Senate Code of Practice
on
Collaborative Provision:
International
Procedural Document
for 2003-04
March 2004
Foreword
This Procedural Document should be read in conjunction with:


the Senate Code of Practice on Collaborative Provision: International
the Senate Code of Practice on the Approval, Annual Monitoring and
Periodic Review of Taught Programmes of Study.
The document is particularly intended for those staff within APU and its international
partners who are responsible for the development, implementation and ongoing
management of the University’s international collaborative links. These staff include
Deans of Schools, Set Coordinators, Field Leaders, Directors of Studies, Course
Leaders at partner institutions, and other senior management and administrative staff
within APU and its international partners.
The Senate Code of Practice on Collaborative Provision: International is one of a
series of Codes through which, in conjunction with other mechanisms, the
University’s academic standards and quality of education are maintained, assured
and enhanced. The Codes and associated Procedural Documents are closely linked
and share common elements of University quality assurance policy and practice.
They should therefore be read as a set.
The complete set as at 1 March 2004 covers:

External Assessors for Taught Programmes of Study (approved by Senate on 11
January 2003)

The Approval, Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review of Taught Programmes of
Study (approved by Senate on 18 June 2003)

Collaborative Provision: International (approved by Senate on 18 June 2003)

Collaborative Provision: Regional (under discussion).
Malcolm Morrison
Director of the Academic Office
March 2004
Contents
Page
1.
2.
New collaborative arrangements: policies and procedures
3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
3
4
4
4
6
Planning approval
Statement of Intent
Institutional Review and Audit (IR&A)
Approval (formally known as “validation”)
Memorandum of Co-operation (to include a Financial Agreement)
Assuring academic standards and the quality of education
7
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
7
7
7
8
External Assessors
Annual monitoring
Periodic Review
Register of Teaching Staff at international partner institutions
3.
Publicity and marketing
9
4.
Certification
9
5.
Student complaints and academic appeals
10
Appendix 1
Guidelines for new proposals (approved by the International
Policy Group)
11
Appendix 2
Guidelines on Institutional Review and Audit
13
Appendix 3
Standard agenda for an International Review and Audit for a
new international partner
19
Appendix 4
Standard agenda for events relating to an international partner:
 Pathway/course approval
21
 Periodic review of a pathway/course
25
Appendix 5
Template for Memorandum of Co-operation
33
Appendix 6
Guidelines on the Approval of Outcentres
41
Appendix 7
Register of Teaching Staff: procedures
45
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
1
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
2
1.
New collaborative arrangements: policies and procedures
1.1 Planning approval [para 4.2]
The following three-stage planning approval process must be followed for
any new collaborative arrangement with an international partner:
Stage 1: School
The proposal must first be considered by the appropriate School to
establish the feasibility of a new partnership or the provision of a new
pathway/course by an existing partner. The School should submit a
summary of the proposal to APU’s administrative planning processes,
currently the International Policy Group (IPG) and Corporate Management
Group (CMG).
A proposal must be approved by the Dean of the School before it is
submitted to IPG/CMG.
Stage 2: International Policy Group (IPG)
IPG formally considers all proposed international activity relating to APU’s
teaching and research degree programmes.
It is IPG’s responsibility to recommend to the Corporate Management
Group whether or not a proposal for a franchise, dual/joint award scheme,
outcentre delivery or any other collaborative arrangement involving an
international educational establishment and/or business or overseas
government should proceed. In doing so, IPG evaluates and determines:

the appropriateness of any new partnership or pathway/course within
APU’s overall portfolio of international collaborative provision [NB
Throughout this Procedural Document “pathway/course” is the
APU term used to describe a programme of study leading to an
APU award].
The proposing School is required to submit a summary of the proposal to
IPG covering the specific issues contained in IPG’s Guidelines for New
Proposals [see Appendix 1 to this Procedural Document]. The School is
strongly encouraged to ensure that a School representative attends the
IPG meeting at which a School proposal is considered to answer any
questions or to clarify any issues which may arise during that discussion.
Meetings of IPG normally take place in October, January, April and June.
Stage 3: Corporate Management Group (CMG)
Following approval by IPG, the proposal is submitted (with any
amendments/additional information required by IPG) to the Corporate
Management Group which evaluates and determines:
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
3

the resource implications of the proposal for both APU and the
delivering partner institution in terms of development costs and the
ongoing management of the collaborative partnership.
The Director of the International Office, as Chair of the International Annual
Monitoring Subcommittee, submits a report on the academic standing of an
existing international partner institution when any proposal for an additional
pathway/course is considered.
CMG has ultimate responsibility for determining whether formal planning
approval in principle should be given to a new partnership or to the
extension of an existing partnership.
1.2 Statement of Intent [para 4.3]
Following planning approval, the Director of the International Office drafts a
Statement of Intent, consulting the Dean of the proposing School at all
stages in the drafting process.
The International Office ensures that all Statements of Intent are signed on
behalf of APU by the appropriate Pro Vice Chancellor.
1.3 Institutional Review & Audit [para 4.4]
An Institutional Review and Audit (IR&A) is the formal mechanism through
which the University satisfies itself about the good standing, financial
viability and suitability of a prospective collaborative partner and reviews
the arrangement by way of a further visit, normally every five years.
Guidelines outlining the purpose and conduct of an IR&A are available
from the Academic Office and are enclosed as Appendix 2 to this
Procedural Document.
The standard agenda for an IR&A for a new international partner is
enclosed as Appendix 3 to this Procedural Document.
1.4 Approval (formally known as “validation”) [para 4.5]
APU’s policies and procedures for the academic approval of a
pathway/course, including a statement of the purpose and details about the
process and documentary requirements, are set out in paragraphs 6.1 - 6.4
of the Senate Code of Practice on the Approval, Annual Monitoring and
Periodic Review of Taught Programmes of Study and in Section 3 of the
accompanying Procedural Document.
Academic approval of a pathway/course normally falls into one of four
categories, not all of which are currently in use. The decision whether or
not to visit an institutional partner is normally based on the following
guidelines:

approval of a new pathway/course (including a pathway/course leading
to a “top up” award under a credit recognition agreement) to be
delivered by an existing international partner currently offering APU
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
4
awards in the same subject area and at the same level. In these
circumstances:

a separate visit is not normally required

wherever possible, the partner institution should highlight its plans
to introduce a new pathway/course when preparing
documentation for a periodic Institutional Review and Audit of the
institution. This would enable the new pathway/course to be
formally considered during the IR&A visit, provided the detailed
proposal is available

if documentation for the new pathway/course is still at the drafting
stage and an IR&A visit is not imminent, the proposal is formally
considered by a Programme Approval Panel, appointed by the
appropriate Regional Faculty Board, at an event held at APU. The
process is conducted in accordance with the procedures set out
in Section 3 of the 2003-04 Procedural Document accompanying
the Senate Code of Practice on the Approval, Annual Monitoring
and Periodic Review of Taught Programmes of Study.

approval of a new pathway/course at postgraduate level (including a
pathway/course leading to a “top up” award under a credit recognition
agreement), to be delivered by an existing international partner
currently offering APU awards only at the undergraduate level, whether
in the same or a different subject area. In these circumstances:

a visit is required to determine whether appropriate learning and
teaching resources are available to deliver a pathway/course at a
higher level and, where appropriate, in a different subject area

the process is conducted in accordance with the procedures set
out in Section 3 of the 2003-04 Procedural Document
accompanying the Senate Code of Practice on the Approval,
Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review of Taught Programmes of
Study.

approval of a new pathway/course (including a pathway/course leading
to a “top up” award under a credit recognition agreement), to be
delivered by an existing international partner currently offering APU
awards in a different subject area. In these circumstances:

a visit is required to determine whether appropriate learning and
teaching resources are available to deliver a pathway/course in
the new subject area

the process is conducted in accordance with the procedures set
out in Section 3 of the 2003-04 Procedural Document
accompanying the Senate Code of Practice on the Approval,
Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review of Taught Programmes of
Study.

approval of a pathway/course (including a pathway/course leading to a
“top up” award under a credit recognition agreement), to be delivered
by a new partner institution. In these circumstances:
 a visit is required to conduct an Institutional Review and Audit of
the prospective collaborative partner, thereby enabling the
University to satisfy itself about the institution’s good standing,
financial viability and suitability
 during the same visit and on completion of the IR&A, the
proposed pathway/course is formally considered by a Programme
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
5
Approval Panel, appointed by the appropriate Regional Faculty
Board. The process is conducted in accordance with the
procedures set out in Section 3 of the 2003-04 Procedural
Document accompanying the Senate Code of Practice on the
Approval, Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review of Taught
Programmes of Study.
The standard agenda for approval and periodic review events for a
pathway/course delivered by an international partner are enclosed as
Appendix 4a and Appendix 4b respectively to this Procedural Document.
1.5 Memorandum of Co-operation (to include a Financial Agreement) [paras
4.6 and 4.7]
Following approval of a new international partner and/or a new
pathway/course delivered by such a partner, a formal written agreement,
known as the Memorandum of Co-operation, is prepared as a condition of
approval. The Memorandum of Co-operation defines the rights and
obligations of all parties and is signed by APU’s Vice Chancellor and the
head of the partner institution.
A copy of the standard template developed by APU for this purpose is
available from the International Office and is attached as Appendix 5 to
this Procedural Document.
The Dean of the School (or a designated member of the School’s senior
management team) is responsible for preparing the initial draft of the
Memorandum of Co-operation and for forwarding the final draft to the Chair
of the approval event and the Directors of the International Office and
Academic Office for comment. Once the approval of these officers has
been obtained, the Dean of the School should submit the final version to
APU Vice Chancellor’s Office for the Vice Chancellor to sign.
Agreements are updated during subsequent periodic reviews of an
international partner (see para 1.3 above).
The original copy of the signed Memorandum of Co-operation is held by
the Academic Office. A copy is held by the School and the International
Office. The Dean of the School is responsible for sending a copy of the
signed Memorandum of Co-operation to the head (or appropriate officer) of
the partner institution.
For a pathway/course delivered at an outcentre a Supplier’s Contract,
rather than a Memorandum of Co-operation, is prepared and signed by
APU’s Secretary and Clerk and the head of the international partner
organisation.
Guidelines on the Approval of Outcentres are available from the Academic
Office and are attached as Appendix 6 to this Procedural Document.
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
6
2.
Assuring academic standards and the quality of education
The Senate is responsible for the academic standards of the University’s
awards and the quality of education provided to enable students to achieve
those standards, whether they are registered for a pathway/course delivered by
an APU School or by a regional or international partner.
In relation to international collaborative provision the Senate exercises its
responsibilities through the following mechanisms:
2.1 External Assessors [para 5.1]
The role of the External Assessor(s) for a pathway/course delivered under
an international collaborative agreement is the same as, or equivalent to,
their role for delivery by an APU School.
Further details of the University’s policies and procedures are contained in
the Senate Code of Practice on External Assessors for Taught
Programmes of Study.
2.2 Annual Monitoring [para 5.2]
APU’s policies and procedures for the annual monitoring of a
pathway/course, including those delivered by international partner
institutions, are set out in:


the Senate Code of Practice on the Approval, Annual Monitoring and
Periodic Review of Taught Programmes of Study, paras 7.1 - 7.4
the accompanying Procedural Document, Section 4.
These publications include a statement of the purpose of annual
monitoring and further information about the process and the documentary
requirements.
A separate annual monitoring report is prepared for each pathway/course
delivered by an international partner. The report should normally be
prepared by the Course Leader (or equivalent postholder) at the partner
institution, in consultation with their designated APU contact in the School
concerned.
The report is formally considered in the first instance by ASQEC’s
International Annual Monitoring Subcommittee which meets at least once a
year for this purpose, normally in December/January.
2.3 Periodic Review [para 5.3]
APU’s policies and procedures for the periodic review of a pathway/course,
including those delivered by international partner institutions, are set out in:


the Senate Code of Practice on the Approval, Annual Monitoring and
Periodic Review of Taught Programmes of Study, paras 8.1 - 8.4
the accompanying Procedural Document, Section 5.
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
7
These publications include a statement of the purpose of periodic review
and further information about the process and the documentary
requirements.
Pathways/courses delivered by APU Schools are normally reviewed as a
group within the APU Field to which they have been assigned (a “Field
Review”). However, the periodic review of a pathway(s)/course(s) delivered
by an international partner is normally undertaken as a separate event held
at the partner institution. Wherever possible, the event is held in
conjunction with the periodic Institutional Review and Audit of the
institution.
Occasionally the periodic review of delivery by an international partner may
identify an issue affecting the Field as a whole. In such cases the issue will
be considered during the next Field Review.
The periodic review document submitted by an international partner is
expected to follow the detailed guidance on content set out in the 2003-04
Procedural Document for the Approval, Annual Monitoring and Periodic
Review of Taught Programmes of Study. Certain aspects are likely to be of
particular interest to the Review Panel. These include:





ongoing management of the collaborative link, including the formal
and informal mechanisms for
APU School staff
and
academic/administrative staff at the partner institution to communicate
and/or meet to discuss issues relating to curriculum delivery
management of the assessment process, including the conduct of
Awards Boards (or their equivalent at the partner institution) and APU
representation at meetings of those bodies when the determination of
joint/dual awards is made [NB The appropriate APU Awards Board is
ultimately responsible for determining APU awards]
the processes whereby the APU School:
 advises international partners of general issues applying to all
delivery points and specific issues relating to international delivery
that may be raised in reports from External Assessors,
 monitors action taken in response to those issues
feedback to students on their assessed work
student consultation mechanisms, the use made of student
evaluations, the action taken in response and the processes for
informing students of such action.
2.4 Register of Teaching Staff at international partner institutions [para 5.4]
The University (through the Academic Office) maintains a Register of
Teaching Staff delivering pathways/courses leading to an APU award at
regional and international partners. The suitability of staff for inclusion on
the Register is initially scrutinised at the academic approval stage.
In relation to international collaborative provision the partner institution is
responsible for notifying APU of any subsequent changes to the teaching
staff (and for consequential changes to the Register). The partner
institution initially submits details to the APU Programme Leader who, after
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
8
consultation with relevant colleagues within the School, notifies the
Academic Office of the changes, if ratified, for inclusion in the Register.
The University reserves the right to exclude from the Register any staff
member who is deemed unsuitable to contribute to delivery of a
programme of study at higher education level.
Full details of the process are contained in the 2003-04 Procedural
Document for the Approval, Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review of
Taught Programmes of Study [see Appendix 7 to this Procedural
Document]
To facilitate an annual check of the accuracy of the Register of Teaching
Staff all international partners are required to attach as an Appendix to
their annual monitoring report (see para 2.2 above ) a complete list of staff
contributing to delivery of all pathways/courses leading to an APU award.
3.
Publicity and Marketing [para 7]
The international partner is responsible for the recruitment and admission of
students to approved pathways/courses, delivered by the institution and leading
to an APU award. The partner is also responsible for the marketing, publicity
and other promotional material associated with the recruitment and admissions
process.
Until a pathway/course has been given formal academic approval any publicity
information prepared by the international partner must indicate that the
programme is “subject to approval.”
Once approval has been given, the international partner must adopt APU’s
normal marketing and publicity protocols, in consultation with the APU
International Office. All marketing information must be approved by the APU
Programme Leader, in consultation with the International Office.
The International Office can provide advice and support to partner institutions
on the use of APU graphics, photographs and related material.
All international partners are required to provide one copy of the latest
prospectus (or equivalent advertising material) for the pathway/course and the
current Student Handbook when submitting their annual monitoring report (see
para 2.2 above). This material is scrutinised by the Director of the International
Office as Chair of ASQEC’s International Annual Monitoring Subcommittee (for
further details see Appendix 11 to the 2003-04 Procedural Document for the
Approval, Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review of Taught Programmes of
Study).
4. Certification [para 8]
The issuing of all certificates for an APU award delivered by an international
partner institution is undertaken by the Conferment Unit within the Academic
Office, thereby ensuring that such certification is under the control of the
University as the awarding body. Normal APU procedures for issuing award
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
9
certificates are followed (including those in response to requests from former
students for replacement certificates).
The provision of official academic transcripts also remains under the control of
the University.
5. Student complaints and academic appeals [para 9]
All international partners must conform to APU’s policies and procedures for
academic appeals submitted by students registered for an APU award.
An APU School developing a new collaborative partnership is required to provide
the prospective partner with an extract from APU’s Undergraduate and
Postgraduate Student Handbook, setting out the academic appeals process. A
copy of the current process may be obtained on request from the Academic
Secretariat within the Academic Office.
APU also ensures that students registered for pathways/courses delivered by an
international partner receive information about the appropriate processes for
submitting a student complaint, as set out in the APU Student Handbook.
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
10
Appendix 1
INTERNATIONAL POLICY
GROUP
GUIDELINES FOR NEW PROPOSALS
IPG receives information on all proposed international activity and makes
recommendations to the Corporate Management Group on whether to approve
franchises and other relationships involving overseas educational establishments,
businesses and foreign and European governments.
Any new proposal involving a collaborative link should first be evaluated by the
School concerned to ascertain its potential and relevance to the School’s strategic
development. If the proposal is supported by the Dean, it should then be submitted
to IPG ensuring it contains the following information:
1. Rationale for the proposal
 APU School, award and name of programme
 proposal mode of operation: franchise, dual award, outcentre etc
 name of partner institution and documentary evidence of the proposed
partner institution’s intentions.
 Time scale for development and proposed start date (month and year of the
programme)
2. Suitability of partner institution
 legal status, financial viability, local reputation
 evidence of market demand
 details of any foreign government regulations/requirements and whether
these have been satisfied
 other international links the proposed partner is engaged in
3. Objectives of the project and financial arrangements as proposed by the School
and evaluated by Deputy Director, Finance.
4. Brief but precise details of the proposal (e.g. indicate what proportion, if any, is
taught by the partner, how assessment is overseen, what language is the
programme delivered and assessed in).
5. Staffing and Health and Safety implications (e.g. frequency of visit by APU staff,
local conditions etc)
This should take no more than one side of A4 and should be submitted to the
International Office for inclusion on the next IPG agenda. The presence of a School
representative at the meeting (i.e. the Dean or nominee) is essential.
For further advice, please contact Maidi Brown on extension 3018, email
a.m.o.brown@apu.ac.uk
IPG/June 2002 – Revised March 2004
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
11
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
12
Appendix 2
APU
ACADEMIC STANDARDS, QUALITY AND ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE
Guidelines on Institutional Review & Audit
1.
Introduction
In line with QAA requirements, APU is responsible for undertaking an
Institutional Review and Audit (IR&A) of any prospective new partner institution
(PI) and for reviewing the arrangement by way of a further visit when the term
of approval comes to an end (normally after a five year period). An IR&A may
also be carried out by APU where the University identifies the need to
undertake such a review through its annual monitoring processes, or at the
request of the PI.
2.
Purpose
IR&A is the process through which the University, in collaboration with its PIs,
satisfies itself that a PI is initially able to, and then continues to, maintain and
enhance academic standards on APU’s approved or franchised programmes of
study at a level appropriate to HE. It is conducted on behalf of the Academic
Standards, Quality and Enhancement Committee (ASQEC).
The process fulfils the following purposes:
3.
2.1
it is the formal mechanism through which the University satisfies itself
about the good standing, financial viability and suitability of a prospective
partner institution
2.2
it enables APU to verify that a partner’s internal quality assurance
processes, and the partner’s understanding and implementation of APU’s
quality assurance processes where these are required to be used, are
working efficiently and effectively in the light of their stated purposes and
institutional contexts;
2.3
through a written report, it enables quality and standards to be evidenced
to Senate and to external HE and FE quality audit and assessment
bodies;
2.4
whilst respecting diversity in procedures, it identifies areas and examples
of good practice to disseminate across the University;
2.5
it stimulates staff development in quality assurance and identifies areas
where further development and training is desirable.
Process
3.1
Nature of the process
The process is one of peer review, involving a small panel of colleagues
from APU and other PIs where appropriate. The two main processes
used within the visit itself are review meetings and audit trailing, defined
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
13
as:
(a)
Review: the examination of an institutional ethos and procedures
against stated Mission and objectives, in order to evaluate and
review critically the institutional quality assurance and related
systems and supporting resource provision in operation in HE
delivery;
(b)
Audit: the testing of processes against evidence to establish
whether the processes exist in practice, whether they are being
used, and whether or not they are operating appropriately for their
declared purpose, in the delivery of higher education. This involves
a system called ‘audit trailing’ on the day of the visit itself. APU has
adopted the following working definition of quality audit, as laid
down by the British Standards Institute (and quoted in the former
HEQC’s guidelines, November 1992): ‘Quality audit is a systematic
and independent examination to determine whether quality activities
and related results comply with planned arrangements and whether
these arrangements are implemented effectively and are suitable to
achieve activities.’
[NB: Items the Panel may call for during audit trailing cannot be
predicted in detail in advance. Proposed audit trails are drafted by
the Academic Office and submitted, in advance of the event, to the
Chair of ASQEC for approval and, where time permits, to the Chair
of the IR&A Panel. Once the audit trails have received approval,
the Executive Officer can provide the PI with more details regarding
the types of documentation the Panel is likely to need access to ‘on
the day’ enabling the PI to gather such information in advance.]
3.2
Stages of the process
The main stages, which the Quality Assurance Division (QAD) shall
facilitate, are:
(a)
identifying which PIs are due for review each year and gaining
approval from the Chair of ASQEC to hold an event;
(b)
liaison with the PI (and APU School contact if appropriate)
regarding documentation, timescales and deadlines;
(c)
allocation of an Executive Officer(s) to provide proactive, informed
and professional support to the Panel Chair and members
throughout the process;
(d)
convening a Panel of colleagues for the visit;
(e)
organisation of the event and distribution of the documentation to
the Panel;
(f)
undertaking the visit;
(g)
writing the report, checking it for accuracy with the PI and the
Panel; submitting the report to ASQEC for approval;
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
14
3.3
(h)
circulating the report to the PI for action;
(i)
monitoring any follow-up action, prior to the next Institutional
Review and Audit (usually every five years). The PI is asked to
provide written feedback on any action taken in response to the
issues raised in the report, normally within six months of the date on
which the IR&A is carried out.
Programme for the visit
The Executive Officer(s) and Chair shall determine the structure of the
event, in consultation with the PI and proposing School contact (if
appropriate) to ensure that timings and groupings are suitable. An
example of a typical programme is available on request from the QAD.
The visit shall normally include a meeting of the Panel with a small group
of HE students and a tour of learning resources.
The agenda items for discussion (as described on the programme) shall
be based on QAA’s Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic
Quality and Standards in HE, Section 2: Collaborative Provision (July
1999). Discussions are likely to focus on the following issues:

the PI’s HE strategy and their strategic commitment (or their
ongoing commitment if the visit is a periodic IR&A) to the
collaborative link with APU; (4)

collaborative arrangements between APU and the PI and the
Memorandum of Co-operation (4, 7, 18, 19, 26, 32, 38)

staffing and other resources to support HE and the portfolio of APU
franchised and/or approved programmes; (10,22)

the PI’s staff development policy particularly in relation to HE;

student support mechanisms
 quality assurance mechanisms (18, 20, 26, 30)
[NB The numbering in brackets refers to the relevant QAA precept]:
3.4
The visiting Panel
The Panel shall normally comprise:

a Chair (who shall normally be a member of APU’s Senate or ASQEC
or a person with extensive experience of APU’s IR&A processes);

at least two APU staff (which may include staff from other PIs where
appropriate). For international collaborative provision, one member of
staff should have experience of international partnerships;

a relevant member of staff from the PI, not involved with delivery of
APU programmes at the PI in question [NB only applies to an IR&A at
a UK PI];

a relevant member of staff from the Regional Office [NB only applies to
an IR&A at a UK PI];
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
15

an Officer from the Quality Assurance Division (QAD) who shall act as
Executive Officer;

on occasion, the IR&A may be combined with an initial
approval/periodic review event. In this instance, an external Panel
member (a subject specialist) and possibly a representative from the
relevant professional or statutory body will be required.
[NB QAD has compiled a Register of Panel Members, including staff from
regional partner colleges, which shall be used when identifying members
of the Panel. Where an initial approval/periodic review event is being
undertaken, the proposal team is responsible for identifying and
recommending via QAD to the Chair of the appropriate Regional Faculty
Board qualified external academic or professional peer for consideration.]
3.5
Practical Arrangements
3.5.1 The Executive Officer will liaise with the PI and/or the School
contact regarding any arrangements for travel and
accommodation for Panel members.
3.5.2
4.
PIs are asked to make appropriate on-site arrangements for the
meetings, for example, car parking and refreshments, in liaison
with the Executive Officer(s).
Documentation
4.1
Submission of documentation
Copies of the PI’s documentation should be sent to the Executive
Officer(s) at APU three weeks prior to the IR&A. The Executive Officer(s)
will arrange the submission date in liaison with the PI and advise as to the
number of copies required.
4.2
Content of the documentation
4.2.1 Self-evaluation commentary
This should be a critical reflection and evaluation of the
franchising and other curriculum development arrangements with
APU to date (if appropriate).
[NB This is the main/most important section of the document.
Other sections may use existing documents where possible.]
4.2.2 Description of the Partner Institution
A brief history of the PI including information on collaborative links
with other HEIs and the overall HE provision, the PI’s mission
statement and diagrammatic appendices giving detail of
organisational, management and committee structures.
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
16
4.2.3 Strategic Plan
Paying particular attention to the PI’s higher education
developments, this section should include, for example, details of
plans in relation to current and future higher education activity,
and the resource planned to support this.
4.2.4 Curriculum planning and development
This should describe how specific pathways/courses are initiated,
planned, developed and internally approved, prior to formal
approval or franchise of the course by the University.
4.2.5 Resources
This should include an overview of the resourcing available to
support HE work with APU, such as staffing allocated to HE,
learning resource facilities, student support services, etc. The
resourcing and funding available to support HE work with APU
should be addressed from a quality assurance and enhancement
perspective.
4.2.6 Quality Management and Enhancement
This should include information on:




ongoing evaluation and quality assurance and enhancement
mechanisms;
action planning following annual monitoring processes and
External Assessor comments;
student feedback mechanisms;
other external quality assurance reference points including any
government requirements and external/professional and
statutory body reports;
4.2.7 Staff development, research, consultancy and related activities
Details of the PI’s policy, and the activities attended by staff in
relation to their HE work, including participation in any APU staff
development programmes.
4.2.8 HE student environment
This section should include details of the support areas for the
student experience. This should be discussed in the context of
APU’s Student Charter guidelines. This area shall be further
explored by the Panel during the tour of learning resources and
the discussions with students.
4.2.9 Appendices
This should comprise any documentation the partner institution
wishes to provide in support of the above sections.
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
17
5.
Outcome
The Panel shall seek to identify areas of good practice in operation at the PI
and shall record them along with any areas for concern or improvement in a
report of the event.
5.1
The Report
5.1.1
Within two weeks of the event, the draft report of the IR&A shall
be approved by the Panel Chair and be sent as Unconfirmed by
the Executive Officer to the PI and where appropriate, proposing
School contact (for information but with an invitation to correct any
factual inaccuracies) and to the Panel (for comment). The report
will be confirmed and the confirmed report (incorporating any
comments from Panel members and correction of any factual
inaccuracies) shall be sent by the Executive Officer to the PI and
Panel normally within four weeks of the event.
5.1.2 To ensure consistency and comparability in the conduct of events
the written report shall follow a standard format. The format shall
be updated annually by the Academic Office in the light of
experience and in response to any new external requirements.
5.2
5.1.3
The confirmed report shall be submitted to ASQEC for formal
approval of the Panel's conclusions and to the appropriate
Regional Faculty Board(s) for information.
5.1.4
The confirmed report of any initial approval/periodic review of a
pathway/course conducted in association with the IR&A (see para
3.4 above) shall be submitted to the appropriate Regional Faculty
Board for consideration.
Responses to issues raised
The PI is requested to provide written feedback to the University on the
issues raised within six months of the IR&A, outlining plans for
addressing any issues highlighted in the conclusions which may suggest
areas for action for maintaining and enhancing quality provision. This
response will then be submitted to the IR&A Panel and ASQEC for
approval.
Academic Office
March 2004
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
18
Appendix 3
APU
ACADEMIC STANDARDS, QUALITY AND ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE
Institutional Review and Audit of ………….
Meeting Date:
Location:
Please ensure you have taken due note of the fire regulations posted in this room. If
the fire alarm rings continuously please leave though the nearest escape route as
indicated and go to the designated fire assembly point
STANDARD AGENDA FOR AN INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW AND AUDIT EVENT
(INTERNATIONAL)
[NB The QAA’s Code of Practice on Collaborative Provision, a copy of which is
included in the Briefing Pack, should inform all discussions]
O9.3009.45
Arrival of Panel and coffee
+30 mins
Private meeting of the Panel, commencing with Chair’s briefing, to:
 clarify purpose of event
 confirm structure of the day
 clarify the agenda for the meeting with students
+30 mins
Tour of learning resources by Panel
+30 mins
Meeting with students (see separate agenda below)
+30 mins
Private meeting of the Panel to:
 confirm key issues for exploration (including any issues raised during
meeting with students)
 clarify the agenda for meetings with the Senior Management Team
and other staff
 clarify the timetable for conducting the agreed audit trails
+60 mins
Meeting with the Senior Management Team to consider the Institutional
Review and Audit.
Issues to be discussed include:
 the partner’s HE strategy and ongoing strategic commitment to the
collaborative link with APU (4)
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
19




staffing and other learning and teaching resources to support HE
and the portfolio of APU franchised programmes (10,22)
staff development
collaborative arrangements between APU and the partner including
the formal Memorandum of Co-operation (4, 7, 18, 19, 26, 32, 38)
quality assurance mechanisms (18, 20, 26, 30)
[NB The numbering in brackets refers to the relevant precept in QAA’s
Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision]
+ 30 mins
LUNCH
[NB The agreed audit trails will be conducted either before or after
lunch]
+ 45 mins
Private meeting of the Panel to:
 consider any documentary evidence provided by the partner
institution
 determine conclusions and recommendations to report to ASQEC
 identify any examples of good and innovative practice in learning,
teaching and assessment for dissemination within APU and its
partner institutions
+ 20 mins
Panel reports conclusions and
Management Team and other staff
+ 5 mins
Panel and Executive Officer complete evaluation forms and depart
recommendations
to
the
Senior
The above agenda and times are approximate and are subject to
amendment to reflect local needs and circumstances. Where
necessary, additional breaks for tea/coffee and lunch will be
included.
AGENDA FOR STUDENT MEETING
(to be circulated to the students by the partner institution in advance of the
meeting)
1. Introduce Panel members
2. Explain purpose of the event (see Guidelines for IR&A, para 2)
3. Detailed discussion on a range of topics including
 pre-arrival information
 registration and induction
 provision of pathway/course-specific Student Handbook (or equivalent)
 teaching (methods and quality), learning, assessment (methods, feedback to
students on assessed work and overall academic performance)
 student support and guidance (academic and pastoral)
 learning resources
 quality management and enhancement (including feedback from students
about pathway/course e.g. its delivery/relevance)
 issues relating to social, recreational and welfare facilities
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
20
Appendix 4a
APU
ACADEMIC STANDARDS, QUALITY AND ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE
X Regional Faculty Board
(Field, School)
Proposal:
Meeting Date:
Location:
Please ensure you have taken due note of the fire regulations posted in this room. If
the fire alarm rings continuously please leave though the nearest escape route as
indicated and go to the designated fire assembly point
STANDARD AGENDA FOR THE APPROVAL OF A PATHWAY/COURSE
(INTERNATIONAL)
(including an event for outcentre or franchised delivery)
am/pm
Arrival of Panel and coffee.
+15 mins
Introduction by Sub-group of Proposal Team (to include a member of the
Senior Management Team, if appropriate) summarising:
 any action taken in response to the key issues for exploration already
identified by the Panel and communicated to the Proposal Team
 any resource or strategic issues related to the proposal
+30 mins
Panel to tour learning resources
+45 mins
Private meeting of the Panel, commencing with Chair’s briefing, to:
 clarify purpose of event (see Senate Code of Practice on Approval,
Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review, para 6.1)
 confirm structure of the day
 confirm key issues for exploration during the event, as identified in
advance by the Panel

confirm the outcome of discussions by Student Data Systems with the
Proposal Team about the Pathway Specification Form and its
conformity with APU’s Curriculum Regulations (if appropriate)
+90 mins
(max)
Meeting with the Proposal Team to:



introduce Panel Members
explain purpose of event (see Senate Code of Practice on Approval,
Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review , para 6.1)
discuss inter alia:
 Aims and intended learning outcomes (as described on the PSF)
 Learning and teaching strategies and assessment methods (as
described on the PSF) (21)
 Rationale for curriculum design and content (21)
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
21






Structure diagram
The assessment pattern/loading (24, 25)
Staffing allocations and learning resources (10, 22)
Admissions and information for students (23, 35, 36, 37)
Quality assurance and enhancement (18, 20, 26, 30)
Memorandum of Cooperation and course management and
administration (13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21)
 National or PSB requirements
 Any other issues raised by the Panel (if not covered under the
above)
[NB: The numbering in brackets refers to the relevant precept in
QAA’s Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision]
[see the attached checklist of issues to be discussed under
certain of the above headings]
+45 mins
Private meeting of the Panel to:
 identify conclusions (see Senate Code of Practice on Approval, Annual
Monitoring and Periodic Review, para 6.4.5, for the four possible
outcomes)
 set any conditions and/or recommendations (see Senate Code of
Practice on Approval, Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review, paras
6.4.2 - 6.4.3, for a definition of these terms)
+15 mins
Panel to report conclusions to the Proposal Team
+15 mins
Panel and Executive Officer to complete evaluation forms
Panel to depart
The above agenda and times are approximate and are subject to
amendment to reflect local needs and circumstances (eg the
particular requirements of a PSB). Where necessary, additional
breaks for tea/coffee and lunch will be included.
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
22
PATHWAY/COURSE APPROVAL EVENT (INTERNATIONAL)
Checklist of issues for discussion with the Proposal Team
Aims and intended learning outcomes (ILOs) (as described in the PSF)

whether the ILOs for the pathway/programme are consistent with
 the appropriate qualification descriptor within QAA’s Framework for HE
Qualifications (England)
[QAA’s Framework is designed to set and maintain national comparability
of academic standards and consistency of expected student achievement
for a particular qualification]
 the appropriate APU Generic Learning Outcomes (GLOs) for an award
[GLOs describe the distinguishing features of an APU award,
contextualising QAA’s Framework in an APU setting]

whether the ILOs for individual modules collectively contribute to the ILOs for the
pathway/course as a whole i.e. whether there is academic coherence within the
pathway/course

For taught PG pathways/courses: whether the ILOs for each module, either
individually and/or in combination, contribute to the ILOs for the pathway/course
as a whole, while recognising that within a taught PG pathway/course a small
number of modules may be below level 4, reflecting the “conversion” nature of the
pathway/course
Learning, teaching and assessment methods/strategies


whether the learning and teaching methods/strategies are appropriate, enabling
students to achieve the ILOs
whether the assessment methods/strategies are appropriate, enabling students to
demonstrate their achievement of the ILOs
Rationale for curriculum design and content
Discussion to include:





any PSB requirements
any input from employers or professional associations
the relevance of the curriculum to students’ subsequent employment
student’ acquisition of key skills
the extent to which the relevant QAA subject benchmark statement(s) has been
used in the design and content of the curriculum and specifically whether the
pathway/course satisfies the general expectation about academic standards
contained in the relevant QAA subject benchmark statement(s)
Structure diagram
 whether the diagram clearly demonstrates the chronological sequence of module
delivery for each semester and year of the pathway/course
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
23
 whether the diagram and the modules it contains are consistent with Section 25 of
the PSF
Staffing allocations and learning and teaching resources
 the suitability of named contributors to delivery of each module (using the
abbreviated CVs as reference points)
 the personal tutorial and counselling support available to students
 learning resources (library, workshops, laboratories, equipment, IT provision) that
will be available to students and staff
 the suitability of the learning and teaching resources for students with disabilities
[QAA’s Code of Practice states that there should be no unjustifiable barriers to
access by such students]
 For outcentre delivery: The level of local resources available to students and the
extent to which access to APU resources/facilities will be required
Quality management and enhancement






proposed arrangements for ongoing management of the collaborative link,
including the formal and informal mechanisms for APU School staff and
academic/administrative staff at the partner institution to communicate and/or
meet to discuss issues relating to curriculum delivery
proposed arrangements for management of the assessment process, including
the conduct of Awards Boards (or their equivalent at the partner institution) and
APU representation at meetings of those bodies when the determination of
joint/dual awards is made [NB The appropriate APU Awards Board is ultimately
responsible for determining APU awards]
the processes whereby the APU School:
 advises international partners of general issues applying to all delivery points
and specific issues relating to international delivery that may be raised in
reports from External Assessors,
 monitors action taken in response to those issues
proposed mechanisms for obtaining student evaluations (e.g. module evaluations,
end of year review), the use to be made of those evaluations and how students
will be informed of the outcomes
proposed arrangements for providing students with written feedback on their
assessed work
opportunities for ongoing professional staff development related to the
pathway/course
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
24
Appendix 4b
APU
ACADEMIC STANDARDS, QUALITY AND ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE
X Regional Faculty Board
(Field, School)
Proposal:
Meeting Date:
Location:
Please ensure you have taken due note of the fire regulations posted in this room. If
the fire alarm rings continuously please leave though the nearest escape route as
indicated and go to the designated fire assembly point
STANDARD AGENDA FOR THE PERIODIC REVIEW OF A PATHWAY/COURSE
(INTERNATIONAL)
am/pm
Arrival of Panel and coffee.
+15 mins
Introduction by Sub-group of Review Team (to include a member of the
Senior Management Team, if appropriate) summarising:
 overview of delivery since initial approval/the most recent review
(whichever is the latest)
 any action taken in response to the key issues for exploration already
identified by the Panel and communicated to the Review Team
 any resource or strategic issues related to the proposal
+45 mins
Private meeting of the Panel, commencing with Chair’s briefing, to:
 clarify purpose of event (see Senate Code of Practice on Approval,
Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review, para 8.1)
 confirm structure of the day

confirm key issues for exploration during the event, as identified in
advance by the Panel

confirm the outcome of discussions by Student Data Systems with the
Review Team about the Pathway Specification Form and its conformity
with APU’s Curriculum Regulations
+30 mins
Meeting with current and/or former students from the Field under review*
(see separate agenda below)
+15 mins
Private meeting of the Panel to:
 summarise any issues prompted by the student meeting

confirm/modify key issues for exploration
+60 mins
Meeting with the Review Team to:
 introduce Panel Members
 explain purpose of event (see Senate Code of Practice on Approval,
Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review, para 8.1)
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
25

discuss inter alia:
 Strategic issues
 Aims and intended learning outcomes (as described on the PSF)
(21)
 Rationale/market demand
 Curriculum content, delivery and assessment (including outcentre
and franchised delivery points, if applicable) (21)
 Resources (10, 22)
 Admissions and information for students (23, 35, 36, 37)
 Quality management and enhancement (18, 20, 26, 30)
 Memorandum of Cooperation and course management and
administration (13,14, 18, 19, 20, 21)
 Professional or Statutory Bodies (PSBs)
 Career destination
 Any other issues raised by the Panel (if not covered under the
above)
[NB The numbering in brackets refers to the relevant precept in
QAA’s Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision]
[see attached checklist of issues to be discussed under the above
headings]
+45 mins
Private meeting of the Panel to:
 identify conclusions (see Senate Code of Practice on Approval, Annual
Monitoring and Periodic Review, para 8.4.5, for the four possible
outcomes)
 set any conditions and/or recommendations (see Senate Code of
Practice on Approval, Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review, paras
8.4.2 – 8.4.3, for a definition of these terms)
 identify any examples of good and innovative practice in learning,
teaching and assessment for dissemination within APU and its partner
institutions
+15 mins
Panel to report conclusions to the Review Team
+15 mins
Panel and Executive Officer to complete evaluation forms
Panel departs
The above agenda and times are approximate and are subject to
amendment to reflect local needs and circumstances (eg the
particular requirements of a PSB, provision for a tour of the
learning resources). Where necessary additional breaks for
tea/coffee and lunch will be included.
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
26
AGENDA FOR STUDENT MEETING
( to be circulated to the students by the Review Team in advance of the meeting)
1.
Introduce Panel members
2.
Explain purpose of event (see Senate Code of Practice on Approval, Annual
Monitoring and Periodic Review , para 8.1)
3.
Detailed discussion of a range of topics including:
 pre-arrival information
 registration
 induction
 provision of pathway/course-specific Student Handbook (or equivalent)
 curriculum issues (design, content, organisation)
 teaching (methods and quality), learning, assessment (methods, feedback to
students on assessed work and overall academic performance)
 student support and guidance (academic and pastoral)
 learning resources
 quality management and enhancement (including feedback from students
about pathway/course e.g. its delivery, relevance)
 issues relating to social, recreational and welfare facilities
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
27
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
28
PERIODIC REVIEW OF A PATHWAY/COURSE (INTERNATIONAL)
Checklist of issues for discussion with the Review Team
Strategic issues


whether the Review Team has a strategic vision for the future direction and
delivery of the pathways/courses within the Field
For franchised delivery: The intended minimum/maximum student numbers [NB
This information is required for the Institutional Memorandum of Cooperation]
Aims and intended learning outcomes (ILOs) (as described on the PSF)






whether the ILOs for the pathways/courses are consistent with
 the appropriate qualification descriptor within QAA’s Framework for HE
Qualifications (England)
[QAA’s Framework is designed to set and maintain national comparability
of academic standards and consistency of expected student achievement
for a particular qualification]
 the appropriate APU Generic Learning Outcomes (GLOs) for an award
[GLOs describe the distinguishing features of an APU award,
contextualising QAA’s Framework in an APU setting]
whether the ILOs for individual modules collectively contribute to the intended
learning outcomes for the pathways/courses as a whole i.e. whether there is
academic coherence within the pathways/courses
For taught PG pathways/courses: whether the ILOs for each module, either
individually and/or in combination, contribute to the ILOs for the
pathways/courses as a whole, while recognising that within a taught PG
pathway/course a small number of modules may be below level 4, reflecting the
“conversion” nature of the pathway/course
whether the aims and ILOs are relevant, valid and have evolved appropriately
(taking account of the cumulative effect of any changes to curriculum content and
delivery since initial approval/the last review)
whether the aims have been achieved (and will continue to be) in the delivery
process
whether students have achieved the intended learning outcomes (ILOs)
Rationale/market demand



whether demand for the pathways/courses in terms of student recruitment has
met expectations and been sufficient (and will continue to be) to maintain the
financial viability of the pathways/courses
whether there is evidence for ongoing market demand
whether any changes in market demand (e.g. from students, employers, PSBs)
have been reflected in delivery of the pathways/courses (and will continue to be)
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
29
Curriculum content, delivery and assessment (including outcentre and franchised
delivery points, if applicable)
 the extent to which the relevant QAA subject benchmark statement(s) has been
used in the design and content of the curriculum and specifically whether the
pathways/courses satisfy the general expectation about academic standards
contained in the relevant QAA subject benchmark statement(s)
 whether curriculum currency and validity have been maintained and enhanced
since initial approval/the last review e.g. through additional modules, revisions to
existing modules
 whether the learning, teaching and assessment strategies have provided (and will
continue to provide) students with the opportunity to achieve the ILOs
 whether any issues have arisen from outcentre or franchised delivery
Staffing allocations and learning and teaching resources
 whether appropriate staffing levels and learning resources/facilities (including
those at any outcentre or franchised delivery point) have been provided (and will
continue to be provided) to deliver the curriculum effectively and to provide high
quality educational support to students
 whether effective personal tutorial and counselling support have been available to
students
 the suitability of the learning and teaching resources for students with disabilities
[QAA’s Code of Practice states that there should be no unjustifiable barriers to
access by such students]
Quality management and enhancement






whether effective arrangements have been in operation for ongoing management
of the collaborative link, including formal and informal mechanisms for APU
School staff and academic/administrative staff at the partner institution to
communicate and/or meet to discuss issues relating to curriculum delivery
whether effective arrangements have been in operation for management of the
assessment process, including the conduct of Awards Boards (or their equivalent
at the partner institution) and APU representation at meetings of those bodies
when the determination of joint/dual awards is made [NB The appropriate APU
Awards Board is ultimately responsible for determining APU awards]
whether effective processes have been used whereby the APU School:
 advises international partners of general issues applying to all delivery points
and specific issues relating to international delivery that may be raised in
reports from External Assessors,
 monitors action taken in response to those issues
whether effective mechanisms have been used to obtain student evaluations (e.g.
module evaluations, end of year review), the use made of those evaluations, what
action has been taken in response and the means by which students have been
informed of such action
whether students have been provided with written feedback on their assessed
work and overall academic progress
whether action has been taken through annual monitoring to introduce
improvements to delivery of the pathways/courses, building on existing strengths
and correcting any identified weaknesses
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
30


whether staff development opportunities have been available and whether they
have impacted on curriculum delivery
whether effective local course management arrangements have been established
Professional or Statutory Bodies (PSBs)


whether PSB accreditation has been sought and/or maintained for the
pathway(s)/course(s) since initial approval/the last review
whether any issues have arisen from the PSBs since initial approval/the last
review e.g. curriculum content, the availability and delivery of any element of
professional practice or placement
Career destination

whether the pathways/courses have successfully prepared students for future
employment (e.g. in terms of the relevance of the curriculum and students’
acquisition of key skills) and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future given
employers’ likely needs
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
31
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
32
Appendix 5
MEMORANDUM OF CO-OPERATION
BETWEEN
ANGLIA POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY (APU), CHELMSFORD, UK
AND
(……………………….)
RELATING TO THE (e.g. FRANCHISED) DELIVERY
OF THE
(…………………………….)
(DATE)
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
33
1.
Introduction
1.1
APU and the (…partner...) have established a partnership for the purpose of
co-operating in the (… e.g. franchised…) delivery of the (…award title…)
offered by the (…School…) at APU.
1.2
This Memorandum of Co-operation is an institutional agreement concluded
between the two partner institutions to set out their formal working
relationship and define the terms and conditions under which the
(…partner…) will deliver the (…award title…), as approved in (date of initial
approval), to a cohort of students recruited by (…APU/partner as
appropriate…).
1.3
The degree will be awarded to successful participants by APU.
2
Purpose and scope of the Co-operation
2.1
APU as the awarding institution and (…partner…) as the providing institution
agree to offer the programme at (…partner…)’s premises located at
(…address…).
2.2
The (…partner…), as the providing institution, agrees to abide by all APU
rules and regulations relating to the delivery and academic standards of the
(…award title…) and to make the necessary provision to carry out the
teaching and assessment elements of the programme as set out in the
definitive Module Definition Forms.
2.3
The two institutions agree on an initial recruitment target of (…number…)
students to the programme to be admitted in one intake. This target may be
jointly reviewed if local conditions require it.
2.4
The agreement is subject to the two institutions arriving at satisfactory
financial arrangements (schedule C).
3
Duration of the Agreement
3.1
This agreement is valid for a period of 5 years or until the next periodic review
of the (…award title…) by APU.
3.2
The next academic review of the programme will take place no later than
(…year…).
3.3
This agreement may be terminated by either institution by giving one intake’s
notice, to run from 1 March immediately following. Termination is subject to
the continuing responsibility of both institutions to provide appropriate facilities
for existing students unless alternative arrangements acceptable to APU’s
Senate can be made.
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
34
4.
Nature of the Partnership
(Sections 4.1 – 4.3 below are an example based on an agreement between
APU’s Ashcroft International Business School and an international partner.
This should be replaced by information relevant to the individual partnership.
Section 4.3 must be included as it appears below)
4.1
The partnership has been developed as a mutually beneficial enterprise
between APU’s Ashcroft International Business School and the Budapest
Business School, designed to meet the needs of recent graduates in
economics and related areas seeking careers within the rapidly changing
economic and business environment of Hungary.
4.2
It is based on mutual trust and loyalty and a desire to enhance the quality of
business education provided by both institutions through international cooperation.
4.3
The two institutions agree that the programmes continue to meet the
guidelines and requirements of relevant external bodies charged with
responsibility for monitoring quality and standards such as the Quality
Assurance Agency for Higher Education in the UK.
5.
Authorised Signatories of the Agreement
Signed on behalf of Anglia Polytechnic University:-
Signature:
M. Malone-Lee
Vice-Chancellor
Date:
Signed on behalf of the (…partner…)
Signature:
(…name…)
(…designation...)
Date:
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
35
(The following schedules are an example based on an agreement made
between APU’s Ashcroft International Business School and an international
partner. The detail should be adapted to ensure relevance to the individual
partnership.)
SCHEDULE A
ACADEMIC ARRANGEMENTS
A.1
Academic standards
A.1.1 The maintenance and enhancement of standards is the joint responsibility of
the teaching staff at both institutions under the leadership of (…e.g. the
Director of Studies…) at APU acting in co-operation with the (…e.g. Pathway
Leader…) at (…partner…).
A.1.2
The two leaders will ensure that the programme is delivered according
to the appropriate APU regulations and monitored through the quality assurance
processes and procedures established by the Senate of the University and the
(…partner…).
A.1.3 (…partner…) will ensure that its own regulations in respect of the programme
also meet the agreed requirements of APU’s regulations.
A.1.4 As the awarding institution, APU has ultimate responsibility for the academic
standards of the programme.
A.2
Programme Management and Liaison
A.2.1 Students will be recruited directly to the MA in International Business (MAIB)
and will study the entire programme at the Budapest Business School
(hereafter referred to as BBS). All assessments taken will be the same as
those taken by students following the MAIB at the Ashcroft International
Business School (hereafter referred to as AIBS).
A.2.2 The maintenance of operational liaison and effective communication between
the two programmes is the responsibility of the Director of Studies.
A.2.3 A Pathway Committee for the MAIB in Budapest, consisting of the Pathway
Leader, teaching team and student representatives, will be set up to monitor
the operation of the programme and consider student feedback in accordance
with APU requirements for the monitoring of standards.
A.2.4 The Pathway Committee will meet at least twice per year at BBS and report to
the Field Committee at APU.
A.2.5 The MAIB Pathway Leader at BBS will produce an annual course monitoring
report in consultation with the APU Field Leader. The report will be submitted
to the International Annual Monitoring Subcommittee (which reports to the
Academic Standards, Quality and Enhancement Committee of APU’s Senate)
and to the appropriate Regional Faculty Board through APU’s AIBS.
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
36
A.2.6 An executive Steering Committee will be set up to enable senior managers at
both institutions to monitor the overall direction of the programme and
manage the resource and staffing aspects. The Steering Committee
membership will be as follows:For APU:
The Dean of the AIBS (or nominee)\
The Director of Studies (Postgraduate)
The Field/Pathway Leader
For Budapest Business School:
Rector of BBS (or nominee)
Director of Postgraduate Studies
Pathway Leader
A.2.7 The Executive Steering Committee will ensure that necessary staff
development is implemented for individuals responsible for administering the
programmes and delivering modules at the BBS.
A.2.8 Any policy or operational matter leading to substantial differences of opinion
or unresolved difficulty will be referred in the first instance to the Dean of
AIBS and the Rector of BBS. In the event that the issue is not resolved the
matter will be referred to the Deputy Vice Chancellor at APU whose decision
is binding on both institutions.
A.3
Assessments and Awards
A.3.1 Assessment and examination procedures will be carried out in accordance
with the regulations and specifications set out in the definitive documentation
for the MAIB, namely the Pathway Specification Form (PSF), the associated
Module Definition Forms (MDFs) and the Student Handbook for the pathway.
A.3.2 All elements of assessment will be carried out through the medium of English.
A.3.3 The Director of Studies (Postgraduate) will ensure that the preparation,
moderation and administration of assignment and examination papers will
draw on the strengths of both institutions’ staff responsible for delivering the
modules and will be the result of close co-operation with the programme
team.
A.3.4 The responsibility for awarding the degree rests with the appropriate APU
Awards Board.
End of Schedule A
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
37
SCHEDULE B
OPERATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
B.1
Programme Promotion and Recruitment
B.1.1 BBS will be responsible for all promotional and recruitment activities relating
to the programme in Budapest.
B.1.2 BBS will ensure that all its marketing, publicity and other promotional material
describes the programme accurately and makes appropriate references to
APU.
B.1.3 APU will provide guidance on any such references and will monitor
publications through the Executive Steering Committee acting in liaison with
APU’s International Office. In accordance with precept 38 of the QAA Code of
Collaborative Provision, APU must have ultimate approval of publicity
material.
B.2
Admissions
B.2.1 BBS will be responsible for maintaining appropriate administrative facilities to
respond to enquiries, make offers and confirm places to potential students.
B2.2
Such processes will be carried out with due regard for entry requirements as
specified in the definitive documentation for the MAIB (as defined in Schedule
A, para A.3.1).
B.3
Enrolment
B.3.1 The Director Postgraduate of Studies or her nominee and the MA Pathway
Leader will be responsible for enrolling students at BBS before the start of the
programme and ensuring students are registered for the appropriate award.
B.3.2 The students will receive a handbook containing information relating to APU
regulations and procedures including provision for appeals and will have
access to appropriate student facilities at BBS and at APU.
B.3.3 The discipline of students will be the joint responsibility of the two institutions.
B.4
Delivery of the Programme
B.4.1 Each institution will have responsibility for providing the appropriate teaching
and learning resources relating to their respective elements of the
programme. A list of the names of staff and the modules which they are
responsible for delivering will be submitted to the Academic Office by AIBS (in
consultation with BSS) prior to the start of each academic year.
B.4.2 Both institutions will ensure appropriate access to learning resources
throughout the programme.
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
38
B.5
Awards and Conferment
B.5.1 The conferment of awards and the production of award certificates will be the
responsibility of APU.
B.5.2 Successful students, and staff, from BBS will be invited to attend the
appropriate Award Ceremony in Cambridge.
B.5.3 Both institutions will maintain appropriate archives of students’ results.
End of schedule B
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
39
SCHEDULE C
FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
C.1
Responsibilities of each Partner Institution
Each institution shall bear the direct costs incurred in the provision of the
parts of the programme which are its responsibility.
With regard to visits by staff from APU AIBS to BBS, to monitor the operation
of the programmes, travel, accommodation and subsistence costs will be paid
by APU.
C.2
Franchise Fees
C.2.1 In recognition of APU’s contribution and ownership as follows:1)
2)
3)
4)
Intellectual property
Provision of all assessments
External assessment
Quality assurance processes
A fee of € per semester per student is payable by Budapest Business School
to APU for the February 2003 intake, rising to € for the February 2005 intake
and € for the February 2007 intake. A minimum total franchise fee of € per
semester will be required by APU to discharge its responsibilities regardless
of the number of students recruited by BBS. If student numbers fall below the
agreed recruitment target the BBS may chose not to offer the programme in
any particular year.
C2.2
In the payment of fees due to APU actual exchange rates as reflected by
XE.com rates of transfer will apply.
C.2.3 In the event of exchange rates moving by more than 10% of those extant at
the time of signature of the Memorandum of Co-operation a new financial
arrangement will be negotiated.
C.2.4 Fees are payable by BBS to APU as follows:-By 30 April for the BBS MAIB
programme 1st semester;
By 30 November for the BBS MAIB programme 2nd semester.
End of Schedule C
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
40
Appendix 6
APU
ACADEMIC STANDARDS QUALITY AND ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE
(ASQEC)
The Approval of Outcentres
(including international Outcentres)
1.
Introduction
An APU School, a regional or international partner college, or another part of
the University may wish to propose, possibly in collaboration with a
professional or statutory body, that the delivery of particular module(s) or
programme(s) of study leading to an APU award be delivered at a non-APU,
off-campus site. Such an arrangement is known as an ‘Outcentre’ for which
approval in principle is required through the University’s normal planning
approval procedures. Academic approval is also required through the
University’s normal quality assurance procedures.
These guidelines explain the University’s processes for approving delivery in
an Outcentre.
2.
Definition
An Outcentre is the term used to describe regular delivery of a new or
existing pathway/course or a specific constituent modules(s) for a new or
existing pathway/course at a non-APU, off-campus site. Delivery may be by
existing APU staff, by new staff given contracts specifically for this delivery
or by a combination of staff in both categories.
An Outcentre is:
3.
(a)
not a franchise, which is the subcontracting to another educational
establishment to deliver all or part of a programme leading to an APU
or an Edexcel award;
(b)
not an external approval which is the delivery of the whole of a
programme of study in and by another educational institution, by their
staff;
(c)
not the recognition of credit (by the University’s Accreditation and
Approvals Committee), from modules or programmes delivered
elsewhere, for entry to APU’s programmes.
Planning Approval in Principle
3.1
Approval in principle to proceed with a proposed Outcentre must be
gained through normal planning approval processes. The proposing
School/College needs to start discussing at an early stage the financial
implications of delivery and should prepare detailed costings. Any
liaison necessary with a professional or statutory body (where
involved) should also take place at an early stage.
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
41
4.
3.2
The team proposing the Outcentre (hereafter called ‘the Proposal
Team’) should then liaise with the Quality Assurance Division (QAD)
(and the Regional Office and the International Office, if appropriate), to
gain advice and guidance on how to proceed with the quality
assurance process, which may vary in detail according to the
proposal.
3.3
During preparations for an Outcentre proposal it should be noted that
all Outcentre students will be fully entitled to join and use APU library
facilities. All other resources for the Outcentre provision should be in
place at the Outcentre or agreed in advance. APU cannot, without
prior agreement, enter into postal loans or a delivery service.
Quality assurance
Any proposed Outcentre delivery is approved under the remit of the
appropriate Regional Faculty Board (RFB). This is achieved through the
production of a document detailing the proposed Outcentre delivery,
followed by a visit of a Panel agreed by the RFB to the proposed Outcentre,
after which a report is submitted to the RFB for approval. Such approval is
specific to the delivery of the proposed modules, programme or award, and
is not an approval of the Outcentre institution to offer any other APU
programmes. Should other modules, programmes or awards be proposed
for delivery at an existing Outcentre, these will also require specific
approval.
If the programme/modules are newly designed, they will need initial
approval, followed by the approval of the proposed Outcentre delivery.
Where these two stages apply, they can occur on separate days or on the
same day. The Executive Officer, in QAD will clarify this with the Proposal
Team and Chair of the event at an early stage in the planning for the event.
The quality assurance stages are as follows:
4.1
Preparation of document
To obtain approval of an Outcentre delivery, the Proposal Team need
to prepare a document for approval by a Panel of the RFB.
Full guidance on initial approval or review and the documentation
required is contained in the Senate Code of Practice on the Approval,
Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review of Taught Programmes of
Study Procedural Document for 2003/4, Section 3. However, the
following areas must be specifically addressed in an Outcentre
submission proposal:

Rationale (for that specific location, for the use of Outcentre
delivery, and for the choice of that particular module(s),
programme, award);

Extent of proposal (modules or programme, enrolled students or
associate students, progression to APU);
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
42
4.2
4.3

Student experience (cohort size, travel and transport to and from
the Outcentre, selection and admission procedures, assessment);

Learning and other resources (eg. library, computers, classrooms,
recreational, welfare, other student services). The level of local
physical and learning resources that will be available to students
and the extent to which access to APU resources/facilities will
also be required needs to be described.

Staffing (existing APU staff or newly contracted/appointed staff,
their CVs and experience, and lists of which staff will teach which
modules);

Administrative support (who will be responsible for this and how
will it be managed at a distance);

Programme management (quality assurance, staff development,
student records and assessment);

A Supplier’s Contract (initially drafted by the Dean of School or a
designated member of the School’s senior management team).
Process Up to and including the approval event and visit
(i)
Developmental meetings and preparation of documentation;
(ii)
Submission of final proposal documentation (including draft
Supplier’s Contract) to QAD, prior to the RFB Panel meeting
and visit to the Outcentre;
(iii)
RFB Panel visit the Outcentre to check teaching and learning
resources, meet the staff and discuss the proposal;
(iv)
At the end of the discussions terms of approval are set. If
conditions of approval are set, these will need to be actioned
within the agreed timescale and approved by the RFB Panel.
After the approval event and visit
(i)
If the proposal is successful, the approved Pathway
Specification form, associated Module Definition Forms and
the Student Handbook for the pathway/course will need to be
produced;
(ii)
The Executive Officer in QAD will submit the confirmed report
to the RFB, for ratification;
(iii)
The outcome of the event will be logged on the relevant
AcStandbase;
(iv)
The draft Supplier’s Contract will be sent to the APU
Secretary and Clerk for comment and signature.
(v)
A separate Financial Agreement should be produced by the
Proposal Team in consultation with the Finance Department
and signed by the University and the Outcentre.
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
43
4.4
Monitoring and review
(i)
All standard APU processes apply to Outcentres. Namely:

The Outcentre should be covered by an external or
University assessor (as appropriate);

An annual monitoring report should be prepared for each
pathway/course. (Full details can be found in the Senate
Code of Practice on the Approval, Annual Monitoring and
Periodic Review of Taught Programmes of Study, Section
4). The annual monitoring report will be incorporated in
the Field report or College report (as appropriate);

The programme will be subject to periodic review, in
accordance with the terms of approval set. The periodic
review may include a visit to the Outcentre. This will be
determined by the Executive Officer and Panel Chair in
discussion with the team. Student views on their
experience will be sought including personal tutorial
support, IT and Library support etc.
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
44
Appendix 7
Register of Teaching Staff : procedures
Introduction
In accordance with the Senate Code of Practice on Collaborative Provision (and to
satisfy the requirements of QAA’s Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic
Quality and Standards in HE) the University maintains a Register of Teaching Staff
delivering APU’s teaching programmes in regional and international partner
institutions.
Staff included on this Register, which is compiled on a Regional Faculty Board basis,
are designated as “Lecturers of the Regional University, Faculty of ____”. The
suitability of staff for inclusion on the Register is initially scrutinised at the
pathway/course approval stage, based on the abbreviated CVs contained in the
proposal document. Subsequent changes to the Register are considered under
separate processes for staff in:


regional partner institutions (details are not attached)
international partner institutions (details are attached)
The Register
The University reserves the right to exclude from the Register any staff member who
is deemed unsuitable to contribute to delivery of a programme of study at higher
education level.
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
45
APU
ACADEMIC STANDARDS, QUALITY AND ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE
Flowchart for proposed changes to the Register of Teaching Staff:
International Partner Institutions
START HERE
International Partner Institution wishes to
change the staffing of an APU franchised
module
Partner Institution contacts the APU Programme Leader,
submits a rationale and an abbreviated CV for the new
staff member, and states which module(s) they will teach
The APU Programme Leader considers the
proposal, consulting relevant colleagues if
necessary
If ratified, the APU Programme
Leader informs the Partner
Institution, QAD Officer and the
International Office
If not ratified, the APU Programme
Leader provides feedback to the
Partner Institution and discusses
alternative solutions
QAD Officer updates Register of
Teaching Staff
Throughout this Procedural Document all italicised paragraph references in brackets relate to the
Senate Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, unless otherwise stated
46