Source: www.glos.ac.uk. All Rights Reserved. 2024 University of Gloucestershire
The University Executive Committee is responsible for all matters associated with the development and management of the university.
Last updated: 25 March 2024
Section 1 The Quality Framework
Section 2 Validation and Modification
Section 3 Annual Course Enhancement and Monitoring
Section 4 Periodic Review of Schools
Section 5 Collaborative Partnerships
Appendix 1.A Key Terms
Appendix 2.A Academic Strategy criteria for new proposals
Appendix 2.B New Course Approval Process
Appendix 2.Ci Membership of the UoG Development Team
Appendix 2.Cii University Membership of the Development Team for Collaborative Partner Developments
Appendix 2.D Definitive validation documentation
Appendix 2.E Validation criteria
Appendix 2.F External Consultation for Validations
Appendix 2.G Course and Module Modifications
Appendix 2.H Changes to Existing Provision that Require a Validation Process
Appendix 3.A Categorisation of Collaborative Partnerships
1.1 The University holds Degree Awarding Powers that enable it to confer both taught and research degrees. As an independent body, it has overall responsibility for the academic standards and quality of the qualifications it awards wherever and in what context that award is conferred including those awards validated for collaborative partners. The University has a well-deserved reputation for providing high quality and respected higher education and this Quality Handbook describes how it sets and maintains robust academic standards, and assures and enhances the quality of learning opportunities.
1.2 The Quality Framework underpins delivery of the ambition articulated in the Education Strategy 2022-2027, which has six goals:
Goal 1: Create and sustain a future-facing education that is inclusive, professionalised, and multi-disciplinary
Goal 2: Every student’s learning experience enables them to be flexible, professionalised, enterprising, ambitious for their own future, active in their own learning, and digitally literate
Goal 3: All staff in the university community as a whole are adept and agile, flexible, ambitious, comfortable with accountability and change, and digitally fluent
Goal 4: Our research activity complements and underpins our teaching priorities so that our teaching is truly research-rich, innovative, enterprising, and always current, and so that students are able to participate in appropriate research and knowledge-exchange pursuit
Goal 5: Develop and sustain academic and employer partnerships that help create and sustain globalised mindsets, enhance the professionalised and industry-led nature of our curriculum, and build our capacity for research with impact
Goal 6: We will develop and strengthen our systems and processes to ensure efficient and effective ways of working, enable continuous improvement, and support our high academic standards
1.3 The processes developed within the Quality Framework align with the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) UK Quality Code, the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG 2015) and the Office for Students Regulatory Framework for Higher Education in England (November 2022).
1.4 Our Quality Framework will:
a) Generate reliable information and prompt effective action.
b) Be fit for purpose and ensure purposes, procedures and outcomes are clearly communicated in order to engage the active and willing support of all those who use them.
c) Firstly meet the needs of students, staff, Academic Board and the University’s Council; secondly meet the requirements of external stakeholders and regulatory bodies.
d) Be flexible and responsive to future change.
1.5 The Quality Framework contains the following four integrated processes:
a) Validation and Modification
b) Annual Course Enhancement and Monitoring (ACEM)
c) Periodic Review of Schools
d) Partnership Approval and Review
Locating responsibility and accountability within schools
1.6 A key priority of the quality framework is the empowerment of Academic Course Leaders (ACLs), Associate Heads of School (AHoS), Deputy Heads of School (DHoS), and Heads of School (HoS) to ensure that responsibility for quality is located at the appropriate level within Schools.
Balancing Enhancement and Assurance
1.7 Combined with a risk management approach to quality, a focus on enhancement enables us to support innovation and build competence and resilience; to encourage risk-taking with appropriate mitigation rather than seeking to avoid risk.
Risk Management Approach
1.8 A risk management approach enables the quality framework to facilitate enhancement, innovation and the informed development of the university’s portfolio whilst also providing a proportionate response to any risks that may arise. A risk management approach enables the University to assess future potential risks and the ability of those in the provider role (e.g. a Course team, School and / or collaborative partner) to manage these risks. A risk management approach considers past performance of a School or partner but it also considers the competence of the provider going forward and the contexts within which it is operating now.
1.9 At various times, levels of risk are assessed for the Course or School. ACEM provides RAG-rated risk data to Course teams. AHoS and HoS will draw upon this information for School Continuous Review meetings.
1.10 Risk assessments may be undertaken as a SWOT analysis. A brief rationale will be required. A risk assessment is always informed by an agreed range of information (e.g. competitor analysis) and data (e.g. National Student Survey [NSS], Annual Course Evaluation [ACE], Graduate Outcomes). Information and data need to be supplemented by local knowledge of the external context, staffing issues and other resource issues and it is the analysis and contextualisation of this complete evidence base by those completing this task that makes this activity transformational rather than transactional.
1.11 RAG-rating uses traffic light colours to assign and clearly represent a level of risk. The University uses RAG-rating to trigger different levels of oversight of an activity/area possibly resulting in bespoke interventions drawing on different expertise or resource from within the University or externally.
Externality – active engagement with the subject / sector
1.12 Externality is central to our approach to enhancement, enabling us to learn from best practice and to use this to inform the continuous improvement of Schools and Courses. Staff are expected to remain cognisant of relevant sector-wide benchmarks and Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements. Colleagues are actively encouraged to engage with their subject communities nationally and where appropriate, internationally and to take on research activity, external examining, and other roles, perhaps within a PSRB, to ensure that the work of the University continues to be informed by best practice in each subject area.
1.13 Externality is fundamental to enhancement and assurance processes. Enhancement actively encourages innovation (risk taking) in learning and teaching and colleagues should be able to draw on suitable ‘expert’ resource both from within and outside of the University to facilitate this.
More and better student engagement
1.14 The student voice is an integral part of the enhancement process. Students are partners in their learning experience at the University; they and their representatives are actively involved in decision-making about their learning opportunities in different fora within the University. Equally the University expects collaborative partners to engage in a meaningful way with students and to demonstrate how this engagement is enhancing learning opportunities. Within Schools Course Representatives relate both to their ACL and to Student Voice Assistants, who meet regularly with AHoS. Different patterns of student engagement work for different courses and as long as the dialogue between students and the ACL is strong, constructive and leads to the enhancement of student learning opportunities, how this is achieved is of less importance.
Academic Governance
1.15 Whilst Academic Board retains overall responsibility, delegated authority for accountability and responsibility for enhancement is devolved to the School or, in some instances, a collaborative partner; with a risk management approach ensuring appropriate oversight is exercised. In this way our processes will be implemented proportionately.
1.16 Validation and Modification: These arrangements cover the development and approval of proposals for new courses for Home provision and for those that have been developed and brought forward by collaborative partners. The University’s validation criteria (Appendix 2.E) set out the expectations all new proposals are required to meet. The University will operate a staged process that includes confirmation of initial approval to proceed to validation based on the approval of a business case. The role of the HoS in implementing the risk management approach to the development during the first two stages of the process is important. All proposed course developments will be required to meet the criteria set out in Goal 1 of the Education Strategy (Appendix 2.A). Alongside this, the risk management approach considers the internal and external context, the capacity, capability and prior experience of the development team, in order to determine the level of risk each development presents. This information will be used to determine the amount of time, external and internal support and any other resources that will be required to empower the development team to bring the proposal to successful validation and launch. A Validation Standing Panel (VSP) will be established but the type of validation process and the level of external and internal scrutiny required will be proportional to the risk presented. Modifications to existing provision will be undertaken via the Standing Panel process but where appropriate (i.e. changes to indicative resources, indicative syllabus, module tutor or the brief description), these will be signed off within the School. Revalidation does not exist as a process at the University, so provision that requires change beyond the remit of the process for modifications will need to be brought forward as a new validation.
1.17 Annual Course Evaluation and Monitoring (ACEM): The ACEM cycle evaluates courses on an annual basis, developing action plans to improve quality, enhance the Student Experience, and support achievement of consistently improved NSS results, that will then feed into improved outcomes (continuation, completion, and progression), and ultimately Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) Gold in 2026/27. The ACEM Cycle has five steps:
1. ACEM Dashboard and RAG Rating (September), drawing on key teaching quality metrics.
2. Action Plans and Sharing Best Practice (September/ October), identifying key priorities, SMART objectives, best practice and any support needs.
3. Course Enhancement Meeting (October) to review and approve the Action Plan.
4. Course Enhancement Meeting (February) to review progress on and update the Action Plan.
5. End of Year Evaluation (June) to review progress and impact against each priority area for enhancement in the Action Plan and identify priorities to continue into the next Academic Year.
1.18 Periodic Review of Schools: is undertaken on a risk-assessed basis within a maximum six yearly cycle, with the particular focus of the review being informed by the risk profile of the School. Schools presenting a greater level of risk undertake periodic review more regularly and receive a greater level of scrutiny. Periodic Review of Schools addresses all the business of the School including teaching, research, business development, consultancy and collaborative provision. The panel includes external membership and internal membership from a different School, professional departments and the Students Union. Student representatives are invited to a meeting with the panel.
1.19 Partnership Approval and Review: The development of a new collaborative partnership has the potential to expose the institution to significant risk but the level of risk presented by each prospective partner varies. For this reason, central oversight and a risk management approach is required to ensure that risk is identified, and any mitigation agreed before the partnership is approved. It also enables the University to use finite resources responsibly to provide a proportionate level of scrutiny. Partnership Approval is the process through which the University undertakes rigorous due diligence prior to entering a partnership with another organisation. This process involves investigating the legal and financial standing of an organisation. In addition to this the University needs to ensure that a potential partner has the required policy, process and operating capacity to offer the University’s awards and credit. The process also assesses the University’s capacity to support the partnership arrangement.
1.20 Annual Business Review: ABR of collaborative partnerships ensures key indicators of the wellbeing of the partnership are actively considered, including the outcomes of any course enhancement reviews, and that any issues emerging within an existing partnership are addressed promptly. In addition, annual monitoring of partnership operations is achieved through the Annual Partnership Review meetings led by Academic Partnership Services, with relevant UoG colleagues and the Partner.
2.1 As a Degree Awarding Body (DAB) the University is responsible for setting and maintaining academic standards and assuring and enhancing the quality of learning opportunities in relation to all course design, development and approval activity. This responsibility relates to all the University’s awards including those validated for collaborative partners.
2.2 The validation of new courses and the modification of existing courses are two of the means through which the University ensures the level of our awards and qualifications aligns with the Higher Education Credit Framework and the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) UK Quality Code.
2.3 The UK Quality Code sets out the following Expectations, which higher education providers are required to meet:
Expectations for Standards
Expectations for Quality
2.4 The Quality Code core practice ‘Where a provider works in partnership with other organisations, it has in place effective arrangements to ensure that the academic experience is high-quality irrespective of where or how courses are delivered and who delivers them’ is also directly relevant as collaborative provision will fall within the remit of this process.
2.5 This section has been written for:
2.6 In addition you may find it helpful to look at flow-charts showing the sequence of key processes later in this document.
2.7 This section sets out the procedures for home and collaborative provision for:
2.8 Create and sustain a future-facing education that is inclusive, professionalised, and multi-disciplinary: All proposed and existing courses are required to meet the criteria set out in Goal 1 of the Education Strategy (Appendix 2.A), ensuring that those criteria remain a clear priority in all development activity. The modification process recognises that at times existing courses need to make minor changes to ensure they continue to meet the Education Strategy criteria.
2.9 The implementation of a risk management approach: All course development activity presents risks and these must be understood and addressed. To do this a risk management approach is implemented that identifies and considers the internal and external context, the capacity, capability and prior experience of the development team in order to determine the level of risk each development presents. For developments brought forward by collaborative partners a risk management approach ensures that the partner has the capacity to both develop and deliver the provision. The capacity of the University to actively support and manage the partnership is also considered. This information is used to determine the amount of time, external and internal support, and any other resources required to empower the development team to bring the proposal to successful validation and launch within the agreed timescale. Within the context of the modification of existing provision the risk management approach ensures that the level of scrutiny is proportionate to the significance of the change proposed and, if necessary, a course team may seek or be required to undertake a new validation.
2.10 An enhancement-led approach: The focus on enhancement at the academic development stage (Stage 2) defines the University’s approach to validation. If risks to a development are identified, we are committed to empowering the development team to address them; where necessary allocating additional targeted resource to enhance the development process and increase the likelihood of a successful academic validation and launch.
2.11 Externality: ensuring an independent view within the development and validation of new provision is a fundamental building block of our approach to the setting and maintenance of academic standards. In order to be transparent and publicly accountable, we make careful use of external academic and professional expertise during the development and validation of new courses. In relation to the modification of existing provision the external examiner for a course is fully involved by the academic course leader in any discussions around the modification process ensuring an independent perspective.
2.12 Validation: a summary of the process
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
2.13 The purpose of the validation of new provision and the modification of existing provision is to ensure a rigorous, transparent approval process that can be recorded and the agreed outcomes disseminated quickly and easily to those within and beyond the university who need to have this information.
2.14 Stage 1
a) Most potential new course developments arise from strategy discussions within Schools, with scoping of the possible development being supported by the School’s leadership and other stakeholders.
b) Collaborative Partners wishing to develop additional courses should have discussions about proposed new developments with Academic Partnership Services (APS) who will ensure the appropriate school/s is drawn into these discussions in a timely way. Most new developments will be discussed at the Annual Partnership Review meetings. It is important to ensure the knowledge and full support of the School that will have academic oversight of the proposed course. A designated ALT for the partnership will complete the NCA process in consultation with others in the School and University (Appendix 2.B).
c) For home provision, in consultation with professional departments Schools should submit a new course proposal via the NCA system (Appendix 2.B), to include evidence that the following have been considered:
d) Consultation with the following professional departments:
e) HoS are responsible for approving all new course proposals for submission to AAC, accompanied by their assessment of the particular challenges each development presents and the capacity of the development team / School to manage these (Appendix 2.B). For existing Collaborative Partners, Academic Partnership Services will provide a brief assessment about the current operations of the partner. This information will inform a proposal for the level of external consultation and targeted internal support that will be required to enable the development team / School to complete the work successfully.
f) AAC only approves new course proposals to proceed to validation if they meet the criteria set out within Goal 1 of the Education Strategy (Appendix 2.A). Proposals that do not meet these criteria are turned down and may be returned to the school for further development.
g) All resource requirements for new Collaborative Partnerships are signed off at University Executive Board (UEB). For additional courses at existing Collaborative Partners, HoS are required to confirm their support for the proposal and to commit to resourcing it from within their School. Resource requirements for home provision are considered by AAC when the proposal is approved but exceptionally resources may be revisited by the appropriate committee prior to validation if issues arise during the development phase that make this necessary.
h) AAC considers the potential risk the development presents in order to confirm:
i) It is recognised that exceptionally some proposals will not be able to align with the standard annual development cycle and such proposals will be considered by AAC as they arise providing one or more of the following additional criteria are met.
2.15 Stage 2
a) For home provision the School is responsible for the development of the course and a development team leader should be identified prior to AAC approval. Membership of the development team (Appendix 2.Ci) will include representation from Library, Technology & Information Services (LTI).
b) A partner is responsible for the development of their proposals that have been approved by AAC to proceed to validation. AAC will ensure that an Academic Link Tutor (ALT) has been appointed to provide academic advice and support on the development. A partner developing a course for validation will also be supported by Academic Partnership Services.
c) The development team is tasked with producing the definitive documentation for the proposed course (Appendix 2.D).
d) The academic development of the course is enhancement-led and this is clearly reflected in the way targeted support for the development process is provided:
e) The amount and format of external consultation required will vary according to the nature of the development and the particular challenges that pertain. For developments that require significant support, external consultation arrangements will include a requirement for a report covering agreed areas including academic level and the use of external reference points (Appendix 2.F). This formal external consultation could take place at one or more points in the development process and exceptionally more than one external academic consultant could be involved. External academic consultation could take place by correspondence or could include a meeting with the development team. At the other end of the scale, where the course is a direct replacement for provision that is being phased out, it may be appropriate to draw on the expertise of the current External Examiner. Whatever arrangement is agreed, a formal response from the development team is required to all the feedback provided by external consultants, indicating what if any changes to their proposals have resulted from the feedback received.
f) Student representatives are important stakeholders who are consulted on all proposals being developed in their subject area but they do not usually attend development team meetings. Where a new subject area is being developed, the Students’ Union (SU) may be invited to nominate a representative to meet with the development team to discuss the proposals. Collaborative partners developing new provision are expected to have equivalent systems in place to ensure that they engage students appropriately in the development of new provision.
g) Collaborative partners submit draft validation documentation to the ALT who will forward it to the HoS once they have confirmed it is ready. Draft validation documentation for home provision is submitted to the HoS, via the AHoS Quality and Student Success. In signing off the documentation the HoS is making a judgment that it meets the validation criteria (Appendix 2.E) and that the resource arrangements they agreed remain valid. Validation documentation is only submitted to the Quality team for validation once it has been signed off by the HoS.
h) For UK collaborative proposals, if a tour of the partner facilities will not be possible as part of the Validation/Delivery Approval event then a separate Location of Delivery event will need to be organised. For international developments, submission of a video of the partner’s facilities highlighting areas relevant to the programmes will be required alongside confirmation in writing of the equipment and resources available.
2.16 Stage 3
a) The academic validation is overseen by either a Validation Standing Panel (VSP), a sub-group of AAC, or by a Bespoke Validation Panel. It is the responsibility of the VSP and the Panel of a Bespoke Validation event to confirm that:
b) The VSP may make the following decisions:
c) The validation process incorporates a risk management approach and therefore provides a level of scrutiny that is proportionate to the potential risk to which the development exposes the institution. Options will include:
d) The University’s validation criteria require that every course:
e) A VSP will usually include:
f) A bespoke validation event will usually include:
NB: Bespoke events for Collaborative Proposals will generally be held at the proposed location of delivery, but can be held via Teams. There will be meetings with the Partner Senior Management Team, representatives from the student body (usually students studying in the proposed new programme’s subject area) and a meeting with the development/teaching team.
g) The Chair of VSP will be the Director of Quality, Learning and Teaching or nominee.
h) AHoS Quality and Student Success are members of VSP and will usually act as internal readers.
i) All members of the VSP should have access to the validation documentation two weeks prior to the VSP meeting.
j) VSP discussion should focus on the content of the validation paperwork, on the development process to date, and on the development team’s response to the external consultation they have received.
k) VSP meetings are officered by a Quality Administrator.
l) VSP makes a recommendation to AAC regarding the outcome of every development considered.
2.17 The modification of existing provision is designed to enable changes to the definitive validation documentation to be managed securely but efficiently, ensuring that they are properly recorded and communicated to all those who need to know. Modifications fall into three categories (defined by the Course and Module Modifications document):
a) Minor module modifications are signed off at the level of the School without wider consultation (brief description, indicative syllabus, indicative resources, learning and teaching activities, module tutor).
b) Major module modifications require consultation with the EE and with students. These changes can be actioned by the School once evidence of agreement has been provided to Academic Quality Services (AQS) and permission given (module learning outcomes and assessment).
NB: multiple category B modifications may be treated as a category C change to a Course. Teams contemplating a number of individual modifications should discuss their plans with AQS to make sure that they use the correct process. AQS may refer the proposals to the Chair of VSP for a decision on the type of scrutiny to be undertaken.
c) Major Course level modifications require submission to and approval by VSP.
2.18 Modifications: the process
a) The process for the approval of modifications to existing provision mirrors the standing panel process with all business considered being either minimal or low risk.
b) Prior to submission to the standing panel ACLs must consider and address the implications for franchise delivery and for courses which adopt their modules when making changes to provision. Evidence of consultation with affected courses must be included in the paperwork submitted.
2.19 Change of Award Title
a) An application for a change of an existing award title is a significant change for a course team to request because, if approved, a new course code is required; recruitment is suspended to the existing provision; and the phasing out of the existing course must be dovetailed with the introduction of the new award title. The expectation should be for continuing students to remain on the phasing out award unless there are pressing reasons for this not to be the case. The School should carefully consider ways to safeguard the experience and outcomes of students on both old and new awards when making an application for a change of award title.
b) The effective management of communications with existing and prospective students is essential as is the need to be mindful of Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) requirements and the timely communication with staff from a range of professional departments and those within the school.
c) Academic Affairs Committee (AAC) receives the completed form and the appended supporting evidence from:
2.20 Other Course Changes
a) Schools can also seek to introduce either new award title/s or a new/additional mode of delivery for a Course. Again, these are significant changes which require AAC approval because of the implications for portfolio management and student experience.
b) The effective management of communications with existing and prospective students is essential as is the need to be mindful of CMA requirements and the timely communication with staff from a range of professional departments and those within the school.
c) AAC receives the completed form, including the rationale and any appended supporting evidence.
2.21 Changes to Schools
a) Schools are key strategic units of the university, providing a focus for academic endeavour and the student experience. They are also critical organisational units by which its systems and resources are configured. It is therefore important for proposed changes to be appropriately considered and approved through the academic governance framework in order to ensure that all necessary stakeholders are formally consulted and informed of changes.
b) Wider debate and consultation is encouraged and Heads of School who are considering changes should, when appropriate, discuss proposals with their staff and colleagues from Professional Services before proceeding through the proposed process. In terms of the establishment or removal of a School, it is anticipated that such discussions will be led by UEB and, as such, will not necessarily follow this procedure in every detail. However, it is anticipated that these major changes should still be reported through the academic governance framework via AAC and Academic Board as outlined below.
c) A brief proposal summary paper should be presented to AAC by the Head of School. Examples of the areas to cover are included in Appendix 2k. AAC should discuss the proposal in more detail, particularly to anticipate potential implications and formulate any action plans that might be necessary depending on the proposal (e.g. who will be responsible for messaging to students if required). Following discussion a recommendation should be made by AAC to Academic Board where, if appropriate, approval of the proposal will be recorded.
2.22 General Arrangements
Prior to the beginning of each academic year dates for validation standing panels are confirmed. Additional dates will be added if business increases. VSPs will be stood down if there is no business to consider.
3.1 The UK higher education system is based on the principle of the autonomy and responsibility of the degree-awarding body in terms of the academic standards of the awards it offers and the quality of the learning opportunities it provides for students.
3.2 The process for Annual Course Enhancement and Monitoring (ACEM) has been informed by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) UK Quality Code, Advice and Guidance on Monitoring and Evaluation.
3.3 The UK Quality Code, core practice ‘Where a provider works in partnership with other organisations, it has in place effective arrangements to ensure that the academic experience is high-quality irrespective of where or how courses are delivered and who delivers them’ is also directly relevant as collaborative provision will fall within the remit of this process.
3.4 This section is also informed by both the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG 2015) and the Office for Students Regulatory Framework for Higher Education in England (February 2018).
3.5 ACEM is a first process within the University’s internal quality framework, the means by which the University exercises its responsibility for quality and academic standards. All University courses, including franchised and validated provision, are included in this process.
3.6 This section has been written for:
The University’s Academic Strategy
3.7 ACEM is the process through which the University demonstrates that the academic portfolio continues to achieve the ambitions of the University’s Education Strategy:
Ambition: The Education of the Future
3.8 Through ACEM all existing courses are required to demonstrate that they continue to meet the criteria set out in the Education Strategy’s Goals 1, 2 and 4.
An enhancement-led approach:
3.9 The purpose of the ACEM cycle is to evaluate courses on an annual basis and develop action plans to improve quality, enhance the Student Experience, and support achievement of consistently improved National Student Survey (NSS) results, that will then feed into improved outcomes (continuation, completion, and progression), and ultimately Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) Gold in 2026/27.
3.10 ACEM is underpinned by the concept of the timely consideration of relevant data inputs, leading to prompt intervention to address issues and to enhance provision.
3.11 The process is focused on action to enhance the learning opportunities available to the students that enable them to meet the course outcomes. Course teams will be directed to use the data available to them to identify key enhancement goals, to plan carefully for and then work steadily towards their achievement.
3.12 ACEM is also designed to meet the needs of Course teams to receive, consider and respond to the range of sources of data pertaining to the provision received during the year rather than waiting until the autumn to consider and plan a response to all the data received in the previous academic year. ACEM offers the significant advantage that students may benefit personally from a course team responding to feedback within the current academic year.
3.13 ACEM is an enhancement-led process and while the consideration of data leads to action to enhance the course; on its own this is more likely to result in incremental rather than transformational change. By requiring course teams to plan for and undertake an annual larger scale enhancement event or activity, usually towards the end of the academic year, ACEM empowers course teams to reflect upon where they are and to plan for a leap forward.
3.14 At each point in the cycle Course teams will consider what it is that would take the Course from being satisfactory / good / great to being good / great / outstanding. The answer/s to this question will be reported in the Course Action Plan to inform the ongoing ACEM process.
3.15 Externality: Externality within ACEM is provided by the External Examiner (EE). Within their reports EEs are asked to comment on academic standards, Course currency, student achievement, and the quality of learning opportunities. EE reports are one of the sources of information that form the evidence base for ACEM. In addition to the externality provided by EEs, on some courses further externality will be provided by PSRB reports.
3.16 The ACEM Cycle has five steps:
September:
Courses given a Course Average Score (CAS) and then a RAG rating, based on NSS results.
September/October:
Course teams develop action plans, using other relevant data and inputs, engaging with stakeholders.
October:
Course Enhancement Meeting 1
February
Course Enhancement Meeting 2
June
End of year Evaluation
1. ACEM Dashboard and RAG Rating – for undergraduate courses
3.17 National Student Survey (NSS) results are released annually during the summer. Once released the four NSS metrics used by the Times Higher to determine Teaching Quality will be used to create a Course Average Score (CAS) for each University of Gloucestershire Academic Course. The four NSS metrics that make up the Times Higher Teaching Quality are:
3.18 The Course Average Score for each Course will be RAG Rated based on the following criteria:
3.19 Where NSS metrics are not available Annual Course Evaluation (ACE) Survey Teaching Quality metrics will be used to calculate the Course Average Score. Where NSS and ACE Survey metrics are not available the Course Average Score will be blank and the Academic Course will be shaded a pale red. RAG Ratings, NSS Teaching Quality and ACE Overall Score will be circulated to ACLs via the ACEM Dashboard in August.
3.20 Validated partner courses will use equivalent data sources, sourced by the partner, with guidance from Academic Partnerships.
2. Action Plans and Sharing Best Practice
3.21 A single Action Plan should be created for each Academic Course, at undergraduate and postgraduate level. The ACEM process covers both University of Gloucestershire home and collaborative provision. The Action Plan should be completed by the ACL in conjunction with the course team. Where a Collaborative Partner offers a franchised UoG Course, the UoG ACL must also consider this provision within the action plan for the Course. Where a Collaborative Partner offers provision validated by UoG, the partner ACL must complete the Action plan. Other stakeholders should also be consulted, where relevant, for example:
3.22 The latest NSS results and internal Course Average Score (CAS) RAG Rating should form the basis of the Action Plan. Additional sources of information, which may inform the Action Plan and Course Evaluation Meetings (CEM), are:
3.23 The ACEM Action Plan Template has seven sections:
i) Course Information
ii) Priorities and Actions (2 to 4 Priorities)
iii) Sharing Good Practice
iv) Support Required
v) Approval – Action Plan
vi) End of Year Evaluation
vii) Approval – End of Year Evaluation
Sections i to iv of the Action Plan should be completed before the first Course Enhancement Meeting in October so they can be reviewed during that meeting.
Section vi of the Action Plan should be completed in June.
i. Course Information should contain the following information:
ii. Priorities and Actions should identify key priority areas for enhancement (e.g. teaching, learning opportunities, assessment and feedback, academic support, course organisation and management, other), along with associated SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) actions. Priorities can be added/deleted as needed, and should be manageable to action over the year.
At the October and February Course Enhancement Meetings progress towards success criteria against the actions for each area of enhancement should be included in the relevant boxes.
iii. Sharing Good Practice should identify elements of good practice, their positive impact on the student experience, and set out how they will be shared across the School and wider University.
iv. Support Required should list any training or support required from the Academic Development Unit (ADU) or other Professional Service to support course enhancement.
v. Approval – Action Plan should contain the following information:
The finalised Action Plan should be signed off by the HoS or AHoS QSS.
Action Plans should then be saved in the relevant area of the Annual Course Enhancement and Monitoring Teams site.
vi. End of Year Evaluation should reflect on progress over the past year and identify key priority areas for enhancement to continue into the next year.
vii. Approval – End of Year Evaluation should contain the following information:
The end of year Evaluation should be signed off by the HoS or AHoS QSS. The updated Action Plan should be saved in the relevant area of the Annual Course Enhancement and Monitoring Teams site.
3. Course Enhancement Meetings (CEM)
3.24 CEMs will take place in October and February. The October CEM will review and approve the Action Plan. The February CEM will review progress against the Action Plan and incorporate the latest data on course enhancement. Engagement with stakeholders should be reflected on, including the Student Voice through the Student Course Representative mechanisms and any discussions with industry or PSRBs.
4. End of Year Evaluation
3.25 The End of Year Evaluation will take place in June. It will review progress and impact against each priority area for enhancement in the Action Plan and identify priorities to continue into the next Academic Year.
3.26 The outcomes of ACEM will be provided to Collaborative Partners through Partnership Boards.
3.27 The report containing the final set of ACEM outcomes for the institution will be presented to Academic Affairs Committee (AAC). This report will identify any key themes for institutional development including any good practice that requires further dissemination.
3.28 This report on ACEM will become part of the Annual Assurance Statement on the operation and outcomes of the University’s Enhancement Framework that will be presented annually to Academic Board. This report will also inform the Annual Business Review
3.29 The annual AAC report on the operation and outcomes of the University’s Enhancement Framework will be submitted to University Council as part of the wider reporting that will ensure Council have the oversight they require of the operation of the University’s arrangements for the assurance of academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities offered to students.
3.30 The DQTL will identify institutional enhancement themes arising from ACEM and will be responsible for the development of an action plan reflecting various means of addressing these (e.g. the provision of reusable learning objects and other staff development activity). AAC will have oversight of this action plan.
4.1 The UK higher education system is based on the principle of the autonomy and responsibility of the degree-awarding body in terms of the academic standards of the awards it offers and the quality of the learning opportunities it provides for students.
4.2 The process for the periodic review of schools has been informed by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) UK Quality Code, Advice and Guidance on Monitoring and Evaluation.
4.3 The UK Quality code recognises that periodic review may happen at a number of levels. The University has identified continuous monitoring and improvement as a fundamental element of its Learning Design principles. As this is articulated through the ACEM process for Courses (see Section 3), the University has chosen to implement a periodic review process at the level of the School.
4.4 The UK Quality Code, core practice ‘Where a provider works in partnership with other organisations, it has in place effective arrangements to ensure that the academic experience is high-quality irrespective of where or how courses are delivered and who delivers them’ is also directly relevant as collaborative provision will fall within the remit of this process.
4.5 This section is also informed by both the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG 2015) and the Office for Students Regulatory Framework for Higher Education in England (February 2018).
4.6 This section has been written for:
4.7 Periodic Review of Schools has been designed to ensure that all aspects of School business are aligned with the University’s mission, Strategic Plan, Corporate and Education strategies. The ambition articulated in the Education Strategy has six goals:
Goal 1: Create and sustain a future-facing education that is inclusive, professionalised, and multi-disciplinary.
Goal 2: Every student’s learning experience enables them to be flexible, professionalised, enterprising, ambitious for their own future, active in their own learning, and digitally literate.
Goal 3: All staff in the university community as a whole are adept and agile, flexible, ambitious, comfortable with accountability and change, and digitally fluent
Goal 4: Our research activity complements and underpins our teaching priorities so that our teaching is truly research-rich, innovative, enterprising, and always current, and so that students are able to participate in appropriate research and knowledge-exchange pursuit.
Goal 5: Develop and sustain academic and employer partnerships that help create and sustain globalised mindsets, enhance the professionalised and industry-led nature of our curriculum, and build our capacity for research with impact.
Goal 6: We will develop and strengthen our systems and processes to ensure efficient and effective ways of working, enable continuous improvement, and support our high academic standards.
4.8 The Education Strategy provides guidance and focus for all academic activity to ensure it actively contributes to the goals set out in the University’s Strategic Plan 2022-27:
4.9 In this way the Education Strategy ensures that the University’s academic endeavour contributes directly to the University’s Mission – ‘Founded on values, centred on students, focused on learning’ – and Vision – ‘Changing your world so that you can change ours’ – more fully articulated within the three statements below:
4.10 The implementation of a risk management approach: A detailed risk assessment informs the development of the briefing document for the Periodic Review and so from the outset the Periodic Review Panel is focused on areas of specific risk and opportunity for the School that need to be addressed by the review process. This document will be used to inform:
4.11 The Periodic Review culminates in a set of recommendations. The recommendations are submitted to AAC for consideration and if approved the School develops an action plan for the implementation of the recommendations. This is updated regularly and AAC monitors progress. The outcomes of Periodic Review not only enable a clearer understanding of events in the past but will engender a much greater understanding of the capacity, capability and resilience of the School to manage different aspects of its business going forward. This information builds institutional learning in relation to the mitigation of risk and the development of increased capability and resilience within Schools and the wider University.
4.12 An enhancement-led approach: The Periodic Review will culminate in a set of recommendations and will identify areas for the professional development of the staff team within the School or collaborative partner. Rather than purely identifying the risks or potential threats to the work of a School we are committed to empowering those within the School to address them, where necessary allocating additional targeted resource to support and facilitate this learning.
4.13 Externality: In order to be transparent and publicly accountable, the Periodic Review of Schools process makes careful use of external academic and professional expertise through the appointment of external panel members and through enabling the views of external stakeholders (e.g. External Examiners, employers, PSRB representatives) to inform the Periodic Review process. In addition, drawing on colleagues from across the University to act as additional panel members provides a useful opportunity for institutional learning and the sharing of good practice.
4.14 The purpose of the Periodic Review is to help a School to reflect on the previous cycle and to learn from this; to identify key priorities and challenges and to work with them to agree how these should be addressed. Potential focus areas include:
a) The external environment within which the School is operating.
b) The management and leadership of the School.
c) The School’s key areas of business, e.g. the academic portfolio, teaching, research, consultancy, collaborative provision, international students.
d) Teaching, learning and assessment.
e) Work with professional departments: e.g. CMSR, Estates, Library and Information Services, ADU, and Academic Registry.
f) The alignment and engagement of the School with the University’s internal priorities, e.g. the Education Strategy, Your Future Plan, Graduate Outcomes, Personal Tutor Scheme.
g) Student engagement, achievement, progression and destination.
h) Staffing: appointment, development and scholarly activity.
4.15 Periodic Review of Schools: a summary of the process
4.16 Periodic Review of Schools operates on a regular cycle but the risk management approach may identify the need for a School to undergo Periodic Review within a shorter timeframe. A schedule for the review of schools is drawn up so that HoS know in good time when their review is due.
4.17 A Periodic Review of Schools planning document template is provided which, on completion, will contain all the arrangements and deadlines for the Review and is submitted as a draft document to AAC for approval.
4.18 The administrative arrangements will be undertaken by the officer from the Quality team.
4.19 A Chair for the Review will be appointed by DQLT and University Executive Board (UEB).
4.20 The Chair, in consultation with UEB, is responsible for the appointment of the panel, including the appointment of one or more external panel members with suitable senior experience and relevant discipline knowledge. Usually the panel membership will include:
4.21 Consideration should be given to the appointment of additional internal and external panel members to reflect the focus of the review.
4.22 A meeting will take place between the Chair of the panel, the DQTL and the HoS due to undergo periodic review to confirm the scope of the review and what meetings are required. If possible the EPMs will join the meeting either in person or remotely. If not, the Chair of the panel will need to brief the EPMs after the meeting. This meeting will usually take place about four weeks prior to the review.
4.23 The Chair of the Panel provides a detailed planning brief to include a list of any further preparatory work needed, the meetings they wish to have during the Review; a list of the names of those required to attend the meetings and also any specific evidence required for the review in addition to the standard overview document with links to the set of information and data.
4.24 EPMs are briefed by the Chair and then given access to the information and data they require so that they can undertake their preparatory work.
4.25 The officer circulates an electronic agenda and any papers for the event 10 working days prior to the review.
4.26 The HoS is responsible for coordinating the invites to the attendees for each meeting.
4.27 The Periodic Review of School event opens with a meeting of the Panel to confirm the process for the review and the focus of each meeting. The pattern of meetings for the event comprises meetings with different groups followed by panel meetings.
4.28 The focus of each meeting and possibly the number of meetings will depend upon the agreed areas for discussion.
4.29 After the final meeting the Periodic Review Panel may choose to provide some brief verbal feedback to the HoS and members of the team.
4.30 The record of the event will be the minutes of each meeting and the set of recommendations agreed by the Panel.
4.31 The HoS is invited to comment on the draft recommendations before they are confirmed, and presented to AAC. Once a set of recommendations are approved by AAC the HoS is asked to draw up an action plan for the implementation of the recommendations and progress made in relation to this work is overseen by AAC.
4.32 Once the recommendations are approved by AAC the HoS presents them to the School Management meeting where they inform the cycle of School planning and development.
4.33 AAC also identifies any key themes for institutional development to be progressed by the DQTL who also oversees the dissemination of good practice identified within the School during the Periodic Review process.
5.1 As a Degree Awarding Body (DAB) the University is responsible for setting and maintaining academic standards and assuring and enhancing the quality of learning opportunities in relation to all course design, development and approval activity. This responsibility relates to all the University’s awards including those validated for collaborative partners.
5.2 The approval of new partnerships and the review of existing partnerships provides us with an opportunity to appraise any partnership to ensure that the University is assured of the academic and operational standards at the partner institution.
5.3 This section of the handbook has been informed by the indicators and guidelines in the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) UK Quality Code core practice ‘Where a provider works in partnership with other organisations, it has in place effective arrangements to ensure that the academic experience is high-quality irrespective of where or how courses are delivered and who delivers them.’
5.4 This section has been written:
5.5 This section sets out the procedures for:
5.6 Additional briefing notes are available for:
5.7 In line with the University’s approach to the management of risk the following processes have been designed to be applied flexibly. This approach considers past performance of the School and partner (the provider) but it also considers the competence of the provider going forward and the contexts within which the partnership operates now.
5.8 At various times, levels of risk are assessed for the Course or Partner. ACEM provides RAG-rated risk data to Course teams. AHoS and HoS will draw upon this information for School Continuous Review meetings.
5.9 The Partner is required to provide a range of information (see the ACEM Report Template for Collaborative Partners) and data (e.g. National Student Survey [NSS], Annual Course Evaluation [ACE], Graduate Outcomes). This information and data will inform the ACEM and APR processes.
5.10 For prospective partners, the approval process provides the opportunity to fully appraise a potential new partner through understanding their legal and financial standing and institutional policies and practice. It enables confirmation of the strategic fit in terms of both organisations’ missions and objectives. Finally, through this process UoG ensures that both organisations have the appropriate core competencies to enter into the partnership.
5.11 Appendix 4.A provides information of the Categorisation of Collaborative Partnerships, with level one typically presenting a lower level of risk than a level seven arrangement. It is acknowledged that these categories merely provide easily identifiable ‘standard’ activity and a risk management approach will be taken with activity that falls between categories. The approval and monitoring of activity is undertaken using an approach that is consistent with the level of risk.
(For all partnership proposals where UoG credit is being delivered or supported by partner institutions [excluding placements].)
5.12
5.13 The approval of new partnerships is managed through Academic Partnership Services (APS) based within Academic Registry.
5.14 Approaches for new partnerships can come from a variety of sources – through APS, Schools or direct approaches to the University. All potential partners will be asked to complete an online questionnaire providing initial details. This is reviewed by HoS and HoAPS.
5.15 In some cases a quick decision is made by the Head of Academic Partnership Services and/or Head of School (HoS) if they do not want to progress the discussions. If the discussions are to progress, all prospective new partners are requested to attend a formal meeting to discuss further.
5.16 Proposals which are not progressed past this point are documented within APS, confirming why the partnership was not progressed.
5.17 HAPS will work with the School/s, with Finance and Planning, and with the potential partner to provide further documentation required (including legal, financial and process due diligence) to prepare and submit a business case to UEB/ULG.
5.18 Outcomes of the due diligence together with the business case will be presented at UEB/ULG for consideration. HoS from the subject area/s, together with the HAPS and Finance will attend UEB/ULG to present the proposal.
5.19 Following approval from UEB/ULG to proceed to partnership approval, the APS team will manage the formal approval process and report the recommendations to the AAC, for information.
5.20 For each Course delivered by a partner organisation the University needs to confirm that the partner has the resources (both physical and human) to deliver specific provision. In addition, the University requires confirmation that the host School has the capacity to manage its responsibilities for quality assurance and enhancement. The Delivery Approval process enables these assurances to be gained.
5.21
5.22 The Delivery Approval process assesses the partner’s ability to delivery specific Courses at a specific location. As such, the University appraises the partner’s capacity to deliver each Course in terms of appropriate staffing, learning resources, student support, and learning and social facilities. The process further explores the capacity of the School to support the development and confirms the operational activities to facilitate the delivery of the course.
5.23 For new partnerships offering franchise provision, the Delivery Approval investigations should be held as a separate Delivery Approval event. For existing partners offering additional franchise provision, a Delivery Approval event will still be required for the new provision. Reports and recommendations are submitted to AAC for approval.
5.24 For new partnerships offering validated provision, the Delivery Approval event is carried out at the same time as the validation of the new award. A separate Partnership Approval event will be held prior to any validation or delivery approval events. Reports and recommendations are submitted to AAC for approval.
5.25 For additional sites for delivery with an existing partner a Location of Delivery Report is compiled by the APS and/or ALT/ACL (where subject expertise is required) and submitted to the AAC to for assurance.
5.26 ACEM (see section 3 for details) is a required process for reviewing all University courses, including those delivered by collaborative partner organisations. It is key for ensuring excellent student and teaching experience, driving student attainment and satisfaction, and empowering teams to deliver course enhancement.
Collaborative Partner ACEM Guidance
Collaborative Partner ACEM Cycle Schedule
Collaborative Partner ACEM Glossary
Collaborative Partner ABR Data Report Template
5.27 In addition to reviewing individual courses offered at collaborative partner organisations, the University also conducts a process for periodic and annual review of partnerships at the institutional level. The timeframe this happens will be specified in the contract but will not exceed 5 years.
5.28 Partnerships are usually approved for a period of 5 years which is stipulated in the Collaborative Partnership Agreement/Contract. Prior to the expiry of the Agreement, the University will take the opportunity to re-appraise the arrangement. The legal and financial due diligence will be re-visited and the operations of the partnership will be fully re-appraised.
Periodic Partnership Review: a summary of the process
5.29
5.30 Annual Partnership Review (APR) is carried out to provide an institutional context for the oversight of individual partner courses. It informs the University of any significant developments within the partner institution and allows for a discussion about potential additional developments within the partnership. It evaluates the operation of the partnership, the quality of provision, and provides a formal means by which there is a mutual exchange on generic matters affecting the partnership.
5.31
5.32 In addition to the approval and review processes outlined above, the University undertakes an Annual Business Review (ABR) of all collaborative partners. The ABR, chaired by the Vice Chancellor, provides UEB with strategic oversight of collaborative provision. This ‘committee’ is comprised of relevant members of UEB and ULG. Reporting to this committee is carried out by APS.
5.33 APS lead the collation of information and evidence from colleagues across the University to provide a comprehensive appraisal of each partnership with recommendations for future action relating to each specific arrangement.
5.34 The ABR can make the decision to terminate partnership agreements. If such a decision is made, the termination of the arrangement will follow the University standard process for this as outlined below.
5.35 The ABR main meeting will be held annually in July.
5.36 The University is committed to developing and maintaining effective partnerships which assure the quality and standards of its awards whilst at the same time bringing mutual benefits to both institutions.
5.37 Although all University colleagues may liaise with and support collaborative partnerships, there are a number of key areas and people who take direct responsibility for the management and support of collaborative arrangements.
5.38 Academic Partnerships Services (APS) is based within Academic Registry. APS have responsibility for the strategic leadership and effective development and management of Academic Partnerships, providing an expert, customer (partner)-focused, centralised service for collaborative provision at UoG, with a ‘boutique’ collection of UK and overseas strategic partners. The key functions of APS are:
5.39 Academic Link Tutors (ALTs): In addition to APS, ALTs play a specific role in liaison with validated provision collaborative partners. This role is mentioned throughout this Quality Handbook and additional information about the role is detailed in the ALT Handbook. For partners with franchise provision, liaison will lie with the UoG ACL and Module Tutors working with their counterparts at the Partner.
5.40 APS has operational oversight of the work of ALTs within specific partnerships, providing continuous central support and guidance for these roles operating ‘in the field’ as well as working closely with Registry and Academic Services colleagues to ensure effective local administrative support for collaborative activities.
5.41 ALTs are academic colleagues who are appointed by the School to provide support and guidance to a partner at a subject level for validated provision. The main role of the ALT is to support the academic delivery of collaborative provision offered through partners to ensure that standards and quality are maintained; and that the Partner’s Course team are working in accordance with University policy and procedure.
5.42 The decision to terminate a partnership may be taken by the University or by a collaborative partner. Partnership termination should always be carried out in line with the terms of the Partnership Agreement.
Termination of Partnerships by the University – a summary of the process
5.43
5.44 Partner institutions will have their own internal procedures for closing a partnership. In such cases institutions must comply with the terms set out in the Partnership Agreement, which includes ensuring that any remaining students are able to complete their studies up to the maximum registration date.
5.45 Once the University have been advised of the decision to terminate, APS will work with the Partner to develop an exit plan indicating how the termination will be managed with expected end dates of each cohort of students.
5.46 Partners will be expected to comply with all aspects of the Collaborative Agreement and the University’s quality assurance and operational processes throughout the termination.
5.47 APS will maintain oversight of the exit plan and advise the Schools and AAC when all students have completed and the courses are to be closed for that partner.
Every new proposal will be required to demonstrate that it is aligned to the University’s commitment to ‘create and sustain a future-facing education that is inclusive, professionalised, and multi-disciplinary’ (goal 1 of the Education Strategy).
There is no fixed timescale for the process, but it’s advised to consider AAC meeting dates when planning. A proposal should be ready for inclusion on the AAC agenda two weeks prior to the meeting. Allow sufficient time for professional services staff to review and contribute to the proposal.
Overview Document
Appendices
In addition for courses that are to become the knowledge award for an apprenticeship only
To be successfully validated a Course must:
Development teams should use the External Consultant Appointment Form to propose appointment of an external consultant. Once approved, the external consultant should provide their evaluation of the new Course on the External Consultant Report Form. The Report Form and the development team’s response should be included in the validation documentation.
The external consultant should comment on:
Modifications fall into three categories (see the Modifications guidance document):
A. Minor Module Modification: School approval without the need for external examiner or student consultation.
E.g. changes to module indicative resources, brief description, indicative syllabus, learning and teaching activities, module tutor.
B. Major Module Modification: School approval with the need for EE and student consultation.
Where the award title remains appropriate, the resources agreed during the original development remain appropriate, and the impact of the proposed changes on existing students or current applicants is not significant (i.e. it is not a material change to the course unless the proposed change is urgent and unavoidable), changes that may be undertaken as modifications include:
Course Level Modification: requiring submission of modification form and documentation to VSP, and the need for EE and student consultation.
For example:
The VSP form requires:
The validation process must be used when the proposed changes to an existing course are significant* and will result in a material change to the course to the extent that one or more of the following apply:
The impact of proposed changes on current students or applicants is significant, i.e. it is a material change to the Course and as the proposed changes are not urgent they would be better considered as part of a validation process which, if necessary, will enable existing students to complete their intended award. Applicants can be advised in a timely way of the changes and, if necessary, supported to find an alternative course of study.
*It is not possible to provide a formulaic definition of what constitutes ‘significant’ change. This will depend both upon the nature of the Course and the nature of the modules being added or removed. The evaluation of what is considered significant cumulative and/or step change is based on a consensus of academic judgement and will differ depending on the type of programme, subject area, professional body, mode of delivery, etc.
Level 1: School-based training, clinical and other placements; overseas student exchanges
Within this category the University may delegate to a partner organisation such as a school or hospital limited responsibility for student learning and assessment. Also included within this category are student exchanges managed in collaboration with overseas HE providers, e.g. via the Erasmus programme. The approval and monitoring of this activity is delegated to the ACL within the context of the Course and the overall School.
Level 2: Outreach Learning Venues
Within this category University staff or approved University Partners are fully responsible for delivering UoG provision and supporting students at an external venue. (This excludes any UoG campuses or Partner approved delivery locations.) These venues are not the students’ main study base as students will have approved support and learning facilities either online or at a specific approved venue as confirmed at the validation or delivery approval. These venues are only to enhance existing delivery and will generally be ad hoc short-term opportunities. The approval and monitoring of this activity is delegated to the ACL within the context of the Course and the overall School.
Level 3: Outreach Supported Learning Centres (‘Flying Faculty’ provision)
Within this category University staff are responsible for delivering UoG provision at an external venue (this could be a Further Education College, a private UK college, overseas college, or similar), but the partner has some delegated/agreed responsibilities for facilities and for providing learning support and/or student services. The approval and monitoring of this activity is shared between APS at a Partnership level and the ALT/ACL within the context of the Course and the overall School. Approval of these partnerships is required through AAC on behalf of Academic Board.
Level 4: Articulation Agreements
Within this category the University recognises and grants credit exemption to students completing a named programme of study of another awarding body to enable their progression to a UoG Home programme at a point other than its normal start (‘entry with advanced standing’). In this particular context, articulation agreements are, for example, likely to be with overseas institutions or UK private providers or an awarding body that wishes their certificate or diploma students to progress to entry with advanced standing onto a UoG award.
Additionally, Articulation is seen as the process by which qualifications studied at particular organisations or approved by a specific awarding body are used as an entry requirement for the usual starting point of an award. Articulation is used when a number of students will be applying with the same entry requirements from a specific awarding body/institution and not for individual claims for APL. The approval and monitoring of this activity is shared between UK or International Recruitment, APS at a Partnership level, and the ALT/ACL within the context of the Course and the overall School. Approval of these agreements is required through AAC on behalf of Academic Board.
Level 5: Franchised provision leading to an academic award or credit
Within this category the University franchises its own modules or programmes for delivery by another organisation. The approval and monitoring of this activity is shared between the APS at a Partnership level and the ACL/MT within the context of the Course and the overall School. Approval of these partnerships is required through UEB/ALG. AAC will provide assurance post an approval event.
Level 6: Validated provision leading to an academic award or credit
Within this category the University validates a complete programme of study or parts thereof, developed or designed by another organisation (or in collaboration with UoG) for delivery by that organisation. The approval and monitoring of this activity is shared between APS at a Partnership level and the ALT/ACL within the context of the Course and the overall School. Approval of these partnerships is required through AAC on behalf of Academic Board.
Level 7: Joint Venture (Risk level dependent on specific agreement)
This category relates to a contractual relationship where the University would pool resources and expertise with one (or more) organisations to work together on a particular project or initiative. University Executive and Council approval is required for these developments.
; ?> "Visit the homepage"){kind=logo}
