboration(s) still relevant to the University and Departmental
Strategy?
3. Management of the collaboration
3.1
3.2
3.3
How frequently do the management committee(s) meet and how effective are they?
Have the collaboration(s) operated in line with the roles and responsibilities set out in
the contract?
Have there been any issues and do the contract(s) need amending?
4. Quality assurance arrangements
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
How are changes to the course(s) managed?
How does the Department assure itself of the quality and standards of the course(s)?
Have there been any issues and how has the Department responded?
Do student retention, progression and achievement data highlight any concerns?
Have any concerns or positive aspects been raised by External Examiners?
Where assessment is undertaken by staff of a collaborative organisation, what
guidance is provided to them and how are assessment outcomes monitored to ensure
comparability of standards with students assessed at Warwick?
4.7 What opportunities do students have for evaluating the course(s) and to raise
concerns?
4.8 Have any issues been raised by students and what has the response been?
4.9 How are staff development needs identified (either for Warwick or the partner’s staff)
and provided for?
4.10 Has a need been identified for further development of the course(s)?
5. Publicity and admissions
5.1
5.2
What arrangements does the Department have in place for ensuring departmental
approval of all publicity relating to the course(s)?
Where admissions processes and decisions are overseen by the collaborative
organisation(s), how does the Department assure itself that applicants meet the
required standards for admission to the course(s)?
6
6. Student support and guidance
6.1
6.2
6.3
Has the level of staffing for the course(s) changed?
Have any concerns been raised regarding resources for students and when was the
last time a member of staff of the University visited the partner organisation to review
facilities?
Have any concerns been raised regarding support and guidance for students and how
has this been addressed?
7. Other Issues
7.1
Has the Department reviewed the financial viability of the collaboration(s) and what
was the outcome?
7