Collaborations Handbook - University of East London

UNIVERSITY OF EAST LONDON

QUALITY ASSURANCE HANDBOOK FOR COLLABORATIONS

INTRODUCTION

As a degree awarding institution, UEL has ultimate responsibility for all awards made in its name including any programme of study delivered collaboratively. It is therefore important that every effort is made, in collaboration with our partner institutions, to ensure an appropriate learning environment exists, and is maintained for all our students studying under collaborative arrangements. This requires UEL to provide regular ongoing support to our partner institutions. The quality assurance procedures which guarantee our collaborative arrangements are documented in great detail in the Quality Manual Part 11

(http://www.uel.ac.uk/qa/policies/qualitymanual/).

In this handbook you will find useful guidance notes, forms and other information to assist you in meeting the requirements for management of collaborative partnerships as identified in Part 11 of the Quality Manual.

For information on the approval or review process of collaborative programmes and partner institutions, please refer to part 11 of the Quality Manual.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Contents of this handbook:

1.

2.

Responsibilities for the management of collaborative partnerships

Admissions and Applications

Programme delivery

Assessment

External Examiners

Student feedback

7.

8.

Staffing and staff development for collaborative programmes

Monitoring of marketing and publicity

9. Review and Enhancement Process (REP)

10. Programme modifications

11. Partnership Monitoring Committees

12. School Collaborative Committees

13. Student Handbook

14. Administration of Extenuating Circumstances

15. Appeals, Complaints and Student Disciplinary

15. The Memorandum of Cooperation

16. Termination of collaborative partnerships

Appendices

1 Responsibilities for the management of collaborative partnerships

All collaborative programmes are located within a UEL School and the academic management of collaborative programmes takes place through a ‘Link Tutor’ structure. The p. 5 p. 5 p. 5 p. 6 p. 6 p. 6 p. 6 p. 6 p. 7 p. 7 p. 1 p. 2 p. 2 p. 2 p. 3 p. 3 p. 4 p. 4

1

Quality Assurance Handbook for Collaborations Version July 2015

UEL Link Tutor, in association with the Academic Partnership Office, plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the operation of the programme(s) and partnerships. The Link

Tutor Role Description outlines the responsibilities of a UEL Link Tutor.

The academic administration of collaborative programmes is managed by the Academic

Partnership Office. The responsibilities for the different areas of collaborative partnerships management are outlined the Responsibility Grid for Collaborative Programmes.

Appendix one: The Link Tutor role description

Appendix two: Responsibility Grid for Collaborative Programmes

2 Admissions and Applications

The UEL Link Tutor guides the collaborative partner to ensure that students are admitted in accordance with agreed admission criteria as published in the programme specification and specific guidance would be sought from the UEL Link Tutor for any non-standard admission decisions. The level of involvement of the UEL Link Tutor in relation to admissions will vary depending on the nature of the collaboration but it essential that the UEL Link Tutor maintains oversight of the admission process. Therefore, this means that normally the UEL

Link Tutor reviews a sample of applications (incl. evidence of qualifications).

3 Programme delivery

For franchised programmes, to support delivery of the programme(s) it is important that UEL

Link Tutors, by liaising with UEL module leaders, as appropriate, provide partners with access to additional material that enables partner staff to deliver the curriculum, ensure that the learning outcomes are met and understand the level and nature of the assessment required. This is in addition to the general support that partner staff will require in relation to mapping assessments to assessment criteria, understanding level descriptors, providing feedback to students, marking and grading, learning and teaching strategies.

The following material should be provided for franchised modules:



Module guide



Lecture slides and materials, as given to students



Tutorial questions



Sample assessments

Arrangements will need to be made for partner access to the material prior to the module being first taught, and material should be updated as appropriate on an annual basis.

Appendix three: Guidelines for Module Guides

Supervision provided to students on dissertation modules studied on collaborative programmes should be in accordance with the UEL Dissertation Supervision Policy.

Appendix four: UEL Dissertation Supervision Policy

4 Assessment

The UEL Link Tutor should agree with the collaborative partner a process for approval of coursework, draft examination papers, moderation of assessment, a sampling method for examination scripts and coursework assignments and a process for liaison with the external examiner.

At a minimum, all summative assessment must be moderated by UEL and the UEL appointed external examiner prior to students undertaking such assessment. In addition, the

2


collaborative partner would provide a sample of 10% of each module or 10 individual pieces from each component of assessment (whichever is greater) for moderation by external examiners. This sample would need to cover the full range of marks achieved by the students in the module. Such a sample would be accompanied by the module specification, the mark scheme, clear indication of second marking, module leaders report and a breakdown of marks obtained.

Collaborative students will normally be considered at the relevant School ’s Subject Area

Progression and Award Boards. In some cases Progression Boards can be organised at the partner institution, but they should always be chaired by a member of UEL staff, who has attended the relevant training.

5 External Examiners

UEL is responsible for appointing external examiners to all our collaborative programmes.

External examiners are appointed to modules, using UEL external examiner appointment procedures as set out in the Quality Manual part 9. Where the same module is taught at more than one location, the same external examiner should normally be appointed to review assessed work at each location of delivery, however, there may be some instances where this is not possible and an alternative external examiner will be appointed. The UEL Head of

Subject in collaboration with the UEL Link Person must complete the appropriate forms.

UEL quality assurance processes require that external examiners prepare an annual report and that a formal response is made to all reports. External examiner reports are circulated to appropriate UEL staff including Link Tutors and key staff at collaborative partners by the

External Examiners Administrator in Quality Assurance and Enhancement. Care is taken to ensure that confidential items relating to one partner are not circulated to another.

The UEL Link Tutor will work with the partner to ensure that the report is discussed and an action plan formulated to deal with the recommendations from the External Examiner. Heads of Subject are responsible for ensuring that responses are made to the external examiner report, including a response to comments relating to collaborative partners. The Head of

Subject will work with the UEL Link Tutor to ensure that the response to the external picks up the matters from collaborative partners.

Where an external examiner is unable to confirm one or more of the statements in Part 1 of the report, an action plan will be submitted to Quality and Standards Committee, identifying the actions that will be put in place to address the examiner’s comments. The School Quality

Standing Committee must approve this action plan. Where the action relates to provision at a collaborative partner, the action plan must be drawn up in collaboration with the partner.

The action plan will be monitored by the School Quality Standing Committee and Quality and

Standards Committee until all actions are completed

6 Student Feedback

Programme Committees

Programme Committee requirements for collaborative arrangements are similar to on campus programmes. This means that each programme must have a Programme

Committee which meets at least once in a term/semester. The Programme Committee should comprise of two student representatives from each level of the programme, including at least one part-time student where appropriate, and is responsible for assuring and enhancing the quality of the student experience on the programme of study delivered through the collaborative arrangement. It is an important mechanism for students to express their views on the quality of the education they are receiving.

3


The UEL Link Tutor should attend the partner Programme Committee whenever possible, and always monitor the minutes after a Programme Committee has taken place to ensure that appropriate actions are put in place in response to feedback.

Appendix five: Programme Committee Terms of Reference

Appendix six: Guide for Managing Programme Committees (incl. standard agenda)

Feedback at Module Level

Collaborative partner institutions must have in place mechanisms for collecting student feedback at module level. Such mechanisms should enable the collection of data that meet the requirements of UEL module feedback.

With regards to evaluation of feedback obtained at module level it is essential that at the end of every module, programme leaders at partner institutions prepare, and include with sample scripts for external moderation, a brief report commenting on delivery, management and key issues affecting the module. This report should include an analysis of end-of-module questionnaires and is required as part of all Review and Enhancement Process reports

(REP).

Appendix seven: Module Evaluation Report template

Appendix eight: Module Evaluation Questionnaire

7 Staffing and Staff Development for collaborative programmes

CVs of staff appointed to teach on a collaborative programme will be reviewed at the approval event. The UEL Link Tutor should put in place mechanisms to review and approve the CVs of staff subsequently appointed to teach on the programme. Partner organisations should be appraised of agreed criteria to be applied to such staff appointments.

The UEL Link Tutor is expected to assist in identifying and meeting staff development needs at partner organisations in relation to the delivery of approved programmes. For new partners, induction is essential. Other activities and special sessions may include introducing

UEL policies and procedures, personal tutoring, programme management etc.

Peer Enhancement – It is expected that collaborative partners would have in place a peer enhancement system similar to the UEL “Peer Enhancement in Learning, Teaching and

Assessment" (PE). The UEL Link Tutor can support partners in setting up a peer enhancement system.

Appendix nine: UEL Proforma for Peer Enhancement

Appendix ten: Staff development requirements for collaborative partners

8 Monitoring of marketing and publicity

It is important that we ensure that all marketing and publicity information present accurate information about our collaborative arrangements. All partner marketing and publicity material is monitored by UEL ’s Quality Assurance and Enhancement on a three yearly cycle in accordance with the Policy for Approval of Publicity and Marketing Materials relating to

Collaborative Programmes.

Appendix eleven: Policy for Approval of Publicity and Marketing Materials relating to

Collaborative Programmes

4


9 Review and Enhancement Process (REP)

Review and Enhancement Process (REP) provides both UEL and partner institutions with an opportunity to check that the programmes delivered in collaboration are achieving their stated aims and students are attaining the learning outcomes stated in programme specifications. Part 7 of the Quality Manual provides general guidance on REP. The UEL

Link Tutor should ensure that the partner institution receives the necessary information i.e. quantitative and, if appropriate, qualitative data required to complete the REP template in good time.

REP reports for collaborative arrangements must be compiled by the Programme Leader at the partner institution, and the UEL Link Tutor should be on hand to provide advice and guidance on completing REP reports, and to provide support to any follow-up actions emerging from the process.

The Collaborations Monitoring Sub-Committee (CMSC) receives and considers all evidence relating to school level review of REPs reports for programmes undertaken in collaboration with partners, together with the REP reports themselves. The CSMC provides feedback to

Schools on its conclusions, and reports to Quality and Standards Committee on the effectiveness of the process, the completeness of reports submitted, and via consideration of all REP reports for a partner, the health of collaborative programmes at an institutional level.

SQSCs are expected to provide partner organisations with formal feedback on each REP report considered.

The Collaborative REP report template and guidance notes can be found at http://www.uel.ac.uk/qa/collaboration/ -> Review and Enhancement Process (REP)

10 Programme modifications

Modification to collaborative programmes must be made in accordance with UEL procedures for modifications. Modifications will not be applied retrospectively and where modifications proposed affect students currently enrolled on a programme of study, such students must be consulted. The UEL Link Tutor will be able to advise whether a proposed modification can be approved by the School Quality Standing Committee in accordance with Part 6 of the

Quality Manual or requires a full re-approval in accordance with Part 11 of the Quality

Manual.

Where UEL approves modifications to programmes franchised to partner institutions, the

School Collaborative Lead will ensure that the planned changes are communicated to the relevant partner(s) as soon as possible. The UEL Link Tutor will discuss an implementation plan with the partner(s), to include timescales and arrangements for introducing the changes to programme. A plan will need to be presented to the School Quality Standing Committee for approval in accordance with Part 7 of the Quality Manual.

11 Partnership Monitoring Committees

In order to maintain a consistent approach to managing collaborative relationships involving more than one UEL School, it is a requirement that a Partnership Monitoring Committee is established. The Partnership Monitoring Committee should have a membership comprising representation from all UEL Schools/programme teams and relevant partner representatives.

The committee will be chaired by a representative from one of the UEL managing schools and the Chair will normally be rotated annually.

5


Appendix twelve: Partnership Monitoring Committee standard Terms of Reference and indicative agendas

12 School Collaborative Committees

Each School that is involved in collaborative activity at UEL is required to hold a School

Collaborative Committee at least twice in an academic year. The Committee is chaired by the Collaborative Lead of the School.

Appendix thirteen: School Collaborative Committee standard Terms of Reference

Appendix fourteen: School Collaborative Committee standard agenda

13 Student Handbook

Partner institutions are required to produce a Student Handbook in a template provided by

Quality Assurance and Enhancement at UEL prior to each academic year. The Student

Handbook should be reviewed by the Link Tutor before it is given to the students on the collaborative programme.

The Collaborative Student Handbook template can be found in http://www.uel.ac.uk/qa/policies/forms/ -> Handbook inserts and templates.

14 Administration of Extenuating Circumstances

Programmes run at collaborative partner institutions will be subject to equivalent extenuation procedures to those at UEL, with the process being administered by, and the panel being held within, the partner institution.

Appendix fifteen: Extenuation Guidance Notes for Partner Institutions

15 Appeals, Complaints and Student Disciplinary

The Memorandum of Cooperation outlines the process for handling collaborative student appeals, complaints, student discipline (academic) and student discipline (non-academic).

All collaborative students have access to the UEL appeals process and the process is administered by the University. All collaborative students have access to the UEL complaints procedure – stages 1 and 2 are administered by the partner institution (keeping

UEL updated) and stage 3 is administered by UEL. Cases of academic student discipline are dealt with by the partner institution in accordance with UEL regulations. Matters of nonacademic student discipline are governed by the policies, regulations and procedures of the partner institution and administered by the partner institution.

15 The Memorandum of Cooperation

The Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) is the formal agreement that is signed between

UEL and the partner organisation(s). It clarifies the nature of collaborative activity and provides a framework within which an approved collaborative programme of study will be delivered. It is essential that it reflects the way in which the partnership will be managed. At

UEL the signed copies of all Memoranda of Cooperation are held within Quality Assurance and Enhancement.

The MoC is a legal document and both parties must understand their contractual obligations as required under the agreement. The MoC should be seen as a reference document providing clarification on matters such as:

6




Responsibilities and duties in relation to academic standards



Financial arrangements



Duration of the agreement



Marketing and Publicity



Teaching staff



Student Discipline, Appeals and Complaints



Assessment



Awards, Certification, Transcripts



Intellectual Property issues



Management of physical environment

16 Termination of collaborative partnerships

Proposals for termination of partnership are be considered by the Collaborations Monitoring

Sub-Committee. Schools should complete the termination form giving details of the arrangements proposed to enable students studying on the partner’s programmes to complete their studies. Advice on contractual matters relating to termination can be obtained from the Quality Assurance and Enhancement team, and termination letters should be signed by the Head of Governance and Legal Services.

Appendix sixteen: Partnership Termination Form

List of appendices:

Appendix one: The Link Tutor role description

Appendix two: Responsibility Grid for Collaborative Programmes

Appendix three: Guidelines for Module Guides

Appendix four: UEL Dissertation Supervision Policy

Appendix five: Programme Committee Terms of Reference

Appendix six: Guidance on Programme Committees for Collaborative Partners (incl. standard agenda)

Appendix seven: Module Evaluation Report template

Appendix eight: Module Evaluation Questionnaire

Appendix nine: Proforma for Peer Enhancement

Appendix ten: Staff development requirements for collaborative partners

Appendix eleven: Policy for Approval of Publicity and Marketing Materials relating to

Collaborative Programmes

Appendix twelve: Partnership Monitoring Committee standard Terms of Reference and indicative agendas

Appendix thirteen: School Collaborative Committee standard Terms of Reference

Appendix fourteen: School Collaborative Committee standard agenda

Appendix fifteen: Extenuation Guidance Notes for Partner Institutions

Appendix sixteen: Partnership Termination Form

7


Appendix one


Link Tutor Role Description

At UEL our collaborative activity is managed through the role of an Academic Link together with the Academic Partnership Office. In addition to providing a main point of contact for the collaborative partner in academic matters, the Academic Link Tutor has an overview of the management and development of a collaborative link, and will, where necessary, represent the collaborative partner at UEL.

The Link Tutor (in liaison with UEL Module Leaders and Subject Heads, as appropriate) is responsible for:

 Supporting the partner in ensuring that the collaborative programme is academically stimulating, in touch with current thinking in the subject area, using and disseminating best practice in the field;

 Ensuring appropriate academic support is available to the partner organisation for the effective and efficient functioning of the collaborative link;

 Ensuring that there is a common understanding between staff of the partner organisation of expected standards of delivery, programme management, assessment and operation of our regulations;

 Providing the primary point of contact between UEL and the partner organisation for academic matters.

To fulfil this responsibility the Link Tutor, in liaison with the relevant

Collaborative Officer within the Academic Partnership Office, as appropriate:



Provides advice, guidance and support to the partner in preparing all validation documentation (as well as collaborative review documentation when relevant);



Has oversight of the partner’s admissions process to check that students are admitted with the required entry qualifications and that the partner is supported in relation to decisions about non-standard qualifications;



Ensures the partner delivers an appropriate induction programme to the students and is involved in the induction where appropriate;



Coordinates the review of student handbooks, module guides and other student documentation prior to the start of the academic year to ensure the information made available to students is appropriate, up to date and relevant;



Supports the partner in establishing a Programme Committee and reviews

Programme Committee minutes after each meeting;



Ensures that systems are in place for student feedback at module and programme level;

8




Agrees with the partner institution a system for approval of coursework, draft examination papers, moderation of assessment, sampling methods for examination scripts, coursework etc. and a process for liaison with external examiner;



Ensures that examination papers are produced, where appropriate;



Ensures Progression Board (or equivalent) dates are agreed in line with published Award Board dates for the School in liaison with the Academic

Partnerships Office;



Liaises with the Subject Head to provide input to the response that is made to external examiner reports relating to the collaborative programme and provides support in relation to follow up actions;



Assists the partner in identifying staff development needs in relation to the delivery of the programme and, where appropriate, supports the partner in meeting the identified staff development needs;



Maintains regular communication with the local Programme Tutor (a minimum of two visits a year is recommended for purposes such as staff development, partnership development, student induction, attending Committee and Board meetings), reporting back to the UEL School as required via the School

Collaborative Committee;



Approves the CV’s of new members of staff to teach on the collaborative programme(s);



Supports the partner in implementing new UEL procedures, regulations and policies;



Provides support to the local Programme Tutor in the preparation of the REP report and any follow up actions emerging from the process, including:

 Ensuring the partner has the appropriate data needed for the REP report

 Ensuring that the REP report is completed appropriately

 Submitting the REP report to School Quality Standing Committee for review (note: Link Tutors should not review the REP reports of collaborative programmes for which they are a Link for)



Ensures that changes made to the programme or modules are in accordance with UEL modifications procedures.

If a collaborative programme is delivered in language other than English, the Link Tutor together with the Academic Partnership Office ensures that English language copies of all programme related documentation are received and reviewed and that internal and external moderation fo llows the process as set out in the ‘code of practice for the validation and delivery of taught programmes in a language other than English’.

9


University of East London

Appendix two

COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS - ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR RELATIONSHIP AND QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGEMENT

The chart below gives an overview of partner institution and UEL responsibilities for the quality assurance and management of programmes at collaborative partners. The relevant Memorandum of Co-operation should be consulted for specific detail of each agreement - this chart provides an overview summary.

Activity

Programme approval

Programme

Leadership

Marketing and publicity

Partner institution responsibility

Partnership institution to prepare documents for programme approval events in liaison with UEL School representative.

Additional programmes - Note criteria for approving additional programmes with an existing partner in Quality

Manual Part 11.

Partner institution to appoint Programme Leader, who will act as a Link Tutor.

UEL responsibility

UEL School assists partner institution in preparing approval documentation, provide support and contribute to approval events.

QAE organise and report on programme approvals.

Final validation by Validation and Review-Sub Committee.

UEL School to appoint Link Tutor, who agrees clear lines of communication and programme of visits with partner institutions in liaison with APO.

APO to appoint a Collaborative Officer for the partnership.

QAE in liaison with Corporate Communications to review marketing and publicity material in accordance with the Policy.

Admissions

Registration of students and changes in student records

Partner institution to prepare publicity materials and manage the marketing of the programme in line with the

Policy provided by QAE.

Partner institution to operate admissions process, in line with University Admissions Policy and programme entry criteria.

Partner to provide a sample of applications to APO for review by the UEL Link Tutor.

Partner institution to provide applicant data as requested to APO and support students to complete online enrolment processes.

Partner institution to submit any changes to student records to APO.

Link Tutor to advise and monitor, and to review admissions decisions and processes with partner to ensure appropriateness of entry qualifications.

APO to provide applicant data to Admissions for creation of a record, liaise with partner to ensure enrolment is completed and undertake module registration.

APO to liaise with Student Records to update students’ records as required.

Quality Assurance Handbook for Collaborations

10

Version July 2015

Staff development Partner institutions to work with UEL Link Tutor to identify a programme of staff development and attend such development sessions

Student Information Partner institution to prepare Student Handbook annually and forward to APO.

Partner to ensure that an appropriate student induction is provided to students.

Programme delivery Delivery according to published programme and module specifications.

Supervision provided to students on dissertation modules should be in accordance with the UEL Dissertation

Supervision Policy.

Link Tutor to provide induction for partner staff prior to the start of first year of delivery of programmes and prepare and deliver an annual staff development schedule

APO to send Student Handbook to Link Tutor to review for accuracy, reliability and completeness.

Link Tutor to ensure an appropriate student induction is provided by partner and attend where possible.

QAE to update collaborative student handbook template annually.

Link Tutor to supply the following material to partners for franchised modules:



Module handbook (in liaison with APO)



Lecture slides and materials, as given to students



Tutorial questions



Sample assessments

School Collaborative Lead to ensure that any planned changes to franchise programme(s) are communicated to the relevant partner in a timely manner.

Link Tutor to approve changes in partner programme teams by reviewing CV’s.

Change in partner staff

Partner institution to seek approval for changes in programme delivery staff by submission of CVs to UEL

Link Tutor via APO within six weeks of appointment.

Module evaluation Partner institution to have in place mechanisms for collecting student feedback at module level that meet the requirements of UEL module feedback.

Programme

Committees

Partner to provide feedback on outcomes to students.

Partner institution to establish Programme Committee, and ensure that these meet a minimum of twice a year, to send minutes to APO and to attach minutes to REP report.

Link Tutor to monitor (through module reports) that student feedback is gathered, used, and reported back on

APO to send minutes to the Link Tutor for review.

Link Tutor to attend if required and appropriate, review minutes and liaise with partner institution over action to address issues


11


Management of assessment

Module reports

Partner institution to agree timescales for submitting assessment tasks with Link Tutor and APO.

Partner institution to submit agreed sample of assessed work to Link Tutor for moderation in accordance with the agreed process

Students to submit work via Turnitin for academic integrity.

Partner institution to ensure provision of a report on each module, commenting on delivery, management and key issues affecting the module, at the end of each module to be included with sample scripts for external moderation.

Assessment Boards APO to agree with partners the arrangements and timescales for entry of student assessment results on

Web Mark Entry.

Partner to insert the marks.

Partner institution representatives to attend Subject Area

Boards or, where agreed with the University, to organise local Subject Area Boards

External Examiners Partner institution to liaise with School over nomination of

External Examiner.

Partner institution to receive External Examiner report from QAE and liaise with Link Tutor over response and action.


Link Tutor to arrange UEL moderation and arrange approval by

External Examiner for assessment tasks.

Link Tutor to oversee moderation process (including sampling where appropriate) and arrange for moderation by External

Examiner for the sample of assessed work.

APO to have an oversight of the moderation process.

Link Tutor to ensure that module reports are monitored (module reports are prepared for each module and actions arising are implemented).

APO to check student results on Web Mark Entry.

APO to communicate the annual schedule of assessment boards and advise partner institutions on their membership and participation.

Assessment Unit to produce progression and award reports.

All assessment boards to be chaired by UEL staff who have received the necessary training and attended by appropriate Link

Tutors.

All module results to be ratified by UEL Subject Area Boards and all awards made by UEL Award Boards.

External Examiner appointment managed via QAE.

QAE to forward External examiner report to School at same time as to partner, and Subject Area Head to consider report in collaboration with Link Tutor and partner where relevant and issue formal response to External Examiner.

School copying the formal response to the partner and liaise with partner over implementation of actions arising from the report.

12


Review and

Enhancement

Process (REP)

Appeals

Review and Enhancement Process report to be drafted by partner in conjunction with Link Tutor using UEL collaborative partner REP proforma.

REP to be submitted to UEL Link Tutor by the date set by

QAE each year. All required appendices to be included.

Action plans to be carried out in liaison with Link Tutor.

Partner institution to ensure that students are aware of the University’s appeals procedure and to liaise with UEL to facilitate any appeal

Link Tutor to ensure REP report plus appendices are received on time and considered and approved at School level via SQSC processes.

Link Tutor to ensure that partner is provided with necessary data from Qlikview for the REP report.

For franchise programmes Subject Area Head to prepare and provide the comparative analysis of performance.

REP report plus all appendices and SQSC minute to be forwarded to CMSC mailbox for consideration by Collaborations Monitoring sub-Committee by the deadline provided by CMSC.

School to monitor partner institution action plan and address action points for School.

Chair of assessment board to conciliate as appropriate at Stage 1 of appeals process.

UEL Institutional Compliance Office to administer and support partner staff and School as required.

UEL Institutional Compliance Office to administer stage 3 of the

Complaints procedure.

Complaints

Partner

Enhancement Visits

Collaborative

Review

Partner institution to manage complaints at informal and formal stages or as agreed in MoC and ensure that students are aware of the University’s complaints procedure.

Held one year after beginning of partnership and in the year prior to a collaborative review. Visit held at partner site and partner to make arrangements in line with

University requirements.

Every 5 years or as agreed by UEL.

Partner institution to submit Critical Appraisal

Commentary plus associated documentation and to


QAE to chair and convene the meetings.

Link Tutors and a representative from APO to attend.

QAE to liaise with partner to manage review.

UEL Link Tutor assists partner institution in preparing required documentation, provide support and contribute to the review event.

13


Programme modifications

Policy updates

Partnership

Monitoring

Committees make arrangements for review in line with University requirements.

Partner institution to seek approval for changes to validated programmes through Link Tutor.

For franchised programmes, to implement changes agreed to UEL on campus programme within agreed timescales

Partner to implement policy updates as advised.

Led by UEL Schools and QAE, partner institution staff are involved in meetings.

School to consider requests via SQSC.

Changes made to franchised programmes to be implemented at partner in agreed timescales

School Collaborative Lead to ensure all planned programme modifications are communicated to relevant franchise partners in a timely manner.

QAE issue information advising of policy updates.

Link Tutor to oversee implementation and provide advice and guidance.

For partnerships involving more than one School, a Partnership

Monitoring Committee will be held at least twice a year, based on terms of reference and membership provided by QAE. Agenda should include items raised by Schools, Link Tutors and partner and chaired by a UEL link, with representation from QAE and APO.


14


GUIDELINES FOR MODULE GUIDES

Appendix three

These guidelines represent best practice for the provision of module information to students. They supplement, not replace, the module specification, which formally defines the module aims, outcomes, content and assessment etc, and should be attached as an appendix.

They are provided to assist colleagues in identifying the core information that should be made available, and also to ensure consistency of approach in an environment where students increasingly study modules from across fields and schools. They do not prescribe the means by which information should be made available; these can be provided either in hard copy or electronically via Moodle. For ease of managing the information, the folder headings provided as a default on Moodle for proving module information have been used.

Information will be drawn from the module specification.

1. Module information

Core



Module title and code (from module specification)



Contact information for teaching staff

– clearly identifying the module leader – and including contact arrangements



Introduction to the module: this might be a School-wide statement which may be amended to suit local circumstances, and includes o What is covered by the guide o How to keep up to date with module and teaching information o Expectations of the student



Use of Moodle for the module



Compulsory attendance requirements for the module



Any specific requirements related to the module eg laboratory requirements



Module aims (from module specification)



Module learning outcomes (from module specification)



Reading and resources list (from module specification), and if appropriate, the ways that students will access any resources required during the course of study on the module

Optional



Factors to consider when taking this module; this might include further detail on the above points eg specific attendance rules o If an option module, information to assist in selecting module o Information on pre-requisites, co-requisites, pre-cursors etc o Programmes for which this module is core o Teaching methods employed o Deadlines for module registration



An annotated reading/resources list, with comments indicating the module session to which the resource applies, or content of the module addressed by the resource



Other resources that the student might reasonably be expected to have access to in order to support study, and associated costs



Any specific health and safety guidance



Any specific lab, studio or workshop protocols

15




Actions arising from student feedback (in previous sessions), presented in a table together with actions

Student comment Action taken



Opportunities for student feedback on the module including end of module survey, and any mid-module feedback where relevant.

Additional Information for dissertation / project modules



Process for choosing a dissertation / project topic including a list of possible project topics



Process for allocation of a supervisor and how to request a change in supervisor



Details of supervision entitlement including number and type of supervision hours a student can expect to receive

 Information on the role of the supervisor and the student’s own responsibilities

(reference to school code of practice on dissertation supervision)

2. Assessment information

Core



Details of assessment submissions, including, for each component of assessment: o Details of the task. When coursework questions are set, these must be included in the Module Guide for the relevant semester. Guidance must also be provided on the form of re-assessment and an indication of the date of re-assessment o Weighting/contribution to module mark (from module specification) o Learning outcomes assessed by the task (from module specification)



Deadline for submission of each task



Assessment criteria for each task



Guidance on referencing



Details of submission procedures; this might be a School-wide statement which may be amended to suit local circumstances, and includes: o Conventions for presentation and submission o Penalties for failure to comply with word counts o Submission/hand-in arrangements o Attaching marking/feedback sheet

Submission to Turnitin and Turnitin reporting . The following text should be inserted where relevant:

“Notice is hereby given that all submissions for component [insert name(s) of component(s)] of this Module must be submitted to Turnitin.” If you fail to submit component [insert name(s) of component(s)], to Turnitin, in accordance with the guidance provided on the Virtual Learning Environment (Moodle), a mark of 0 will be awarded for the component.” o



Feedback and return of work – to include o Processes for return of work, including exam scripts e.g. in class / from

Helpdesk / electronically o How students will receive feedback and timing of this

16


o Arrangements for provision of generic feedback on coursework and/or exams, as relevant



Arrangements for provision of individualised feedback on coursework and/or exams, as relevant . Please clarify that whilst feedback will be given on draft/formative work, it shouldn’t be assumed that every aspect will be identified.



Reassessment information eg when and how re-assessment tasks will be available




Information on planning a dissertation / project



Information on research ethics



Guidelines on presentation of dissertation / project

3. Learning resources

Core



Schedule of weekly sessions, (for example, week 1 week 2 etc)



Where information on locations and dates of sessions can be found

Optional



Availability of resources and assistance for students with additional needs



Appropriate study resources relating to the sessions




Guidance on research resources including useful web links

4. Module specification



Module specification attached as an appendix, if not already included/uploaded under Module Information above

5. Forms




Appendix including relevant key forms e.g. project proposal form, project supervisor allocation form, ethics form, record of supervision form, health and safety form

17


ACADEMIC PRACTICE & STUDENT EXPERIENCE

DISSERATION SUPERVISION

Appendix four

Rationale

This Policy has been prepared in response to issues raised in the Annual Report on

Formal Complaints in 2006/07, relating to the need for greater consistency and clarity in Dissertation Supervision processes.

Our Policy

1. Module specifications

All Module Specifications for Dissertations/ Projects should indicate the number of contact hours that students can expect to be offered for dissertation supervision, identified within the section relating to ‘Contact hours’

Contact hours will not be prescribed centrally, but identified within individual dissertation modules

-

Each School will clarify what is meant by ‘supervision’ in their context (e.g. face-to-face contact, email review of transcripts etc.)

2. Record of Supervision

A template is offered to Schools for taught programmes at undergraduate and

M level (see Appendix A)

The Record of Supervision will provide a summary of discussion undertaken, and any key actions arising

As a minimum template, it is not intended to preclude existing good practice

(e.g. agreeing the number of sessions to be undertaken; recording contact through a ‘credit system’ of hours; recording length of supervision sessions; use of learning contracts)

Completion of the Record may be undertaken by either the supervisor or the student, it will be signed by both parties, and a copy (in either paper or electronic format) will be maintained by both parties.

18


The Record of Supervision is not currently intended to exclude an application within PGR, merely that it need not apply routinely since different arrangements are in existence.

Implementation

All Module Specifications were required to include this information, including those at Collaborative Partners, by the end of Semester A 2008-9

Appendix A:

Record of Supervision

(suggested template)

Student name ………………………..…….. Student number ………..…..….…

School …………..…………………… Programme (Level 5/6/7)

Supervisor name

……………………………………………………………………

Other colleagues present (e.g. supervising team members)

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

Date of supervision session ……………………..

Summary of main points of discussion

Any agreed actions for student

Any agreed actions for supervisor / supervising team

Agreed date for next supervision ………………………………………………

Student signature

…………………………………………………………………

Supervisor signature ………………………………………………………………

19



TITLE:

Appendix five

PROGRAMME COMMITTEE (COLLABORATIVE)

REPORTS TO: SCHOOL BOARD

TERMS OF REFERENCE

To be responsible for assuring and enhancing the quality of the student experience at programme level by:

1. Providing a forum in which students can express their views about the management of the programme, and the content, delivery and assessment of modules, or equivalent, in order to identify appropriate actions to be taken in response to the issues raised and to ensure that the implementation of these actions is tracked.

2. Providing formal yearly student feedback on the programme as input into the preparation of the Programme REP.

3. Reviewing programme questionnaire results and making recommendations and changes arising from these.

4. Receiving, considering and approving the Programme REP and identifying responsibilities for action to be taken before it is considered by School Quality

Standing Committee.

5. Reviewing progress on REP action plans at each meeting.

6. Reviewing the relevant documentation and other evidence prepared for Collaborative

Review and other external review processes.

7. Reviewing proposals for modification of the programme structure (validated programmes only) and noting implementation arrangements for modifications.

8. Advising the Programme Leader on mechanisms by which University policy statements, which have an impact on programme design and delivery, are implemented.

MEMBERSHIP

Programme Leader (Chair)

Administrator/Servicing Officer (ex-officio)

Programme staff making a significant teaching contribution to the programme

Learning Support Services representative

Technician representative (for laboratory based programmes)

Dean of School/department or equivalent (ex officio)

UEL Dean of School/Associate Dean of School, or equivalent (ex officio)

UEL link person (ex officio)

Two student representatives for each level and at least one part-time student (where appropriate)

The meeting will be held once per semester/term and will be quorate if 40% of the members are present.

20


Appendix six

Guidance on Programme Committees for Collaborative Partners

Purpose of the Programme Committee

The purpose of the Programme Committee is to assure and enhance the quality of the student experience on their programme of study. It provides a forum for students to express their views about the programme content, delivery and assessment, and considers proposals for programme modifications including recommendations for new modules. It also provides formal feedback on the programme for inclusion in the REP.

The terms of reference for the committee can be found in the appendices.

When are Programme Committees held?



The Programme Committee meeting should be held once per semester.



Only modules studied in that particular semester should be discussed.

Administrative Role:



Ensure the relevant Student Representatives, Module Leaders and Programme

Leaders are invited to attend the meeting.



Distribute the Agenda and previous minutes to invited committee members (A set agenda is attached).



Book and prepare the room and any catering.



Take minutes at the meeting.

What to Take With You

The following a list of all the paperwork the administrator will need to take with them:



Extra copies of the agenda



Extra copies of the minutes of the previous meeting



Comments from colleagues who have given apologies and are unable to attend



Attendance sheet for all members to sign



Pen



Paper



Date of the next meeting (if known)

Constitution

The following must be invited to each Programme Committee, and make up the constitution or membership of the Board:



Programme Leader(s) (usually chairs the meeting)



Dean of School/Associate Dean of School (ex-officio)



Programme Administrator(s) (ex-officio) – usually services the meeting



Module Leaders of all modules core to the programme(s)



Library and Learning Services representative



Technician representative (for lab based programmes)

21




Programme Representatives

– two for each level for each programme(s) and at least one part time student where appropriate

Comments from absent colleagues

If key colleagues are unable to attend the meeting, they should provide the Chair or servicing officer with their comments in advance of the committee so they can be noted at the appropriate time. As an alternative, they can also ask another member of staff to attend in their place and comment on their behalf as appropriate.

CHECKLIST

Deadline Date Action Completed

Beginning of the semester Remind Programme

Leader(s) to elect

Programme Representatives

At least four weeks prior to the committee

At least three weeks prior to the committee

At least two weeks prior to the committee

Book room (with table/chairs) for the committee

Confirm constitution

(including names of

Programme Representatives)

Distribute Agenda

At least 48 hours prior to the committee

Day of the committee

Order refreshments



At the end of the committee

Set out the room for a meeting

Take all paperwork to the committee room

Take minutes of the committee

Collect all spare paperwork for disposal as confidential waste

AGENDA

1. Apologies

2. Minutes of the Previous Meeting (attached)

3. Action Points from the Previous Meeting

4. Student Feedback (including Programme Delivery)

5. Programme Feedback Review and Recommendations

6. Resources (Library, IT and Student Services)

7. Programme REP (Approval and Progress Review)

8. Any Other Business

9. Date of Next Meeting

22


Appendix seven

School of XXXXXXXX

Module Evaluation Form

Academic Year

Semester

Module Code and Title

Module Leader

General Observations

(please include any information about innovations in the module; use of elearning/UEL Plus; any significant restructuring or changes in the assessment scheme; your general sense of how the module went; any particular difficulties):

Student Performance

(your general impression of how the students performed; quality of assessed work; attendance patterns; any striking successes; any patterns of difficulty; profile of marks):

3.

4.

2.

1.

Student Feedback

(summarise results): informal discussions: formal feedback sessions: feedback forms ( include percentage of returns ): items with particularly positive ratings:

23


6.

5.

7. items with particularly negative ratings: any pattern of student comments: your general summary of feedback results:

Your response to student feedback

(any explanations of particularly positive or particularly negative feedback):

Do you plan to alter the module for next year? Yes/No

(delete as appropriate)

(NOTE: the appropriate bodies must approve modifications)

How?

(any plans for changing subject matter, structures, teaching methods, assessment scheme):

Other comments:

Comments by External Examiner:

(the External Examiner should return this form with moderated coursework)

Signature:....................................................... Date:........................

24


UNIVERSITY OF EAST LONDON

END-OF-MODULE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

Appendix eight

SCHOOL:_________________________________________________________________

________________

Module Code and Title:

_______________________________________________________________________________

Academic Year: ___________ Semester: A / B

__________________________________________________

Tutor:

UEL continually seeks to review and enhance the quality of its teaching and learning. The purpose of this questionnaire is to enable the School to use student opinion in their review of this unit. Your responses are highly valued and the questionnaire should only take a few minutes to complete. No individual responses will be identified and your contribution will be aggregated with others. Comments should be constructive. They may cover aspects such as the subject matter, the style and delivery of the classes or any other part of the unit.

The aggregated responses will be considered by the School’s Quality Committee, and other committees where necessary, and feedback will be given to you.

1.

Overall, how satisfied were you with this module (tick the response which best describes your opinion)?

□

Very satisfied

□

Satisfied

□

Dissatisfied

□

Very dissatisfied

2.

Please comment on up to three positive aspects of the module:

(a) ______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

(b) ______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

(c) ______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

25


3.

Please comment on up to three aspects of the module which could be improved:

(a) ______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

(b) ______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

(c) ______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

4.

enter text for additional question here

5.


6.


7.


8.


9.


10.


26


Peer Enhancement in Learning, Teaching and Assessment

PEER ENHANCEMENT RECORD

Name of ‘Staff member’

Name of ‘Peer’

Date of session

Activity to be discussed

- Face to face teaching observation

- Review of materials (specify)

Appendix nine

Summary of issues/points to be fed back.

Please record a few sentences or bullet points, agreed between you that highlight good practice, indicate areas for staff development activities and/or points for action.

This should be returned to your SUBJECT/TEAM LEADER after the session.

Signed:_______________________________________ (Staff member)

Signed:_______________________________________ (Peer)

27


STAFF DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTNERS

Appendix ten

The School is responsible for providing staff development to partners following validation. The following schedule provides some guidance on topics to be covered at various stages of the first and subsequent years of the partnership; remember that there will be a need for revision and reminder of all topics during the first year of the partnership in particular

1. Induction: the following topics might be delivered as an induction session to all partner colleagues, following validation and prior to commencement of delivery.

 UEL policies and regulations for programme delivery: o o

Academic Framework modular regulations

Assessment Policy o o

Extenuation: what is extenuation and setting up an extenuation panel academic misconduct and the academic integrity policy o o o

Cite Them Right referencing

 Academic and administrative calendar for the year: deadlines and information required for student enrolment deadlines for exchange and receipt of information o o deadlines for receipt of assessment tasks to UEL for onward transmission to external examiners dates of assessment boards

 School processes and procedures for managing the partnership: who to contact about what

 Use of Athens accounts and student access to UEL resources

 Programme committee: o Setting up a programme committee o electing student programme representatives o the role of the programme representatives o where to find training for programme representatives

 The UEL website – where to find information

2. Programme related teaching, learning and assessment

There should be an initial delivery of programme and module related learning, teaching and assessment prior to the start of the delivery of the programme, with regular agreed sessions during the first year, reinforced throughout the partnership.

The level of detail may depend on the partner’s previous experience, but should cover:

 Learning and teaching strategies: o Appropriate teaching and learning strategies for the subject o development of subject related content o sample teaching plan

 Writing a module guide o Sample of a good module guide

28


 Learning outcomes and assessment: o The alignment of learning outcomes, assessment methods, assessment criteria and feedback to students

 Formative assessment o What is formative assessment o Giving good formative assessment o Examples of formative assessment relevant to the subject

 Drafting assessments: o how to write assessments at the appropriate level o provision of sample assessments for coursework and exams for all modules delivered by the partner (franchise) o deadlines and process for moderation of assessment tasks o first and second marking and moderation of assessments

 Marking and grading: o The marking and/or grading criteria to be used, how to apply them in marking work o how to provide feedback to students o feedback proforma and sample of completed proforma o examples of good feedback given to students o samples of student assignments to give guidance on standards required

 The role of the external examiner

 Use of Turnitin for submission of assignments by students

3. Policy and process for delivery: during the first year of the partnership

 Systems for peer enhancement/observation

 Module feedback questionnaires including provision of samples and the use of the results

 Closing the loop: providing feedback to students on changes made as a result of their feedback

 What counts as extenuation, running an extenuation panel

 Writing a module monitoring report

 Examples of good Module Evaluation Reports

 Programme management – developing a team approach

 Writing the REP report

29


Appendix eleven


POLICY FOR APPROVAL OF PUBLICITY AND MARKETING MATERIALS

RELATING TO COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS 2015-16

1. INTRODUCTION

The Memorandum of Co-operation (MoC) outlines the policy for marketing and promoting UEL programmes offered by partner institutions. The aim of the policy is to ensure that all references to the University reflect the nature of the agreement; do not mislead students or third parties and are in line with the

University’s brand and brand values as well as duties and obligations as a publicly funded institution and as a UK Visas and Immigration Tier 4 sponsor licence holder.

This Policy applies to print marketing material (such as prospectus entries, brochures, adverts, flyers, press releases, banners, posters, application forms and offer letters), web pages and marketing e-mails.

2. KEY PRINCIPLES

2.1 All references to the relationship and the programmes must be as detailed in the MoC.

2.2 UK partners who recruit international students must have a UK Visas and

Immigration (UKVI) Tier 4 sponsor licence. Such partners are responsible for the duties and obligations imposed by UKVI and must not suggest in any communication that these duties and obligations rest with UEL. Where UEL has either validated or franchised a programme, the only statement that can be made is that ‘ UEL oversees the programme to ensure the maintenance of quality and standards and students on the programme are registered at the

University in order to receive a UEL award’

. As a consequence such partners are responsible for all correspondence on behalf of their students including but not limited to the issuance of Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS), bank letters and council tax letters.

2.3 All references to UEL and/or UEL programmes made by the partner, or their intermediaries, must be approved by Corporate Communications and Quality

Assurance and Enhancement in the first instance, as detailed in Chapter 4 of these guidelines. Please note that intermediaries would include local agents or representatives and must have been approved by UEL as detailed in the MoC.

30


2.4 Any announcements relating to the commencement of the partnership, or changes to the partnership, must be also be approved as detailed in Chapter 4 of these guidelines.

2.5 Where templates have been agreed, they can be used by partners, without the need to seek approval, as long as there are no changes to the content.

2.6 The logo can only be used if this has been specified in the MoC. Please see

UEL Identity Guidelines for details on using the logo.

2.7 The use of the logo must also reference the context of the MoC. It may not be used to visually imply a status or endorsement of a more general nature than that embodied in the MoC.

3. GUIDANCE FOR DRAFTING MATERIAL AND COMMUNICATIONS

3.1 Although the content of any communication will vary depending on the nature of the link, the medium used and target audience, please note the following

3.1.1 There must be no unsubstantiated or incorrect claims;

3.1.2 Appropriate and correct language must be used;

3.1.3 If a communication is not in English a certified translation must be included when approval is sought;

3.1.4 Images should not be reproduced or downloaded from the web: highresolution images will be supplied on request where appropriate;

3.1.5 A description of the partnership as detailed in Table 1 below has to be included in any published material referring to the collaborative programmes.

4. MONITORING PROCESS

4.1 The monitoring process includes two parts, monitoring of print material, which is ongoing on a needs basis, and monitoring of online material, which will be undertaken periodically. The process is coordinated by Quality Assurance and

Enhancement.

4.1.1 PRINT MATERIAL: UEL will review and approve any new , not previously approved marketing material in drafts prior to printing.

Partners will send their draft material to the QAE Collaborations mailbox collaborationsqae@uel.ac.uk

. The material is reviewed by a member of the Quality Assurance and Enhancement team as well as the UEL Head of Brand and Reputation Management, and feedback will provided to the partner. If partners are reprinting material that has already been approved by UEL, these do not need to be approved again.

31


4.1.2 ONLINE MATERIAL: Annually, UEL will monitor a sample of partner websites and other online platforms where information about the collaborative programmes and the partnership with UEL is published for current and prospective students, staff and the public. Prior to the review those partners due for online monitoring process that year are separately asked to provide links to any online material they have published referring to the collaborative programmes and the partner institution’s relationship with UEL.

5. NORMAL RESPONSE TIMES BY UEL

5.1 UEL endeavours to respond to marketing material review requests as soon as possible, however within the following timeframes:



Press releases: 5 working days



E-mails or other on-line communications: 5 working days



Templates: 10 working days



Adverts: 10 working days



Printed communication: 10 working days



Lengthy or complex communications: at least 10 working days

All queries relating to these guidelines or partner marketing and publicity monitoring in general should be sent to collaborationsqae@uel.ac.uk.

TABLE 1: DESCRIPTION OF PARTNERSHIP PER MODEL

Partnership model Use of logo Description of partnership

Franchise Yes

Validation

Joint Award

Yes

Yes

Successful completion of programme xxx at xxx leads to the award of xxx by

University of East London





32


Dual Award

Distributed Delivery

Articulation

Yes

Yes

No

33






Successful completion of the xxxx programme will allow advanced standing for entry into year xxxx of the xxxx programme at the University of

East London


PARTNERSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE(S)

Reports to:

Sub-committees:

Appendix twelve

Collaborations Monitoring Sub-Committee

None

Frequency of meetings: The Committee(s) meet at least twice in an academic year

Meeting schedule [insert]

Quorum: A quorum will comprise at least 40% of members.

CONSTITUTION

UEL Link Person (rotating between the Schools as Chair: agreed)

Ex-officio members ( indicative only – the Committees for the specific partnerships can amend their membership as required):

UEL Academic Link Tutors

Partner institution’s Faculty Manager or equivalent

[Insert partner name] Programme Tutors

Selection of module leaders (covering all levels) from the programme(s)

Registrar or equivalent from partner institution

Head of Academic Partnerships/Collaborative Officer from the UEL Academic Partnership Office

Partnerships Manager from UEL Quality Assurance and

Enhancement

TERMS OF REFERENCE (indicative only

– the Committees for the specific partnerships can amend their Terms of Reference as required)



To establish communication mechanisms, academic and administrative activities that will be required to achieve a consistent and high quality management of the partnership.



To determine the nature of support from UEL Schools that will be provided to maintain an efficient collaborative arrangement.



To establish the arrangements for consistent management of assessment and moderation processes.



To clarify and communicate key roles and responsibilities in UEL and [insert partner name] and update as appropriate.

34




To receive a copy of the annual operational calendar/schedule of information detailing the required communications and information to be exchanged between [insert partner name] and UEL and oversee implementation of this calendar



To monitor and evaluate existing arrangements to assure continuing academic quality and standards, eg through review of external examiner reports.



To manage the implementation of new/updated UEL policies and regulations at [insert partner name]



To monitor and evaluate the student learning experience, including formal review of retention and completion rates.



To devise a programme of staff development activities to support programmes delivered in collaboration with [insert partner name] and oversee the development and delivery of this programme



To contribute to effective communication between relevant committees and boards e.g. UEL Subject Area Boards, School Quality Standing Committees,

School Research Degree sub-Committees.

Partnership Monitoring Committee – indicative agendas

The following agenda outlines are intended to provide guidance only, and based on the assumption of two meetings a year.

Meeting 1: Term A

1. Welcome and introductions

Matters arising or carried forward from previous meeting 2.

3. Visits, staff development and communications

4.



Visit dates and activities for current academic year



Proposed staff development to be delivered



Arrangements for module leader communication

Assessment and moderation timelines

Assessment tasks



Deadlines for submission of assessment tasks



Moderation processes to be applied by UEL

35


5.

6.

7.

8.



Deadlines for submission to external examiner

Assessed work



Deadlines for submission of marked work






Assessment board dates



Production of module reviews by partner

Review of external examiner reports



Matters arising



To note action points and any action plans required

REP Reports



Review of reports submitted



Monitoring action plans



Review of statistical data – module comparisons, retention and completion

Programme Issues



Admissions – monitoring a sample of applications



Student numbers and enrolment



CVs – forwarding to UEL + process of approval

Follow up on Partnership Enhancement Meeting (as required)



Matters arising and action points

Meeting 2: Term B

1. Welcome and introductions

Matters arising or carried forward from previous meeting 2.

3. Visits, staff development and communications

4.



Updates on visit dates and activities for current academic year



Staff development



Review effectiveness of module leader communication

Assessment and moderation timelines

Assessed work



Deadlines for submission of marked work






Assessment board dates



Production of module reviews by partner

36


5.



Update on external examiner action plans and comments

Programme Issues



Programme committees/student feedback; complaints procedures



Learning resources, UEL plus etc.



Marketing material

6. REP Reports for coming academic year



Timescales and submission dates



Sources of data required



Writing the report – the iterative process

 Monitoring action plans from current year’s REP report

7. Planning for the coming academic year and production of documentation



Academic calendar – intakes, semesters, moderation, Field Board dates



Student handbook updates



Updates to programmes and modules for the partner



New UEL policies – arrangements for dissemination to partner



Staff development plans

37


Appendix thirteen

SCHOOL COLLABORATIVE COMMITTEE

Reports to: School Management Team, School Board

Minutes to: Collaborations Monitoring Sub-Committee

Sub-committees: N/A

Frequency of meetings: As required, however, a minimum of twice per year.

Agenda circulation: Agenda papers are circulated seven days prior to the meeting date.

Call for papers/deadline: A call for papers is issued two weeks prior to the deadline date for the circulation of the agenda, which will give the absolute deadline date for the receipt of agenda items.

Meeting schedule Academic year 2014-15

40%

[date 1]

[date 2]

[date 3, etc]

Quorum:

CONSTITUTION

Associate Dean or Leader in Collaborative Provision Chair:

Ex-officio members: Link Tutors

School Manager

Quality Leader

Nominated members: Representative from local partner institution, where appropriate

Representative from Academic Partnership Office

(Servicing Officer)

Representative from Quality Assurance and Enhancement

Representative from UEL International Student

Recruitment

Co-options: Up to two co-options from another School (in particular,

Schools which have provision with the same partner(s))

MEMBERSHIP (ACADEMIC YEAR [YEAR])

Chair: [name/position]

[membership category 1] [name/position 1]

38


Secretary:

[name/position 2, etc.]

[membership category 2] [name/position 1]

[name/position 2, etc.]

[name/position/contact details]

TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. To formulate, implement and maintain a strategy for collaborative provision consistent with the School’s strategic plans and the UEL International Strategy;

2. To monitor and evaluate existing collaborative programmes in the School to ensure continuing academic quality and enhancement and compliance with current UEL policies and regulations;

3. To monitor and evaluate the academic experience and achievement of students enrolled on all collaborative programmes, and in particular to review the comparative achievement of students on franchised modules;

4. To oversee the production of all collaborative REP reports for evaluation by

SQSC, ensuring that timescales for the production of reports are met; to monitor the REP process as operated in collaborative partners and make proposals for improvement;

5. To ensure the provision of appropriate staff development activities appropriate to the par tners’ needs, in collaboration with other Schools involved in the partnership, where appropriate, and consistent with the terms and conditions of extant MoCs;

6. To ensure an annual schedule of visits to collaborative partners and receive reports of visits made, noting items for further action;

7. To ensure information exchange between the School and its partners (eg as set out in the Operational Calendar);

8. To maintain effective communications with relevant bodies in the University, e.g.,

Quality Assurance and Enhancement, Corporate Communications, Academic

Partnership Office, International Student Recruitment, Finance, other Schools working with the same partner.

9. To oversee the monitoring of Student Handbooks and Programme Committee minutes for collaborative programmes.

39


Appendix fourteen

To: Members of the School of XXXXXX Collaborative Committee

Dear Committee Member

Date: XXXX

This is to confirm that there will be a meeting of the above Committee on XXXX at

XXXX , Docklands/Stratford Campus, in Room XXXX.

Your attendance is requested.

Yours faithfully

XXXX

Academic Partnerships Office

AGENDA

1. Apologies

2. Membership and Terms of Reference

3. Minutes of the Previous Meeting held on XXXX

4. Matters Arising

5. Chair’s Report

5.1 School Level update

5.2 REP oversight

5.3 CMSC feedback

5.4 External Examiners

5.5 Any other issues

6. Link Tutors’ Reports

6.1 Partner Staff Development

6.2 Partner Visit Reports


7. Academic Partnership Office Report

7.1 Student Handbooks

7.2 Partner Programme Committees


8. QAE Report:

40


8.1 Current Collaborative Programme List

8.2 Validation of New Programmes

8.3 Programme Withdrawals/Suspensions

8.4 Audits

8.5 Agreements/MoC

8.6 Repeat Due Diligence

8.7 Partner Enhancement Meetings/Collaborative Reviews


9. Any Other Business

10. Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting will be held on XXXX.

All paperwork to be submitted no later than XXXX.

41


Extenuation procedures

Appendix fifteen

Guidance notes for staff at partner institutions

UEL has agreed, through Academic Board, procedures governing extenuation for students concerning the assessment process. These procedures also state that:

“Programmes run at collaborative partner institutions will be subject to equivalent procedures, with the process being administered by, and the panel being held within, the partner institution. Appeals against the decision of their extenuation panel will be handled by the normal academic appeal procedures.”

UEL introduced extenuation procedures because it introduced capping of marks on reassessment. These procedures recognise the impact of serious circumstances on students. The effect of extenuation, when granted, is only to remove the effects of capping.

UEL decided that its procedures would be



Evidentially based



Handled centrally by an panel of senior staff (not devolved to various parts of the organisation)



Retain student anonymity where possible

These guidance notes are intended to assist partner organisations with the process of handling extenuating circumstances in their own organisations. These are meant to supplement the information provided in the attached procedures and guidance for students.

Partner organisations are not expected to have identical but rather equivalent procedures. The following points will assist equivalence.

1. The extenuation procedures are intended to be used rarely by students not as a matter of course.

2. The procedures govern circumstances which



Impair the performance of a student in assessment or reassessment



Prevent a student from attending for assessment or reassessment



Prevent a student from submitting assessed or reassessed work by the scheduled date

3. Such circumstances would normally be



Unforeseeable - in that the student could have no prior knowledge of the event concerned



Unpreventable - in that the student could do nothing reasonably in their power to prevent such an event



Expected to have a serious impact

4.

Examples of circumstance which would normally be regarded as serious are

42


 a serious personal illness (which is not a permanent medical condition

– this is governed by disability procedures): For example, an illness requiring hospitalisation over the examination period such as appendicitis.

 the death of a close relative immediately prior to the date of assessment .

5.

Examples of circumstance which would not normally be regarded as serious are

 minor illnesses - even if covered by medical certificates . As stated above these may have some impact but not a serious impact and so would not be regarded as extenuating circumstances.

 computer failure of your equipment or storage media.

You are expected to take proper precautions and make back up copies of your data. There are always other computers to work on.

 computer failure of University equipment or storage media (where failure is less than a continuous 24 hours).

Network failures do happen and you should plan to finish your work before ‘the last minute’. For instance if you are relying on finishing you work within 24 hours of the deadline (e.g. printing your work off) then you are opening yourself up to this risk. You could have prevented this by better planning.

 transport problems . Once again you need to plan for this possibility.

 moving house . This is predictable.

 holidays . This is predictable.

 inadequate planning, organisation or time management.

 misreading of assessment timetables.

 family, work, social, financial or other general problems.

This is a large list but covers the sorts of things normally we all have to deal with in everyday life and would not be regarded as extenuating circumstances – we just have to work on through.

6. The judgement as to whether extenuation is granted is made by a panel of senior persons in the organisation who make this judgement on the basis of the evidence the student provides (not on their knowledge of the student) – where possible the identity of the student is not made available to the panel.

7. The judgement is made on the basis that the circumstances could reasonably be thought to be the sort of circumstances which would impair the performance of the student etc. The actual performance of the student is not considered and is not available to the panel.

8. It is the responsibility of the student to notify the panel, with independent evidential documentary support, of their claim for extenuation (not for the panel to seek it out).

9. The partner organisation should make clear to students the process by which the student may apply for extenuation together with any necessary forms. The partner organisation may use UEL forms or design their own.

10. It is not a good idea for academic staff to advise students on whether to put in extenuation or not, or to comment on their view of the likely panel outcome of such a claim. It is better for the organisation to provide a defined person or persons to whom students can be referred and who can with experience advise any student. This function happens to be performed in UEL by the student union advice service but could be handled by a trained student counsellor.

43


11. The effect of the panel in granting extenuation for an examination is to nullify any mark obtained and to allow the student to be reassessed in the exam without capping the module. This is independent of any mark achieve or not by the student. It is important that claiming extenuation is not viewed by the student as insurance ‘just in case they have failed’.

12. In the case of coursework extenuation is NOT used to grant extensions to deadlines. Rather if extenuation is granted, work will be accepted up to a week late, or if submitted later or not submitted at all the student will have reassessment work but their module will remain uncapped.

13. It is less likely that extenuation is granted for coursework than for examinations.

The nature of coursework, with its long lead times, makes it unlikely that events which occur cannot be compensated for by proper planning by the student. It is essential to ensure that students are aware of their responsibility for managing their own time. Serious and lengthy illness should result in the student being withdrawn from the modules to re-register at a later occurrence (rather than using the extenuation procedures).

Workings of the Panel

The panel should meet as often as is necessary and certainly once each semester after examination times and again at reassessment. The panel may consider coursework claims then.

It is important that enough people are on the panel so that there are members who do not have personal knowledge of the students (see below)

The extenuation forms should be so designed that where possible student anonymity can be protected e.g. by a removable front sheet. It is recognised that supporting documentation will contain names. It is therefore important that the panel organise its activity so that only those members who do not know a student consider the circumstances for the student (e.g. the Business Studies panel member does not consider Business students).

Most cases will either be clearly ‘accepts’ or clearly ‘rejects’. The grey area in the middle is where judgement has to be made on the basis of evidence submitted. This is why it is important to have senior staff making the decisions as it is their judgement that is being called on rather than following a set of clear and exhaustive guidelines (which cannot exits).

The decisions are recorded in the minutes of the meetings.

Only the decisions should be released to the students – do not attempt to provide reasons – experience shows that this often does little other than irritate students who believe they should have extenuation when the panel believes they should not.

44


Appendix sixteen

Arrangements for Termination of a Collaborative Partnership

Name of Collaborative Partner

UEL School:

Termination notice sent to partner or received from partner

Date termination takes effect, where relevant

Insert relevant date in the following format:

Day/month/year

(Attach copy of termination notice to this form)

Insert date, where relevant, (ie end of notice period as per contract (MoC) NOT final assessment board date) in the following format:

Day/month/year

Date of last intake of students

List programme(s) delivered in collaboration with this partner

Programme Award & Title

Route

Code

Pathway

Code

Grounds for Termination:

Please provide a brief statement outlining the reasons for termination

Winding-down Plan:

Students

Indicate deadline agreed with partner for notifying students

Provide draft letter to students on the programme(s) informing them of the termination.

List number of students on the different stages on the Programme(s) at the date of termination

Teaching and Assessment

Complete attached draft letter to students and provide final version once dispatched.

List of students can be provided as an appendix

45


Will the partner continue to be responsible for teaching and assessment until all students complete? If so, will additional monitoring or support be put in place? If alternative arrangements for the teaching and assessment of students are proposed, please provide details.

What arrangements are in place to ensure the continuing quality of the student experience? Please provide details.

Assessment Boards

Clarify arrangements proposed for assessment boards to ensure that students registered at point of termination can continue and achieve an award

Please provide confirmation that arrangements are in place to ensure that UEL external examiners will still be under contract to cover the

Programme(s)

[Insert month and year

E.g. if current external’s contract is to expire before the final assessment board, clarify arrangements for ensuring externals will be in post until the final board

– date of final board should not exceed any maximum registration period.]

Document Checklist:

1. Attach termination letter sent to partner by Governance and Legal Services, or received from partner.

2. Complete draft letter to students informing them of the termination, as provided in Appendix 1, where students remain on the programme(s).

Date: Signed by Dean of School:

…………………………………….

Approved by Chair, Collaborations Monitoring Committee

Signed by Chair:

……………………………………..

Date:

46


Appendix 1: Letter to students informing them of the termination and winding down arrangements

Link Tutors to work with partner institution to customise this template to ensure it is appropriate for the programme under consideration.

Dear [ insert student name/UEL Student ID ]

I write to inform you that our collaborative relationship with the University of East

London (UEL) will be coming to an end in [ insert final date by which students must achieve the award i.e. number of years to complete programme of study + a maximum of one further re-sit year ]. After this time it will not be possible for any students to continue to study on UEL programmes/modules at [ insert partner name ].

As a student currently registered on a programme of study leading to a UEL award, I want to reassure you that [ insert partner name ] will continue to work together with

UEL to ensure that you achieve your qualification aim.

A winding-down plan has been agreed with UEL; in practical terms this means that there will be no disruption to your studies. The plan allows all registered students to complete their programme of studies and receive an award by [ insert final date by which students must achieve the award i.e. and number of years to complete programme of study + a maximum of one further re-sit year ]. If after this date you have not achieved the number of credits required to be awarded your final degree, the final UEL assessment board will confer an appropriate intermediate award.

The final termination date, stated above, should give all students the opportunity to complete their full programme of study. If you are currently taking a break from your studies or planning to take a break in the future, please note that you will not be able to continue with your programme of study at [ insert partner name ] beyond [ insert final date by which students must achieve the award i.e. and no of years to complete programme of study + a maximum of one further re-sit year ].

Please do not hesitate to contact either [ insert contact at partner ] or [ insert details of

Link Person ] at UEL should you have any queries.

Yours sincerely

[ Signed by head of partner institution or nominee ]

47


Collaborations Handbook - University of East London

Record of Supervision

(suggested template)

Guidance on Programme Committees for Collaborative Partners

School of XXXXXXXX

Module Evaluation Form

UNIVERSITY OF EAST LONDON

Partnership Monitoring Committee – indicative agendas

Extenuation procedures

Guidance notes for staff at partner institutions

Workings of the Panel

Arrangements for Termination of a Collaborative Partnership

Related documents

Products

Support

Collaborations Handbook - University of East London

Record of Supervision

(suggested template)

Guidance on Programme Committees for Collaborative Partners

School of XXXXXXXX

Module Evaluation Form

UNIVERSITY OF EAST LONDON

Partnership Monitoring Committee – indicative agendas

Extenuation procedures

Guidance notes for staff at partner institutions

Workings of the Panel

Arrangements for Termination of a Collaborative Partnership

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib