framework for the approval and management of taught collaborative provision/file/framework... ·...

Framework for the Approval and Management of

Taught Collaborative Provision

This Framework was developed by LeTS/International Relations Office following a request from the

QSC Sub-Group for Collaborative Provision for a set of QA guidelines to:

i) meet the needs of the Faculty structure

ii) provide a reference guide on collaborative provision

iii) demonstrate how the University is addressing the QAA Quality Code Chapter B10 on

Management of Collaborative Arrangements..

The Framework pulls together recently-approved and existing policy as well as procedural

guidance, some of which has been developed or revised over the last year on the advice of the

Sub-Group for Collaborative Provision. The intention is to review and publish the Framework in

2015/16 in a user-friendly format in sections on the LeTS website alongside other QA -related

guidance. The content will also be revised to reflect the latest QAA guidance (we are awaiting the

outcome of the QAA consultation on “Qualifications Awarded by Two or More Degree-Awarding

Bodies Characteristics”) as well as developments in support for collaborative provision. .

CONTENTS

Section

Title

Page

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

Introduction

What is collaborative provision

Why engage in collaborative provision

Issues to consider

Support available

Key contacts

3

3

3

3

4

6

2

Types of Collaborative Arrangement

7

3

External Reference Points

9

4

Strategic Direction and Principles

11

5

The University’s Register of Taught Collaborative Programmes

16

6

How to Set Up a Collaborative Programme: An overview for Departments

17

7

Summary and Diagrammatic Representation of the Process for the Approval of New Collaborative Programmes

22

8

8.1

8.2

8.3

Guidance on the Development of PGT Collaborative Programmes:

Jointly-Delivered or Jointly-Awarded Programmes (PGT)

Dual (Double) Award Programmes (PGT)

A comparison of the features of different types of PGT collaboration

25

25

39

50

9

Guidance on the Development of Articulation Arrangements

54

10

Collaborative Agreements

60

11

Renewal of an Existing Collaborative Agreement

62

12

Faculty and Institutional Responsibilities for the Oversight and Management of the University’s Collaborative Provision

63

13

Role of Collaborative Programme Director/Academic Lead

64

14

Review and Monitoring of Collaborative Provision

66

15

Student Registration Status and Support, Student Representation & Feedback

67

16

Student Handbooks

68

17

Staffing and Staff Development for Collaborative Programmes

70

Framework for the Approval and Management of Taught Collaborative Provision 2 September 2015

Section 1. Introduction To Collaborative Provision

1. INTRODUCTION TO TAUGHT COLLABORATIVE PROVISION 1.1 WHAT IS COLLABORATIVE PROVISION?

Taught provision which is delivered and/or supported and/or assessed through an

arrangement with a partner organisation” and which leads to a University award and/or an

award of the partner organisation is regarded as collaborative provision Section 2 sets out

the main types of collaborative provision, which include jointly-delivered programmes,

programmes delivered off-campus and programmes leading to joint awards. It should be

noted that exchange arrangements, study abroad, study placements and joint PhDs do not

fall within the above definition and are dealt with elsewhere.

The Quality Assurance Agency sets out in Chapter B10 of the Quality Code sets out what is

expected of UK universities in managing the delivery of learning with other organisations,

ensuring effective oversight by the awarding body to ensure the quality of learning

opportunities. This Framework sets out the University’s processes for managing

collaborative provision, taking into account these requirements.

The University is currently engaged with a growing number of collaborative programmes

across a wide spectrum of models, many of which involve international partner institutions. A

list of current collaborative programmes can be found here. 1.2 WHY ENGAGE IN COLLABORATIVE PROVISION?

Collaborative programmes may offer greater opportunities to students in terms of enhanced

curricula, developing language competence and cultural awareness, and improved

employability. Academic staff and departments may also benefit in a number of ways from

relationships with other universities and institutions including research and networking

opportunities and increased student numbers. In each case, consideration needs to be

given to the rationale for collaboration and the most suitable form of co-operation. 1.3 ISSUES TO CONSIDER

In developing links with other institutions, the University needs to carefully consider a

number of key issues including the compatibility of the proposed link with University

strategies including the Internationalisation Strategy

http://www.shef.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.166736!/file/International-strategy-Senate-approved.pdf

and other commitments; the suitability of the proposed partner; the nature of any risks posed

by the proposed development; arrangements for the management and quality assurance of

provision; and the University’s responsibilities to its students.

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/publications/information-and-guidance/uk-quality-code-for-higher-education-chapter-b10-managing-higher-education-provision-with-others1#.Ve1H8lIej8M

https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.502475!/file/Register_of_Collaborative_Programmes_Sept_2015.pdf




Departments interested in establishing a taught collaborative programme will need to

work through issues including the academic rationale, business case, risk management,

programme management and quality assurance arrangements, which involve a considerable

commitment.

This Framework aims to provide an overview of how the University manages its taught

collaborative provision, outlining the support available to Departments and Faculties.

For further information on how to develop a collaborative programme, see Section 6. 1.4 SUPPORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES

Co-ordination of support for the development of collaborative teaching partnerships is

provided by the Quality Management Team in Learning and Teaching Servicesu

Quality Management Team (LeTS):

• Provides information and advice on types/models of collaboration and related issues/risks

• Liaises with Faculties and professional services as appropriate

• Advises on documentation needed for approval of the business case and programme

proposal by Faculty

• Advises on quality assurance, risk assessment and due diligence processes

• Provides administrative support for the drafting of collaborative agreements

• Liaises with University of Sheffield Departments/Faculties on quality assurance

monitoring of programmes

International Relations Office:

• Promotes the development of international collaborative partnerships

• Sources development opportunities and provides advice on the suitability of potential partners

• Responds to opportunities identified by academic departments and proposals to collaborate from external organisations.

• Contributes to due diligence due diligence checks on the suitability of proposed partner organisations if required


Registry Services:

• Responsible for student registration processes and tuition fee payments

• Co-ordinate the development of operational procedures for collaborative programmes,

providing support for academic departments to work with the relevant professional

services regarding admissions, registrations, student records etc

• Liaise with CiCS and PGS to ensure that the programme is set up in CIS to meet

HESA and HEFCE requirements

• Advise about module choice and selection processes

• Liaise with appropriate staff to ensure that all relevant students are provided with a

University computer account and UCard

Student Administration Service:

• Responsible for central processing of examination/assessment results, degree awards

and progression between levels

• Responsible for student records management, including: changes in student status,

UKBA reporting, award documentation etc.

• Advice and guidance on interpretation of University Regulations for

assessment/examination and student progression.

• Support for formal procedures, including: student complaints, academic appeals,

student progress, fitness to practise, and student discipline


1.5 KEY CONTACTS

Area

Department/Service

Contact

International collaborations

Learning and Teaching Services

http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/lets

Karen Anderson [email protected]

Tel. 0114 22 21744

UK collaborations

Learning and Teaching Services


Angela Marron [email protected]

Tel. 0114 22 21751

Guidance on and coordination of student admin processes

Registry Services http://www.shef.ac.uk/ssd/reg

http://www.shef.ac.uk/ssd/sas

Gemma Bottery [email protected]

Tel. 0114 22 29624

Business planning

support

Planning and Governance Services

http://www.shef.ac.uk/pgs/contact

Relevant Faculty Support Officer

Advice/support on

recruitment/market

research

Recruitment Support

Relevant Faculty Recruitment

Support Manager

Advice/support

relating to financial

arrangements

Faculty Finance Team

http://www.shef.ac.uk/finance/our_staff

/faculty/faculty

Relevant Finance Officer as

indicated on website

Advice on programme

marketing

materials/advertising

Recruitment Support

and/or Faculty Marketing Officers

Relevant Faculty Recruitment

Support Manager and/or Faculty

Marketing Officer

Library

Library Faculty Liaison http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/library/libstaf

f/fltall

Relevant Faculty Librarian

Admissions advice and support

Admissions Team 4


mailto:[email protected]





http://www.shef.ac.uk/ssd/reg

http://www.shef.ac.uk/ssd/reg

http://www.shef.ac.uk/ssd/sas


http://www.shef.ac.uk/pgs/contact

http://www.shef.ac.uk/finance/our_staff/faculty/faculty

http://www.shef.ac.uk/finance/our_staff/faculty/faculty

http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/library/libstaff/fltall



Framework for the Approval and Management of Taught Collaborative Provision September 2015

7

2. TYPES OF COLLABORATIVE ARRANGEMENT

Definitions in italics are taken from the QAA Quality Code Chapter B10 on Management of

Collaborative Arrangements.

2.1 JOINT-AWARD

“Joint award describes collaborative arrangements under which two or more awarding

institutions together provide programmes leading to a single award made jointly by both,

or all, participants.”

At the University of Sheffield, joint awards are permitted at postgraduate level only. For

joint awards the minimum credit threshold is defined as where not less than one third of

the academic credit for the full award has been awarded by Sheffield. See also Section 8:

“Guidance on the Development of PGT Collaborative Programmes”

2.2 DUAL/DOUBLE OR MULTIPLE AWARDS

“Dual/double or multiple awards describes collaborative arrangements under which two or

more awarding institutions together provide a jointly-delivered programme (or

programmes) leading to separate awards being granted by both, or all, of them”.

See also Section 8: “Guidance on the Development of PGT Collaborative Programmes”

2.3 JOINTLY-DELIVERED PROGRAMMES

“Jointly-delivered programme describes a programme delivered or provided jointly by two

or more institutions, irrespective of the award (ie single, joint, dual/double or multiple). It

refers to the education provided rather than the nature of award.”

For jointly-delivered programmes at postgraduate level, see also Section 8: “Guidance on

the Development of PGT Collaborative Programmes”

2.4 DISTANCE LEARNING PROGRAMMES

This is where a programme of study developed and approved by the University is

delivered in a distance learning format with the involvement of local support e.g.

tutors/resources. In cases where there is involvement of a local partner in the delivery of

the provision, this is regarded as collaborative activity.


8

Section 2. Types of Collaborative Arrangement 2.5 ARTICULATION ARRANGEMENTS

“Articulation arrangement: a process whereby an awarding institution reviews provision at

another organisation and judges that the curriculum of a specified programme (or a

specified part) provides an appropriate basis, and is of an appropriate standard, to be

deemed equivalent to the identified components of one or more specified programmes

delivered by the awarding institution and thus to enable direct entry to year two, three or

four of these programme(s).”

The International Relations Office will be able to tell you about articulation arrangements

currently in place and how these work. See also Section 9. 2.6 VALIDATION

“Validation: a process by which an awarding institution judges a module or programme

developed and delivered by another institution or organisation and approves it as of an

appropriate standard and quality to contribute, or lead, to one of its awards. Students

normally have a direct contractual relationship with the partner institution.”

In recent years the University has moved away from this model of collaboration.

2.7 FRANCHISE

“Franchising: a process by which an awarding institution agrees to authorise another

organisation to deliver (and sometimes assess) part or all of one (or more) of its own

approved programmes. Often, the awarding institution retains direct responsibility for the

programme content, the teaching and assessment strategy, the assessment regime and

quality assurance. Students normally have a direct contractual relationship with the

awarding institution.”

This model of collaboration is not currently in use at the University of Sheffield, but it is

where a programme of study, which has been developed and approved by the University,

is delivered by staff at a partner institution leading to a University of Sheffield award.


9

3. EXTERNAL REFERENCE POINTS In managing its collaborative provision, the University adheres to the Code of Practice of the

Quality Assurance Agency and, where relevant, takes into account guidance from other external

agencies. 3.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE AGENCY

The UK’s Quality Assurance Agency’s UK Quality Code for Higher Education

includes Chapter B10 on Management of Collaborative Arrangements:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/quality-code-B10.aspx

The University supports its staff and partner organisations in understanding the

importance of these external reference points and the ways in which these are addressed

in our approach to the management of quality and standards.

3.2 EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

(ENQA) www.enqa.net

ENQA, the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, provides

information and guidance on good practice in the field of quality assurance (QA) in higher

education for use by European QA agencies, national government and public agencies

and higher education institutions.

3.3 EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATION (EUA) – EUROPEAN MASTERS NEW

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY www.eua.be/

The EUA has produced a downloadable set of Guidelines for Quality Enhancement in

European Joint Masters Programmes.

3.4 THE BOLOGNA PROCESS AND THE EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION AREA

(EHEA)

Bologna Process website: http://www.ehea.info/


http://www.enqa.net/

http://www.eua.be/

http://www.ehea.info/


10

Section 3. External Reference Points

The University is actively engaged in European collaborations, taking advantage of the

considerable achievements in improving the comparability of degrees and promoting

mobility. 2010 saw the creation of the European Higher Education Area, which enables

students to choose from a wide and transparent range of high quality courses and benefit

from recognition procedures which make it easier to read and compare national

qualifications. This was a result of the Bologna Process which followed the Bologna

Declaration of June 1999 putting in motion a series of reforms needed to make European

Higher Education more compatible and comparable, more competitive and more attractive

for Europeans and for students and scholars from other continents.

The three overarching objectives of the Bologna process have been from the start:

introduction of the three cycle system (bachelor/master/doctorate), quality assurance and

recognition of qualifications and periods of study.

Forty-seven countries are members of the Bologna Process, together with the European

Commission, and the consultative members, namely the Council of Europe, UNESCO-

CEPES, EUA, ESU, EURASHE, ENQA, Education International and

BUSINESSEUROPE.

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education www.qaa.ac.uk/ was involved in

drafting the ‘Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher

Education Area’ (European Standards and Guidance). These are the foundation on

which quality assurance activities across Europe are being built. 3.5 ERASMUS MUNDUS

http://ec.europa.eu/education/external-relation-programmes/doc72_en.htm

The European Commission’s Erasmus Mundus programme aims “to enhance quality in

higher education through scholarships and academic cooperation between Europe and

the rest of the world”, offering financial support for institutions and scholarships to

individual students and academics. Funding is available for joint European Masters and

PhD programmes; partnerships with non-European institutions and projects to support

European higher education worldwide.

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/

http://www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lasso



http://ec.europa.eu/education/external-relation-programmes/doc72_en.htm


11

4. STRATEGIC DIRECTION AND PRINCIPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF COLLABORATIVE PROVISION

The University has an Internationalisation Strategy – for further information about this please

refer to the International Relations Office website: http://www.shef.ac.uk/ssd/student-

recruit/recruitiro A number of principles underpinning the current approach to the development of collaborative

provision were approved by Senate in a paper entitled “The Strategic Direction and Principles

for Collaborative Provision” on 2 December 2009. Key extracts are provided below in italics: 4.1 KEY PRINCIPLES

“Any new collaborations should meet the following criteria:

• be consistent with University, Faculty and departmental strategies

• contribute positively to the University’s national and international standing

• be with institutions that can demonstrate appropriate academic standing and

shared values

• be in accordance with QAA Quality Codeand other external accreditation

requirements

• be in accordance within the University’s legal and regulatory capacity

• apply standards that are equivalent to and consistent with those for

programmes delivered entirely at/by the University

• deliver comparable quality of the student learning experience with equivalent

student support arrangements

• demonstrate financial viability

• have institutional and Faculty support and demonstrate sustainability

• not involve the double counting of credit toward multiple awards unless there

are compelling strategic and regulatory reasons for doing so

• facilitate progression routes into the University (where appropriate)

• support the development of strategically important partnerships leading to other

collaborative activities such as research and consultancy

• enhance curricula and the student learning experience through

internationalisation

http://www.shef.ac.uk/ssd/student-


12

Section 4. Strategic Direction And Principles For The Development Of Collaborative Provision

• ensure clarity for all parties in relation to student registration and the ownership

of/responsibility for credit and awards

“The above criteria should be used to evaluate the merits of all new proposals”. 4.2 POLICY IN RELATION TO PARTICULAR MODELS OF COLLABORATION

For definitions/description of models of collaboration, see Section 2 of this Framework.

4.3 JOINTLY AWARDED AND DELIVERED PGT DEGREES

“Guidelines and principles for developing jointly awarded and jointly delivered PGT

degrees were approved by LTC in 2006 and these should continue to operate at

postgraduate level.” Updated guidance can be found in Section 8 of this Framework. 4.4 FRANCHISE

“The University has not engaged in franchising activity and, as mentioned above, has

wound down its validation provision. One of the main factors in consistently rejecting

proposals for franchise arrangements relates to the need to be able to ensure that any

partner is delivering a programme that is the same as that provided at and by the

University. This is inherently difficult to achieve, time-consuming to manage and does not

allow for the development of programmes that draw on local capacities or that develop to

meet local needs. The University intends to maintain this position and does not engage in

franchises of entire programmes, but franchise of a level may be considered as part of a

"hybrid model‟ (see below).” 4.5 VALIDATION

“Validation presents similar issues in that although there may be differences in syllabus

and the student experience there is an expectation that quality and standards are

equivalent. One of the main justifications for withdrawing from the FE partnerships was

due to on-going concerns about the FEC’s ability to deliver programmes within a


13


“research informed‟ learning environment. The University will only engage in validation

activity where there are strategic reasons for doing so and there is confidence that there

will be a comparable student experience to that at the University and equivalence of

quality and standards.” 4.6 ARTICULATION

“Articulation arrangements operate, particularly in the field of Engineering, providing a

route for direct entry to Level 2 for overseas students meeting the transfer requirements.

“Articulation at PGT level has been developed where students on an approved

programme, meeting the transfer requirements, complete 120 University of Sheffield

credits (including the dissertation) in Sheffield and their prior study is recognised as

equivalent to 60 UOS credits. This articulation will continue to be used as a model of

collaboration.” 4.7 EXCHANGES/PLACEMENTS/YEAR ABROAD

“The University’s current definition of taught collaborative provision and the associated

policies and procedures do not apply to programmes that involve exchanges, placements

or a year abroad and this position should be maintained.” 4.8 PREFERRED PARTNERS

“Consideration might also be given to whether some models of collaboration would be

reserved for preferred partners, signalling the strategic importance placed on a link, for

example, delivering jointly awarded degrees. “ 4.9 HYBRID MODELS

“The term “hybrid model‟ is used here to describe a collaboration that does not fit neatly

into one of the attached definitions, although it should be noted that within each category

of collaboration there can be considerable variations. The University needs to have the

flexibility to respond to new opportunities in trans-national education and ‘hybrid models’


14


will play a role in supporting the development of collaborative activity with overseas

partners.

’Hybrid models’ might typically consist of a mixture of elements of the other collaborative

models, similar to the way blended learning consists of elements of traditional teaching

and distance learning. This could include, for example, articulation of part of a programme

mixed with delivery of part of a Sheffield programme by staff at a partner institution.

Some of the issues relating to "hybrid models‟ stem from the potential blurring of roles

and responsibilities. Where the ownership of credit lies with a partner or where validation

and articulation models are used, there is scope to justify a more diverse student learning

experience, one that may be very different or at most deemed to be "equivalent‟ to that

available to students studying in Sheffield. However, with a "hybrid model‟, such as one

where students are studying at an overseas institution but registering directly with the

University and also being taught by University staff, there may be an increased

expectation and requirement for the learning experience to be much more in line with that

which is available to students in Sheffield.

Clearly it is not desirable to try to identify and to approve all the possible permutations for

different models of collaboration. Instead decisions are made based on an assessment of

the level of control the University has over the programme. The extent to which the

University has control over the following would determine the nature of the collaboration

and the way in which it should be managed:

• registration of students;

• ownership of credit;

• how the programme as a whole is quality assured;

• equivalence of the student learning experience;

• access to support and resources;

• which institution’s regulations, appeals and grievance procedures apply;

• staffing;

• mode of delivery.


15


For each proposed collaboration, an assessment is made based on the above areas of

responsibility in order to determine the level of control the University should expect to

exert and the roles and responsibilities of the partners.

Collaborative provision does not currently encompass the area of employer engagement,

but some of the principles may be applicable as this area develops and collaborations to

deliver taught provision with employers are developed. “ 4.10 DOUBLE AWARDS

“Another instance where exceptions to issues of principle may need to be considered would

be in relation to the double counting of credit and double awards. The prevailing position

taken by the University is that credit should only be counted once toward any qualification.

Indeed, the University’s own Regulations state that:

The Board may recognise credits obtained or examinations passed in other institutions

as equivalent to credits awarded ... under the Regulations of this University, provided

that the work attracting the credits has not been and will not be submitted for any other

Degree...

This principle is widely supported across the sector. However, we are increasingly seeing

situations where University of Sheffield credit may be counted towards another institution’s

award in addition to our own. In some cases two awards are necessary to satisfy local

regulatory requirements and in other cases the partner institution does not have the legal

capacity to make a joint award. To date ...a number of collaborations leading to double

awards have been permitted. The position has been to either encourage additional study at

the partner institution so that the overall combination of the programmes justifies more than

one award and/or to agree that the ultimate aim is to make a joint award when the partner

institution has the regulatory capacity to do so.”


16

5. REGISTER OF TAUGHT COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES The University publishes a register of its collaborative taught programmes. This can be found

at: http://www.shef.ac.uk/lets/pp/qa/collab

http://www.shef.ac.uk/lets/pp/qa/collab


17

6. HOW TO SET UP A COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMME: AN OVERVIEW FOR ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS

Collaborative programmes offer many opportunities for staff and students, but also involve

much effort on the part of the academic and professional services in establishing effective

working relationships and high quality provision. This guidance outlines the issues to be considered by Departments and Faculties when

deciding whether to establish a new collaborative programme, including the form of

collaboration, the business case, the suitability of the proposed partner organisation, the risks

and the fit with relevant University strategies. Overall support and co-ordination for the

establishment of collaborative taught programmes will be provided by the International

Relations Office for international collaborations and Learning and Teaching Services for UK

collaborations. 6.1 INITIAL STEPS FOR DEPARTMENTS

• Look through the information on collaborative provision provided on the LeTS

http://www.shef.ac.uk/lets and International Relations Office webpages

http://www.shef.ac.uk/ssd/student-recruit/recruitiro

• Discuss your ideas with your Head of Department

• Contact the Quality Management Team in LeTS to discuss proposed

collaborations. LeTS will be able to provide advice and information on the types of

collaboration, choice of partner organisation, issues to consider and the approval

process. 6.2 DEVELOPING THE BUSINESS CASE

• You will need to develop a rationale and business case for the proposed collaborative

programme, which will be considered by Faculty when deciding whether to approve in

principle (see below).

• LeTS will be able to advise and put you in touch with the following relevant

professional services to develop the business case:

http://www.shef.ac.uk/lets



18

Section 6. How To Set Up A Collaborative Programme: An Overview For Academic

Departments

o Planning and Governance ServicesMarketing and Recruitment

o Faculty Finance Officer/Business Operations Manager

o Registry Services

o other services, as appropriate

• Early consideration will need to be given to the model of collaboration and the

bearing this will have on student registration, student status, support and access to

facilities/services.

• An initial assessment will be needed of potential risks involved in the collaboration

and how to mitigate against these.

• Negotiations on financial arrangements with the partner organisation may need to be

initiated at this point, with input from Faculty and relevant professional services.

• With support from LeTS, complete Part A of the “New Programme Proposal” form at

http://www.shef.ac.uk/lets/pp/qa/prog-app LeTS will submit this to Faculty and will

inform you as to whether this is approved in principle.

• Once approval in principle is received, you can proceed to more detailed work on the

collaborative partnership and programme. 6.3 CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED PARTNER ORGANISATION AND FORM OF COLLABORATION

• In order to ensure that the choice of partner organisation and proposed model of

collaboration are appropriate, a range of issues will need to be considered which will

require detailed discussions with the proposed partner organisation and consultation

with relevant TUOS professional services. The International Relations

Office/Learning and Teaching Services will be able to provide support and co-

ordination, drawing on experience of existing collaborations.

o Due diligence checks/information on suitability of proposed partner

organisation, including legal status, ability to enter into the proposed collaborative relationship, academic and public standing, mission, governance and structure (contact LeTS or the IRO for details of the checks required)

o Type of collaboration (eg jointly-awarded programme, jointly-delivered programme, distance learning programme)

o Programme structure, delivery arrangements and input of partner organisation

http://www.shef.ac.uk/lets/pp/qa/prog-app


19


Departments

o English language entry requirements and language support (if appropriate)

o The language of teaching and assessment

o Recruitment and admissions arrangements

o Financial arrangements including any relevant tax issues

o Registration arrangements/status of students

o Regulations

o Immigration and student visa issues, where appropriate

o Management of student records and data protection

o Handling of student complaints and appeals

o Assessment, external examining and exam boards

o Exit awards and graduation

o Programme management and quality assurance arrangements

o Staffing and teaching arrangements

o Student support arrangements

o Facilities/access to learning resources

A risk assessment will also need to be undertaken. Please refer to University

guidance on risk assessment:

http://www.shef.ac.uk/pgs/information/planninground/risk/process

The template for completion can also be downloaded from this website. 6.4 APPROVAL OF THE ACADEMIC PROGRAMME AND COLLABORATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

• The remaining parts of the “New Programme Proposal” form will need to be

completed, which can be found at: http://www.shef.ac.uk/lets/pp/qa/prog-app

This is the usual form for all new academic programmes. It asks for details of the

programme, the programme specification and programme regulations. It also asks

about collaborative arrangements. LeTs can provide support with completing this

form.

• LeTS will submit the form to the Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee (or as

appropriate) for approval of the programme and to the Committee for

Collaborative Provision for approval of the model of collaboration and partnership

and will inform you of the outcome.

http://www.shef.ac.uk/pgs/information/planninground/risk/process



20


Departments

• LeTS will arrange for subsequent approval by the Learning and Teaching Committee

and then final approval by Senate. 6.5 WORK ON THE COLLABORATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

• A number of arrangements need to be put into place before the start of a collaborative

programme to ensure its effective operation. This will involve working with a number

of professional services and overall co-ordination will be provided by the International

Relations Office (or LeTS where appropriate) and Registry Services. It may be useful

to meet representatives of the key professional services to draw up an action plan of

arrangements that need to be put in place including the following:

o Marketing and recruitment information and arrangements

o Admissions work, including entry requirements, arrangements for student visas and admissions procedures

o Registration arrangements, collection of fees

o Assessment and examining arrangements, including external examiners

o Arrangements for programme management and annual monitoring, including the appointment of a departmental Programme Director for the collaboration

o Ensuring that the programme has been set up appropriately by LeTS and CiCs

o Arrangements for statistical returns to HESA/HESES

o Access to library/MUSE for staff and students

o Programme handbook for students outlining relevant programme information,

regulatory and student support arrangements between the collaborative partners.

o Operations manual for staff at both/all partner organisations

• The Committee for Collaborative Provision will wish to assure itself that all

relevant the regulatory, management and student support arrangements are in

place and may therefore ask for details of the above.


21


Departments

6.6 DRAWING UP THE COLLABORATIVE AGREEMENT

• LeTS will draft the collaborative agreement between the collaborative partners using an appropriate agreement template.

The process will involve discussions and input from the Department, Faculty and

relevant professional services as well as negotiations with the partner organisation(s).

Approval by Faculty and the Committee for Collaborative Provision will be required

prior to signature by the parties. See also Section 10 COLLABORATIVE

AGREEMENTS. 6.7 ONGOING PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT

The Programme Director/Academic Lead in the Department will be responsible for the

ongoing management of the collaborative programme including:

• Programme Management Committees

• Annual visits, as required

• Completion of annual monitoring reports and input into departmental annual

reflection

• Ensuring that the risks associated with the collaborative development are

included in the departmental risk register


22

7. SUMMARY AND DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE PROCESS FOR THE APPROVAL OF NEW COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES

This section outlines the approval process for all academic programmes, but also shows (in

italics) the additional stages in the approval process for collaborative programmes. 7.1 STAGE 1 – GETTING AGREEMENT FROM FACULTY TO PROCEED WITH THE PROPOSAL

• Department signals intention to develop new programme

• Relevant professional services informed automatically through Uspace group; initial advice and support provided on issues including viabLeTS to provide advice and support on proposed collaborative programmes.

Initial check on suitability of partner organisation with reference to the principles

contained in the “Strategic Development of Collaborative Provision”.

• Part A of the “New Programme Proposal” form completed (initial info about proposal,

additional questions on initial business plan for collaborative programmes)

• Approval in principle of proposal by Faculty (eg FPVC or designated person)

• Relevant professional services informed automatically

7.2 STAGE 2 – DEVELOPING THE PROPOSAL FOR APPROVAL OF NEW PARTNER

ORGANISATION/MODEL OF COLLABORATION

• Discussions with partner organisation

• Work on form of collaboration and collaborative arrangements

• Assessment of level of risk involved and due diligence enquries on prospective partner organisation


23

Section 7. Overview Of The Process For The Approval Of New Collaborative Programmes

7.3 STAGE 3 – APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE FOR COLLABORATIVE PROVISION

• Approval by Committee for Collaborative Provision of collaborative model and

partner institution (via Sub-Group for Collaborative Developments), due diligence

and risk assessment. The Committee reports to the Quality and Scrutiny Sub-

Committee which then reports to the Learning and Teaching Committee.. 7.4 STAGE 4 – APPROVAL BY FACULTY

• Detailed development of academic programme and completion of Part B of “New

Programme Proposal” form with details of academic programme, programme

regulations, specification etc.

• Approval by Faculty approval of academic programme (usually by FLTC) 7.5 STAGE 5 – MAKING SURE ALL ARRANGEMENTS ARE IN PLACE

• Relevant professional services informed automatically of approval of new programme

• Information on collaborative arrangements (regulatory provisions, responsibilities of

partners, working arrangements) provided by the Department and signed off on

behalf of the Committee for Collaborative Provision.

• Details of above provided to relevant professional services (eg Admissions, Registry

Services, Taught Programmes Office, CiCs, Library)

• Drafting of collaborative agreement; approval of agreement by the Committee for Collaborative Provision and Faculty prior to signature by the authorised signatories.

7.6 STAGE 6 – FINAL APPROVAL

• Approval by LTC and Senate

7.7 STAGE 7 – SIGNING AGREEMENT

• Agreement signed by University and partner organization • Agreements for collaborative taught programmes must be signed by the following:

1) Director of Finance or Chief Financial Officer AND 2) Pro-Vice Chancellor for Learning and Teaching and/or the relevant Faculty Pro-Vice Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor may be asked to sign particularly significant agreements


24

Section 7. Overview Of The Process For The Approval Of New Collaborative Programmes

A graphic representation of the process is provided below (with additional elements for

collaborative programmes in shaded boxes on the right)

STAGE 1 Department signals intention to develop new programme

Relevant professional services notified automatically and consultation/support provided by: - • Recruitment Support and PGS to ascertain viability of programme. • LeTS and other professional services on issues relating to collaborative programmes

Faculty approval in principle of proposal (Part A of the “New Programme Proposal” form and questions on collaborative programmes)

STAGE 2

Discussions with partner organisation on form of collaboration,

programme and arrangements

STAGE 3 Committee for Collaborative Provision approval of collaborative model and partner institution, risk assessment and due diligence checks

STAGE 4

Detailed development of academic programme

Faculty approval of academic programme (FLTC) (Part B of “New Programme Proposal” form)

STAGE 5

Admissions, CiCS, LeTS, PGS, Student Recruitment, Library notified of approval.

Information on collaborative arrangements provided by Dept and signed off on behalf of QSC Sub-Group. Approval of collaborative agreement.

STAGE 6 Final University approval from Learning and Teaching Committee

and Senate

STAGE 7 Signing of collaborative agreement by the University and partner institution


25

Section 8. Guidance On The Development Of Collaborative PGT Programmes

8. GUIDANCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF COLLABORATIVE TAUGHT PROGRAMMES

Information is provided here on the development of jointly-delivered programmes, including

joint award programmes and dual awards programmes. For all proposed forms of

collaboration, including hybrid arrangements, please discuss with Learning and Teaching

Services. Details of key professional services contacts

who can provide support in the areas below are provided in Section 1. 8.1 JOINTLY-DELIVERED AND JOINTLY AWARDED PROGRAMMES

8.1.1 What is a jointly-delivered programme? What is a joint award?

Jointly-delivered programme describes a programme delivered or provided jointly

by two or more institutions, irrespective of the award (ie single, joint, dual/double or

multiple). It refers to the education provided rather than the nature of the award.

(Definition taken from the QAA Quality Code, Chapter B10:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/quality-code-

B10.aspx )

Joint award describes a collaborative arrangement under which two or more

awarding institutions together provide a programme leading to a single award made

jointly by both, or all, participants. A single certificate or document (signed by the

competent authorities) attests successful completion of this jointly-delivered

programme, replacing the separate institutional or national qualifications. (Definition

taken from the QAA Quality Code, Chapter B10:


B10.aspx

8.1.2 Why is the University working to enable joint awards?

Joint award programmes offer benefits to the University in terms of potential PGT

students from overseas, enhanced international profile, student mix, and

attractiveness to postgraduate applicants wanting to study partly in Europe. Offering






26


joint awards enables the University to participate more fully in the work of the

Worldwide Universities Network (WUN), to take part in initiatives in the European

Higher Education Area such as Erasmus Mundus and to engage in broader

collaborative opportunities.

8.1.3 What are the parameters withing which a joint award must be developed?

The Learning and Teaching Committee has agreed a set of parameters within which

the University of Sheffield will be prepared to offer jointly awarded degrees:

8.1.3.1 Level of joint awards

The University will engage in the development of joint awards at postgraduate

level.

8.1.3.2 Minimum credit threshold

Currently the University's regulations stipulate that not less than one third of the

academic credit for the full award has been awarded by the University of

Sheffield. The revised credit threshold applies only to formally approved joint

award programmes and not to ad-hoc APEL, or transfer arrangements.

8.1.3.3 Quality assurance arrangements

The University will always seek confirmation that institutional systems are in

place at partner institutions to quality-assure collaborative awards and the quality

assurance arrangements for any joint programme should be detailed in an

agreement.

An external examiner must have a clear role in any joint award and the University

should be involved in the selection and appointment of external examiners for

joint awards. The agreement associated with a joint award will specify the

requirements for selection and appointment and the role of the external examiner.


27


8.1.3.4 Duration of joint award

Where it is academically desirable, modular Masters Degrees shall be permitted

to extend over up to two years of full-time study. The current allocation of

notional learning hours attached to credits equates one year of full-time study

with 180 M-level credits. 180 M-level credits should be regarded as the threshold

for a Masters degree but this does not preclude studying for a longer period and

more credits.

8.1.3.5 Certification of a joint award

For a joint award, a minimum of one third of the credits shall come from the

University of Sheffield and of the remaining two thirds at least one third shall

come from at least one other institution which may jointly award the degree (and

be named on the certificate). Partner institutions involved shall contribute a

minimum of one third of the credits in order to be named on the degree certificate.

Where a partner institution contributes less than one third of the total credits the

contribution shall be recorded on the transcript. It is envisaged that a joint award

might include up to three institutions jointly awarding a single certificate for a

programme.

In the potential case of a student studying one third of the credits at the University

of Sheffield with the rest of the programme being made up of credits from more

than two other institutions, the University should be involved in the design,

approval and quality assurance of the programme and this should lead to a

University of Sheffield award.

8.1.3.6 Consortium Programmes

A programme may be designed, developed and approved by a consortium of

partner institutions, as for example with the Erasmus Mundus programmes. It is

envisaged that problems may arise where none of the participating institutions

owns the award and the consortium is running the programme and awarding a

certificate, the legal status of which is unclear. The University will therefore not

be involved in consortium programmes unless they comprise a minimum of one

third of the credits leading to a single degree awarded by a named institution, or

significant contributions from a minimum of two institutions leading to a single

degree jointly awarded by them.


28


In the context of a consortium, a student may receive a joint award from two or

more participating institutions and the University of Sheffield’s name may appear

on the transcript as a consortium member regardless of whether the student had

studied here. An appropriate form of words will be developed to indicate the

University’s involvement in the design and quality assurance of the award, but

not its assessment in such cases.

It has been concluded that the notion of an award being made by a consortium

(see 4.10 above) is unlikely to arise for any programme involving the University

of Sheffield, given the parameters that have been approved. Cases arising

outside these parameters should be referred to Learning and Teaching

Committee for approval in principle before being fully developed.

8.1.3.7 Credit

Credit may not be awarded jointly. Other institutions may contribute credits to the

award but there must be a single institution that owns and awards the total

credits.

8.1.3.8 Risk Management

It is recognised that the risk to the University’s reputation must be minimised

when engaging in partnerships with other institutions, either for joint delivery or

leading to a consortium programme or a joint award. For information on risk

assessment and management requirements, please see Section 1. For this type

of collaboration the University insists on a minimum level of participation

throughout the process including involvement in programme design,

development, approval, quality oversight and attendance at examination boards.

8.1.3.9 UK Academic Infrastructure

The development of jointly awarded and jointly delivered programmes should

take place with reference to the QAA’s Academic Infrastructure, including the

QAA’s Quality Code Chapter B10 on Management of Collaborative

Arrangements:


B10.aspx





29


8.1.4. Development of the proposal and approval

Please refer to Section 6.

8.1.5 Agreement

When developing a proposal for a jointly-delivered, or jointly awarded degree an

agreement needs to be drawn up between the partner institutions governing the

arrangement. This process should take place in parallel with the development of the

detailed programme proposal. Templates are available for the different types of

collaborative arrangements. Contact LeTS for

advice on agreements (See Section 1 – Key Contacts)

8.1.6. Quality Assurance

Proposal documentation will need to detail the arrangements in place to quality

assure the collaborative programme. Clear arrangements should be made for

programme monitoring including curriculum review, student evaluation (both of

modules and the programme as a whole) and responding to the external examiners

comments. It should be clear how the programme will be reviewed as a whole by

the partner institutions involved.

An external examiner must have a clear role in any joint award and the University

should be involved in the selection and appointment of external examiners for joint

awards.

The collaborative agreement will specify the quality assurance and external

examining arrangements.

8.1.7 Financial arrangements

For advice and guidance on setting fees and negotiating the proportion of the

income that is received by the University please contact your Planning Support

Officer in Planning and Governance Services in the first instance. Note that a

premium should be paid to the relevant institution to cover the administration costs

e.g. for student records, issuing transcripts, degree certificates etc.


30


The financial arrangements relating to the programme should be set out in the

formal agreement between the partner institutions.

8.1.8 Marketing

Departments should note that there will be standard statements on the nature of the

relationship for joint awards and the status of students for use in all publicity

material.

The material produced to market the programme should be approved by a named

contact in each partner institution before being published. Amendments to the

published material, including on the internet, should be formally notified to the

parties involved prior to implementation. Care must be taken to ensure that the

material is clear and accurate and does not mislead prospective students,

particularly in relation to the qualification available on successful completion.

Departments are advised to contact Faculty Marketing Officers for advice.

8.1.9 English Language Requirements

All students wishing to study at the University of Sheffield must show that their

English language is at a level which allows them to successfully complete their

chosen programme/modules. This needs to be given consideration when

determining the admissions criteria for the programme.

Acceptable minimum qualifications are given on the University web-site at

http://www.shef.ac.uk/postgraduate/info/englang.html but some departments require

a higher minimum level due to the nature of their subject areas.

All teaching and assessment for the programme should normally be conducted in

English, unless there are specific reasons to justify this not being the case e.g. one

of the programme aims being the development of foreign language skills. If the

language of instruction will not be in English then a case for this must be presented

at the approval in principle stage. The languages of teaching and assessment

should be the same and should be indicated in the proposal for approval in principle.

http://www.shef.ac.uk/postgraduate/info/englang.html


31


8.1.10 Recruitment and admissions (APEL)

Partner institutions should agree on admissions criteria and a common application

form. The application and selection process needs to be agreed – which institution

will co-ordinate the process, how will candidates be informed of the

acceptance/rejection of their application etc. Where Sheffield is the institution

awarding the degree, the preference would be for applicants to use the standard

PGT application form. If the selection decision and administration is done by

another institution, the Academic Department needs to ensure that an application

form, where this has not been previously submitted, and adequate information (e.g.

the decision on application and applicant acceptance) is provided to Admissions to

ensure that a comprehensive admissions/registration record can be created so that

any new applicants can be registered as University of Sheffield students. Queries

relating to admissions should be raised with the relevant Admissions Officer.

Note that, as with other postgraduate courses, it is important that applications are

made sufficiently in advance of the registration period to allow Admissions time to

resolve any issues arising (e.g. disability support), prior to registration.

The approach to accredited prior experiential learning (APEL) needs to be agreed at

the outset. It should be noted that the minimum credit threshold for a University of

Sheffield joint degree is one third of the credits for the full award i.e. APEL cannot

be used to reduce the amount of University of Sheffield credit required.

The Admissions Office will set up the records and then roll forward the applicants’

records into Registrations.

Where applicants are to spend time studying at the University of Sheffield, Registry

Services will send them pre-arrival information, as they would any other full-time

graduate applicant. Students will need to complete the financial guarantee form, or

provide a sponsor letter, and other relevant on-line pre-registration actions.

The tuition fees for the programme should be agreed with Planning and Governance

Services (PGS) in the preceding academic year. PGS will then advise the Fees

Team in Registry Services of the tuition fees to be charged in order for them to

allocate the fee to the new programme codes and to the students.


32


8.1.11 ERASMUS Mundus programmes

If the programme that is being developed is intended as an Erasmus Mundus

programme then the Department should contact the International Relations Office

http://www.shef.ac.uk/ssd/student-recruit/recruitiro to ensure that arrangements for

bilateral agreements and funding can be initiated.

8.1.12 Registration

Student status needs to be made clear from the outset. Current practice allows

students to register as a visiting student at the University of Sheffield while

undertaking modules at the partner institution, which allows access to the facilities

for the duration. For a jointly awarded degree it is recommended that students have

“full” University of Sheffield status from the start of the programme and for the full

duration of the course as they will receive a University of Sheffield joint award and

be logged as “successfully completed” on the University of Sheffield student record

system.

It should be made clear whether the student will be a fully registered member of the

partner institution at which they are studying (i.e. and by implication have full access

to its facilities) for the duration of the programme or only whilst they are on location.

This may have implications for access to learning resources that are available

electronically.

It is recommended that students should have a “home” institution.

• For Semester 1 entrants to the University of Sheffield:

o Registration information will be emailed at the beginning of September with all other new entrant taught graduate students.

o Students should attend Registration in Intro Week with all other new

entrant taught graduate students.

o Students should obtain their modules, which must be written on the

module form and a signature added by the relevant departmental representative.




33


o Students will be given full registration and issued with a UCard subject

to providing sufficient financial/academic information and having uploaded a photograph via the pre-registration web pages.

• Semester 2 entrants should report to Registry Services with a tuition fee

payment plan and modules which have been approved by the academic

department (where there is module choice).

It is preferable to have students registered for the full session, including modules

from partner institutions, to facilitate maintenance of the student record. There are

precedents for recording modules from a partner institution with its module codes on

the University of Sheffield system, as this has been done for jointly delivered

programmes.

8.1.13 Changes to the programme

In signing the agreement the partner institutions are guaranteeing to provide an

appropriate programme of study and no changes should be made that affect the

core elements of the programme, or its aims and learning outcomes.

Changes to elective modules must be discussed with and agreed in advance by the

institutions involved. Information about optional modules available should be

exchanged in a timely manner to allow students to make informed module choices.

Significant amendments and new modules require formal approval on the relevant

proforma: http://www.shef.ac.uk/lets/pp/qa/prog-app

8.1.14 Marking scale and criteria

Partner institutions should reach agreement at the outset on the marking scale and

the criteria to be used for the programme and the mechanism for transferring

marks/grades from each institution.

Note that the University of Sheffield reporting scale will need to be used for grades

to be recorded on the University of Sheffield central student record system.



34


8.1.15 Credit approach

The notional learning hours model adopted by the University of Sheffield ascribes ten

hours of learning to each credit for both undergraduate and postgraduate

programmes units of study. This means that the contributing elements of a ten credit

unit would be anticipated to require a total of one hundred hours of learning activity.

For a twenty credit module this would give a total of two hundred hours. The

elements of the learning process can comprise formal contact (lectures, seminars,

fieldwork, tutorials etc), assessment activity (including preparation) and independent

learning.

In deriving these figures there is an assumption, within the NUCCAT model, of a

full-time postgraduate year comprising forty-five weeks. The following summarises

these assumptions.

Taught Postgraduate Programmes

Credit per Year: 180

Hours per Credit: 10

Hours per Level: 1800

Anticipated Duration of the Year (weeks): 45

The European Community Credit Transfer System operates on the allocation of 60

credits per year to a programme of study i.e. 1ECTS is broadly equivalent to 2

University of Sheffield credits.

The approach to credit needs to be agreed from the start and must be consistent

with University of Sheffield practice in order to be recorded on the central student

record system.

8.1.16 Assessment and resits

Departments should ensure that assessment is fully discussed and agreed upon

and that it is not greatly at variance with its own assessment practices.

Assessment/examination, progression and award of qualifications should operate in

line with the University of Sheffield's General Regulations, but where this is not


35


possible for good reason, any variance should be clearly set out in the individual

programme regulations.

Provisions for resit examinations should be considered, such as locally

administering resit examinations from another partner institution.

Normally the language of teaching and assessment should be the same.

Upload of results (module grades and award recommendations) onto the University

of Sheffield central student record system should be undertaken in accordance with

standard annual timescales for upload and confirmation of results, as described in

memos issued regularly to Departmental Examination contacts prior to the start of

each examination period. For further guidance or to discuss non-standard

timescales, departments should contact the Taught Programmes Office.

8.1.17 Student records

There are potentially differences between UK and overseas legislation on Freedom

of Information and Data Protection. Departments are advised to ensure that they

comply with UK legislation when exchanging student-related information.

Information on data protection is available on the University’s web pages at

http://www.shef.ac.uk/cics/dataprotection

The remit of the participating institutions needs to clear from the outset with respect

to maintaining student records, archiving data and issuing the degree certificate,

diploma supplement, and transcripts. The University of Sheffield would need to

maintain a record of Sheffield modules and results. It is recommended that one

institution is given the responsibility for taking the lead and issuing the various

award documents. Further guidance can be obtained from the Taught Programmes

Office.

8.1.18 Examination Board

There must be an examination board for the programme, whose membership and

remit is clear from the outset. It should include members from each institution

participating in the award. In the event that the Exam Board is not in agreement

over the result to be awarded, the institutions making the joint award should have a



36


decisive voice in determining the outcome and the relevant External Examiner(s)

must have the final say on marginal cases. A formal record of decisions reached

should be produced.

Note that programme regulations should specify any instances where there is

deviation from the General Regulations for Higher Degrees e.g. if the time-limit for

completion is longer.

8.1.19 Student progress

There must be agreed procedures for reviewing student progress. Where student

progress is unsatisfactory and the issue relates to a part of the programme

delivered by one institution, then that institution's procedures should be used. For

more general issues there needs to be agreement that one institution's procedures

will be used with input from staff at the other institution(s). Further guidance can be

obtained from the Taught Programmes Office.

8.1.20 Exit routes

The partner institutions need to consider and agree on exit routes where the student

does not attain the full 180 credits for the Masters programme. These need to be

built into the programme regulations. Partner institutions may need to agree to

transfer the student onto an exit award (single not joint) from their institution and this

may require applying APL for credits studied at one of the partners e.g. for a

Postgraduate Certificate. Cases where the student has completed 60 credits at two

institutions may be considered for a jointly awarded Postgraduate Diploma.

Scenarios falling outside the planned exit routes will be considered on a case by

case basis in consultation with the other institutions involved.

8.1.21 Degree certificate and transcript/diploma supplement

It will be necessary to agree which institution is responsible for producing the

degree certificates and have agreement to use the name and logo of each partner

institution for the degree certificate for a joint award.


37


In practice, for programmes leading to attendance at a University of Sheffield

ceremony:

• The Events Team would need to know about new programmes well in

advance so that the degree certificate can be designed and the costume

determined

• Notice would need to be given if large numbers of additional students were

anticipated

• Clarity would be needed about who is responsible for providing the information

to go on the degree certificates

• There needs to be agreement about the costs of printing the degree

certificates.

Provision of Diploma Supplements, Transcripts and maintenance and retention of

student records needs to be agreed (see paragraph 8.1.17 above). Further

guidance can be obtained from the Taught Programmes Office.

8.1.22 Conferment of award

Arrangements need to be made for the conferment of the award at each of the

awarding institutions and presentation of the degree certificate. Students should be

informed of the timescale within which they need to notify the co-ordinating

institution of which ceremony(ies) they wish to attend and at which one they will be

presented and collect their degree certificate.

8.1.23 Academic appeals and complaints

A clear statement needs to be made available to students on the channels for

academic appeals and for complaints. Local issues would normally be channelled

through the relevant partner institution, including appeals against the marks/grades

awarded for a particular unit, but for academic appeals or complaints relating to the

programme as a whole the procedure needs to be agreed. It is suggested that the

appeal/complaint could be channelled through the home institution’s procedures,

which would establish whether there was a case to consider and if so whether an


38


appeals committee or formal complaints procedure would be convened with

involvement from partner institutions. Further guidance can be obtained from the

Taught Programmes Office.

8.1.24 Termination of agreement

The formal agreement should include a clause to cover the possibility of a partner

institution withdrawing from the agreement and to indicate how the obligations to the

remaining students will be managed. It would normally be expected that the

institution involved would notify the partner(s) of its intention to withdraw well in

advance of further recruitment activity and would see out existing students. The

home institution, in consultations with the partner institutions involved, has a

responsibility to ensure that the student has access to an appropriate programme of

study.

8.1.25 Respective responsibilities

This might cover subjects such as who the co-ordinating institution is and what they

are responsible for and what the other partner institutions must oversee as covered

in previous sections. The respective responsibilities should be recorded in the

formal agreement.

8.1.26 Administrative and financial issues

Many arrangements have administrative and financial implications which must be

thoroughly considered. Departments should be mindful that many administrative

procedures within the University have associated timescales and deadlines, that

may need to be taken into account when deciding how the design and delivery of a

collaborative programme will work. Departments are encouraged to seek input from

relevant Professional Services (especially Admissions Service, Registry Services,

Taught Programmes Office and the Events Team) early on in the design and

discussion phase to ensure that the "student experience" is not compromised

downstream.


39


8.1.27 Intellectual Property Rights

A statement on the use and ownership of teaching and learning material and

student work will be included in the agreement.

8.1.28 Legal jurisdiction for disputes

A statement on the legal jurisdiction for disputes will be included in the agreement.

8.2 DUAL AWARDS PROGRAMMES

8.2.1 What is a dual awards programme?

Dual (double) or Multiple Awards describes collaborative arrangements under which

two or more awarding institutions together provide a jointly-delivered programme (or

programmes) leading to separate awards being granted by both, or all, of them.

(Definition taken from the QAA Quality Code, Chapter B10


B10.aspx

8.2.2 What are the parameters within which dual awards programmes may be developed?

As indicated in Section 2, the prevailing position taken by the University is that credit

should only be counted once toward any qualification. However, in some cases

two awards are necessary to satisfy local regulatory requirements and in other

cases the partner institution does not have the legal capacity to make a joint award.

The position has been to either encourage additional study at the partner institution

so that the overall combination of the programmes justifies more than one award

and/or to agree that the ultimate aim is to make a joint award when the partner

institution has the regulatory capacity to do so.




40


8.2.2.1 Level of Dual Awards

The University may engage in the development of programmes leading to dual

awards at postgraduate and undergraduate level.

8.2.2.2 Quality Assurance Arrangements

The University will always seek confirmation that institutional systems are in

place at partner institutions to quality-assure collaborative arrangements. These

will be detailed in an Agreement.

An external examiner must have a clear role in provision leading to a University

of Sheffield award and the University will be responsible for theappointment of

external examiners for dual awards. The Agreement associated with a dual

award will specify the requirements for selection and appointment and the role of

the external examiner.

8.2.2.3 Credit

Credit may not be awarded jointly. Each institution owns and awards its own

credits which contribute to the dual award.

8.2.2.4 Risk management

It is recognised that the risk to the University’s reputation must be minimised

when engaging in partnerships with other institutions, The University therefore

requires a risk assessment to be undertaken for all collaborative programmes,

including dual awards programmes. For information on risk assessment and

management requirements, please see Section 1.

8.2.2.5 UK academic infrastructure

The development of dual awards programmes take place with reference to the

QAA's Academic Infrastructure, including the Quality Code Chapter B10 on

Management of Collaborative Arrangements:


B10.aspx





41


8.2.3 Development of the proposal and approval

Please refer to Section 6 and Section 7.

8.2.4 Agreement

When developing a proposal for a dual awards programme, an agreement needs to

be drawn up between the partner institutions governing the arrangement. This

process should take place in parallel with the development of the detailed

programme proposal. A template for dual wards agreements is available. Contact

the International Relations Office for advice on agreements.

8.2.5 Quality assurance

Proposal documentation will need to detail the arrangements in place to quality

assure the collaborative programme. Clear arrangements should be made for

programme monitoring including curriculum review, student evaluation (both of

modules and the programme as a whole) and responding to the external examiners

comments. It should be clear how the programme will be reviewed as a whole by

the partner institutions involved.

An external examiner must have a clear role in the University award and the

University will be responsible for appointment of external examiners for dual awards.

The collaborative agreement will specify the quality assurance and external

examining arrangements.

8.2.6 Financial arrangements

For advice and guidance on setting fees and negotiating the proportion of the

income that is received by the University please contact your Planning Support

Officer in Planning and Governance Services in the first instance.

The financial arrangements relating to the programme should be set out in the

formal agreement between the partner institutions.


42


8.2.7 Marketing

Departments should note that there will be standard statements on the nature of the

relationship for dual awards and the status of students for use in all publicity

material.

The material produced to market the programme should be approved by a named

contact in each partner institution before being published. Amendments to the

published material, including on the internet, should be formally notified to the

parties involved prior to implementation. Care must be taken to ensure that the

material is clear and accurate and does not mislead prospective students,

particularly in relation to the qualifications available on successful completion.

Departments are advised to contact Faculty Marketing Officers for advice.

8.2.8 English language requirements

All students wishing to study at the University of Sheffield must show that their

English language is at a level which allows them to successfully complete their

chosen programme/modules. This needs to be given consideration when

determining the admissions criteria for the programme.

Acceptable minimum qualifications are given on the University web-site at

http://www.shef.ac.uk/postgraduate/info/englang.html but some departments require

a higher minimum level due to the nature of their subject areas.

All teaching and assessment for the programme should normally be conducted in

English, unless there are specific reasons to justify this not being the case e.g. one

of the programme aims being the development of foreign language skills. If the

language of instruction will not be in English then a case for this must be presented

at the approval in principle stage. The languages of teaching and assessment

should be the same and should be indicated in the proposal for approval in principle.

8.2.9 Recruitment and admissions (APEL)

Partner institutions should agree on admissions criteria and a common application

form. The application and selection process needs to be agreed – which institution

will co-ordinate the process, how will candidates be informed of the

http://www.shef.ac.uk/postgraduate/info/englang.html


43


acceptance/rejection of their application etc. Where Sheffield is the institution

awarding the degree, the preference would be for applicants to use the standard

PGT application form. If the selection decision and administration is done by

another institution, the Academic Department needs to ensure that an application

form, where this has not been previously submitted, and adequate information (e.g.

the decision on application and applicant acceptance) is provided to Admissions to

ensure that a comprehensive admissions/registration record can be created so that

any new applicants can be registered as Sheffield students. Queries relating to

admissions should be raised with the relevant Admissions Officer.

Note that, as with other postgraduate courses, it is important that applications are

made sufficiently in advance of the registration period to allow Admissions time to

resolve any issues arising (e.g. disability support), prior to registration.

The approach to accredited prior experiential learning (APEL) needs to be agreed at

the outset. It should be noted that the minimum credit threshold for a University of

Sheffield joint degree is one third of the credits for the full award i.e. APEL cannot

be used to reduce the amount of Sheffield credit required.

The Admissions Office will set up the records and then roll forward the applicants’

records into Registrations.

Where applicants are to spend time studying at the University of Sheffield, Registry

Services will send them pre-arrival information, as they would any other full-time

graduate applicant. Students will need to complete the financial guarantee form, or

provide a sponsor letter, and other relevant forms found in the pre-arrival booklet.

The Tuition Fees for the programme should be agreed with Planning and

Governance Services (PGS) in the preceding academic year. PGS will then advise

the Fees Team in Registry Services of the tuition fees to be charged in order for

them to allocate the fee to the new programme codes and to the students.

8.2.10 Registration

Student status at the different stages of the programme needs to be made clear

from the outset. Current practice allows students to register as a visiting student at

the University of Sheffield while undertaking modules at the partner institution,

which allows access to the facilities for the duration.


44


It should be made clear whether the student will be a fully registered member of the

partner institution at which they are studying (i.e. and by implication have full access

to its facilities) for the duration of the programme or only whilst they are on location.

This may have implications for access to learning resources that are available

electronically.

It is recommended that students should have a “home” institution.

• For Semester 1 entrants to the University of Sheffield:

o Registration information will be emailed at the beginning of September with all other new entrant taught graduate students.

o Students should attend Registration in Intro Week with all other new

entrant taught graduate students.

o Students should obtain their modules, which must be written on the module form and a signature added by the relevant departmental representative.

o Students will be given full registration and issued with a UCard subject

to providing

o sufficient financial/academic information and having uploaded a photograph via the pre-registration web pages.

• Semester 2 entrants should report to Registry Services with a tuition fee

payment plan and modules which have been approved by the academic

department (where there is module choice).

8.2.11 Changes to the programme

In signing the agreement the partner institutions are guaranteeing to provide an

appropriate programme of study and no changes should be made that affect the

core elements of the programme, or its aims and learning outcomes.

Changes to elective modules must be discussed with and agreed in advance by the

institutions involved. Information about optional modules available should be

exchanged in a timely manner to allow students to make informed module choices.


45


For University of Sheffield provision and any provision at the partner institution

which counts towards the University of Sheffield award, formal approval is needed:

for proformas see http://www.shef.ac.uk/lets/pp/qa/prog-app

8.2.12 Marking scale and criteria

Partner institutions should reach agreement at the outset on the marking scale and

the criteria to be used for any elements of the programme(s)that count to the

awards of both institutions and the mechanism for transferring marks from each

institution.

Note that the University of Sheffield reporting scale will need to be used for grades

to be recorded on the University of Sheffield central student record system.

8.2.13 Credit approach

The notional learning hours model adopted by the University of Sheffield ascribes ten

hours of learning to each credit for both undergraduate and postgraduate

programmes units of study. This means that the contributing elements of a ten credit

unit would be anticipated to require a total of one hundred hours of learning activity.

For a twenty credit module this would give a total of two hundred hours. The

elements of the learning process can comprise formal contact (lectures, seminars,

fieldwork, tutorials etc), assessment activity (including preparation) and independent

learning. In deriving these figures there is an assumption, within the NUCCAT

model, of a full-time postgraduate year comprising forty-five weeks. The following

summarises these assumptions.

Taught Postgraduate Programmes

Credit per Year: 180

Hours per Credit: 10

Hours per Level: 1800

Anticipated Duration of the Year (weeks): 45



46


The European Community Credit Transfer System operates on the allocation of 60

credits per year to a programme of study i.e. 1ECTS is broadly equivalent to 2

Sheffield credits.

The approach to credit needs to be agreed from the start and must be consistent

with University of Sheffield practice in order to be recorded on the central student

record system.

If provision provided by the partner institution is going to count towards the

academic requirements for the University of Sheffield degree, then a mapping

exercise will need to be undertaken and evidence provided to show that the level,

volume and nature of learning are appropriate for the number of UK-equivalent

credits being ascribed to the provision.

8.2.14 Assessment and resits

Departments should ensure that assessment arrangements are fully discussed and

agreed upon by both institutions. Assessment/examination, progression and award

of qualifications should operate in line with the University of Sheffield's General

Regulations, but where this is not possible for good reason, any variance should be

clearly set out in the individual programme regulations.

Provisions for resit examinations for components of the programme(s) that count

towards the academic requirements for the awards of both institutions should be

considered and agreed by the partners.

Normally the language of teaching and assessment should be the same.

Upload of results (module grades and award recommendations) onto the University

of Sheffield central student record system should be undertaken in accordance with

standard annual timescales for upload and confirmation of results, as described in

memos issued regularly to Departmental examination contacts prior to the start of

each examination period. For further guidance or to discuss non-standard

timescales, departments should contact the Taught Programmes Office.


47


8.2.15 Student records

There are potentially differences between UK and overseas legislation on freedom

of information and data protection. Departments are advised to ensure that they

comply with UK legislation when exchanging student-related information.

Information on data protection is available on the University of Sheffield’s web

pages at http://www.shef.ac.uk/cics/dataprotection

Each awarding institution will normally be responsible for maintaining student

records pertaining to its own award.

8.2.16 Examination board

There must be an examination board for the University of Sheffield award, whose

membership and remit is clear from the outset. Where components of the partner

institution’s programme are counted towards a University of Sheffield award, the

University of Sheffield’s external examiner will be provided with details of these

assessments and the marks given by the partner institution, indicating how the

marks have been arrived at by the partner institution.

Note that programme regulations should specify any instances where there is

deviation from the General Regulations for Higher Degrees e.g. if the time-limit for

completion is longer.

8.2.17 Student progress

There must be agreed procedures for reviewing student progress. Departments are

advised to ensure that they comply with UK legislation when exchanging student-

related information. Students may need to provide their agreement before

information on their progress can be shared with the partner institution.

8.2.18 Exit routes

The partner institutions need to consider appropriate exit routes where the student

does not attain the credits required for a Masters awards. These need to be built

into the programme regulations at the respective institutions.



48


8.2.19 Degree certificate and transcript/diploma supplement

Each institution will be responsible for making its own separate award and issuing a

student transcript and/or Diploma Supplement.

8.2.20 Conferment of award

Each institution is responsible for conferment of its award and presentation of the

degree certificate, although it would be advisable for institutions to discuss and

agree on arrangements.

8.2.21 Academic appeals and complaints

A clear statement needs to be made available to students on the channels for

academic appeals and for complaints. Local issues would normally be channelled

through the relevant partner institution, including appeals against the marks

awarded for a particular unit, but for academic appeals or complaints relating to the

programme as a whole, students should apply to the awarding institution.

8.2.22 Termination of agreement

The formal agreement should include a clause to cover the possibility of a partner

institution withdrawing from the agreement and to indicate how the obligations to the

remaining students will be managed. It would normally be expected that the

institution involved would notify the partner(s) of its intention to withdraw well in

advance of further recruitment activity and would see out existing students. The

home institution, in consultations with the partner institutions involved, has a

responsibility to ensure that the student has access to an appropriate programme of

study.

8.2.23 Respective responsibilities

This might cover subjects such as who the co-ordinating institution is and what they

are responsible for and what the other partner institutions must oversee as covered


49


in previous sections. The respective responsibilities should be recorded in the

formal agreement.

8.2.24 Administrative and financial issues

Many arrangements have administrative and financial implications which must be

thoroughly considered. Departments should be mindful that many administrative

procedures within the University have associated timescales and deadlines, that

may need to be taken into account when deciding how the design and delivery of a

dual awards programme will work. Departments are encouraged to seek input from

relevant Professional Services (especially Admissions Service, Registry Services,

Taught Programmes Office and the Events Team) early on in the design and

discussion phase to ensure that the "student experience" is not compromised

downstream.

8.2.25 Intellectual Property Rights

A statement on the use and ownership of teaching and learning material and

student work will be included in the agreement.

8.2.26 Legal jurisdiction for disputes

A statement on the legal jurisdiction for disputes will be included in the agreement.



50

8.3 A COMPARISON OF THE FEATURES OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF PGT COLLABORATIVE PROVISION

“TUoS” means “The University of Sheffield”

JOINT AWARD SINGLE AWARD (JOINT DELIVERY) DUAL AWARD

DEFINITION “Joint award describes a collaborative arrangement under which two or more awarding institutions together provide a programme leading to a single award made jointly by both, or all, participants. A single certificate or document (signed by the competent authorities) attests successful completion of this jointly-delivered programme, replacing the separate institutional or national qualifications” (Definition from QAA Quality Code Chapter B10)

A programme of study which is developed and approved in conjunction with a partner institution(s) and is delivered by more than one institution, but leads to a single award from one of the partner institutions. The model may vary.

”Dual/double or multiple awards describes collaborative arrangements under which two or more awarding institutions together provide a jointly- delivered programme (or programmes) leading to separate awards being granted by both, or all of them.” (Definition from Section 2 of QAA Quality Code Chapter B10

KEY FEATURES Collaborative delivery arrangement leading to a joint award (ie one certificate in the name of both partner institutions). Programme is jointly delivered by both partners. Must be jointly developed, quality-assured, delivered and assessed. A minimum of one third of the credits must be awarded by the University of Sheffield. Of the remaining two thirds a substantial contribution shall come from at least one other institution which may then be a partner and jointly award the degree.

Collaborative delivery arrangement leading to an award of one of the partner organisations. In the case of a University of Sheffield award, Sheffield would take the lead in developing, quality assuring and assessing the programme.

Collaborative arrangement leading to dual (double) award. This model is normally appropriate only when a partner institution does not have the regulatory capacity to establish a joint award. May involve specific credit recognition and transfer mechanisms between awarding bodies.



51


QAA QUALITY CODE (CHAPTER B10)

The programme must be fully compliant with CoP and national academic infrastructure.

A programme leading to a University of Sheffield degree must be fully compliant with CoP and national academic infrastructure.

The programme leading to the University of Sheffield award must be fully compliant with CoP and the national academic infrastructure.

AWARDING BODY Both partner organisations. One of the partner organisations. Each partner makes its own award.

STUDENT STATUS / REGISTRATION

Students normally register at both institutions for the duration of the programme, although registration may be limited to attendance periods. Advisable to agree a ‘home’ institution for student registration.

Students normally register at the awarding institution for the duration of the programme. Registration with the partner organisation may be limited to attendance periods.

Students normally register at both institutions, although registration may be limited to attendance periods.

STUDENT NUMBERS The University of Sheffield would undertake statutory reporting unless agreed otherwise agreed with the partner institution (if UK-based).

In the case of a University of Sheffield award, the statutory reporting would be undertaken by the University of Sheffield unless otherwise agreed with the partner organisation (if UK-based).

The University of Sheffield would undertake UK reporting for its programme/award.

STUDENT ENTITLEMENT

Students will normally have access to resources of both the University and partner organisation.

Students will normally have access to resources in relation to their registration status, which may be linked to attendance periods.

Students would normally have access to resources of the partner organisations in relation to their registration/attendance status. For example, students may register/have access to resources at partner organisation for year 1, then register /have access to resources at Sheffield for year 2. Need to consider student registration status through out programme and what access students need to learning resources at different stages of the programme.



52


STUDENT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS AND APPEALS PROCEDURES

Partners will develop and approve a set of Joint Regulations and associated policies. Advisable for the “home” institution to take the lead in this area.

For TUoS PGT awards, the University’s General Ordinances and Regulations will normally apply.

Each partner’s Regulations apply to their own award and individual elements of the award. However, alignment between aspects of the partners’ regulations may be required, in particular where credits from one partner’s programme are counted towards the award of the other partner.

STUDENT DISCIPLINE, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

The “home” university’s terms will normally apply. However, the partner organisation’s terms (or aspects of their terms) may apply during periods of attendance/registration at the partner organisation. Arrangements require University approval.

The awarding university’s terms normally apply. However, the partner organisation’s terms (or aspects of their terms) may apply during periods of attendance/registration at the partner organisation. Arrangements require University approval.

Students normally enrol with both institutions and be subject to terms and conditions of both.

QUALITY AND STANDARDS

Requires the development of joint processes which satisfy the requirements of each partner organisation. Normally the “home” institution would take the lead in this area.

In the case of a University of Sheffield award, the usual Sheffield procedures would normally apply in addition to any requirements specific to the collaborative programme.

Each partner’s procedures would normally apply to their own award. For elements (eg modules or dissertation) contributing to both awards, the partner organisation which owns the credits has responsibility for quality and standards. However, the exam board of the awarding institution may, in some cases, contribute to maintaining the standards of those elements.

EXTERNAL EXAMINING

External examiners usually appointed by ‘home’ university but reports/responses are made available to both partner organisations.

External examiners usually appointed by the awarding university.

External examiners appointed by the University of Sheffield for the Sheffield award.



53


ACADEMIC STANDARDS / TEACHING QUALITY

Partners are both responsible for the academic standards and teaching quality. The collaborating HEIs will normally work together on staff development to ensure consistency and quality of student experience of teaching.

TUoS is responsible for the academic standards and teaching quality of the programme as a whole that leads to the award made in its name. A partner institution will also be responsible for the elements of the programme that they deliver.

Each organisation responsible for the teaching quality on its award. The collaborating HEIs will normally work together on staff development to ensure consistency and quality of student experience of teaching

ADMISSIONS Partner HEIs agree joint, standard admissions procedures that as a minimum comply with TUoS minimum entry requirements.

TUoS will set admissions criteria and have responsibility for admissions.

Partners agree to recognise each other’s admissions procedures. Partner’s procedures must comply with TUoS minimum entry requirements.

STUDENT COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE

Partner institutions will agree joint complaints procedures.

Students will normally submit complaint to the awarding institution.

Students will normally complain to the institution where complaint arose.

STUDENT DATA AND ADMIN

For UK joint awards, TUoS and partner must agree which HEI will claim and return student numbers to HESA.

TUoS will return student numbers to HESA and is responsible for data and admin relating to Sheffield award.

For UK dual awards, TUoS and partner must agree who will return student numbers to HESA. TUoS responsible for data and admin relating to Sheffield award.

AWARDS, CERTIFICATES AND GRADUATION

Both partners agree single certificate with both institutions represented. Agree joint arrangements for graduation ceremonies.

TUoS will produce transcripts and certificates for Sheffield award.

Each Institution makes its own separate award and graduation ceremony arrangements.

IPR Joint IPR ownership and licences are explicitly agreed by HEIs.

Ownership and licenses are agreed by HEIs taking into account the parts of the programme owned by each institution.

Each awarding body retains IPR for its own programme.

Section 9. Guidance On The Development Of Articulation Arrangements

54 Framework for the Approval and Management of Taught Collaborative Provision September 2015

9. GUIDANCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARTICULATION ARRANGEMENTS

9.1 INTRODUCTION

Articulation arrangement (QAA Definition): “a process whereby an awarding

institution reviews provision at another organisation and judges that the curriculum of a

specified programme (or a specified part) provides an appropriate basis, and is of an

appropriate academic standard, to be deemed equivalent to the identified components

of one or more specified programmes delivered by the institution and thus to enable

direct entry to year two, three or four of these programme(s). Arrangements normally

involve credit accumulation and transfer, so that credit achieved for the approved study

at the first institution is transferred to contribute to the programme and award

completed at the second institution (the awarding institution).The two separate

components are the responsibility of the respective institutions delivering them but

together contribute to a single award (of the awarding institution). The arrangements

include a formal agreement whereby an awarding institution agrees that any students

who have satisfactorily completed the specified programme (or a specified part) at the

partner organisation and satisfied the stipulated assessment requirements are entitled

to enter directly into subsequent stages of one or more specified programmes

delivered by the awarding institution. Students normally have a contractual relationship

with the partner organisation which delivers the first component and subsequently with

the awarding institution.” (Definition taken from the QAA Quality Code Chapter B10)


B10.aspx )

9.1.1 Benefits

Such arrangements are usually entered into in order to extend the University’s

international influence and to expand international recruitment by widening

opportunities to gain access to University of Sheffield qualifications.

9.1.2 Key Features

• Articulation arrangements are similar in some respects to (non-

collaborative) progression arrangements, but are used when recognition or





equivalence of proposed partner organisation’s programme/award cannot

be evidenced through UK NARIC etc

• In the case of articulation arrangements, successful completion of the

programme at the partner institution allows entry to the associated

programme at the University of Sheffield.

• The partner institution is responsible for the standards and quality of the

programme at the partner institution. The University of Sheffield is

responsible for the standards and quality of the associated Sheffield

programme.

• Students register with the partner organisation to undertake their

programme. Following successful completion of the partner organisation’s

programme in accordance with agreed criteria, students register at the

University of Sheffield on the associated Sheffield degree programme.

• Partner owns the IPR for the articulated programme; University of Sheffield

owns the IPR for the associated University of Sheffield award. 9.2 WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS WITHIN WHICH ARTICULATION

ARRANGEMENTS MAY BE DEVELOPED?

At the University of Sheffield, an articulated or twinning programme is likely to be one

or two years in duration covering the equivalent of Level 0 and/or Level 1 in the case

of a three year undergraduate programme.

Regulation 12 of the General Regulations for First Degrees prohibits students coming

into the final year only. An undergraduate degree (including an Integrated Masters)

“may not, without the special permission of the Senate, be awarded to any candidate

who has not been awarded at least 180 credits at Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3 under the

Regulations of this University, at least 100 of which were at Level 3. Students must

have 180 Sheffield credits. This has been the position for many years in order to

protect the Sheffield 'brand'.

Arrangements may also be developed to recognise programmes of study for entry on

to postgraduate programmes.



9.3 DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL PROCESS FOR ARTICULATION

ARRANGEMENTS

Support for the development and approval of articulation arrangements is provided by

the International Relations Office and Learning and Teaching Services. Academic

Departments will need to work closely with the proposed partner organisation to

ensure that the programme of study is suitable for entry to the University of Sheffield

and that appropriate measures are put in place for ongoing assurance of standards

and quality.

9.3.1 Approval of Academic/Business Case (Part A)

As with any new proposal to establish a collaborative arrangement the first stage

in the process is to obtain Faculty approval on the academic and business case

from the relevant Faculty Executive Board (or designated authority). The

academic department will need to prepare a proposal outlining the proposed

collaboration, providing initial information about the partner organisation,

anticipated student numbers and proposed financial arrangements. See “New

Programme Proposal” form:


9.3.2 Approval of Proposed Partner Organisation/Model of Collaboration

The Committee for Collaborative Provision will need to approve the proposed

partner organisation and model of collaboration, on the basis of due diligence

checks/information on the proposed partner organisation and information

provided by the Department on the form of collaboration. In addition, the

Committee would normally expect a senior member of any department seeking to

establish an articulation arrangement to have visited the institution in question

and to have provided a written report particularly commenting on the institution’s

ability to provide the staffing, infrastructure and learning resources necessary to

ensure the required quality and standard of provision will be achieved.




9.3.3 Approval of Academic Programme

The relevant Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee (or equivalent) will be

required to approve the programme. Proposals will need to include information

on:

i. Subject area

ii. Information on programme at proposed partner organisation: curriculum

content, learning outcomes, level, volume and nature of teaching and

assessment. Evidence of mapping exercise to demonstrate equivalence

and fit with the Level 1 curriculum (or as relevant) at the University of

Sheffield and consistency with the Framework for Higher Education

Qualifications

iii. Details of any professional body accreditation requirements

iv. University programme that successful students will transfer on to

v. Expected numbers of students

vi. Entry requirements (for twinning programme)

vii. Required level of attainment to transfer to the University of Sheffield

viii. Arrangements for the ongoing assurance of standards and quality

9.4 AGREEMENT

In order to define the means by which the academic standards of the programme will

be maintained and to ensure that the rights, roles and responsibilities of all parties are

clearly set out, an institutional agreement should be drawn up and signed by the

appropriate members of the University of Sheffield and the partner institution.

The institutional agreement should include provisions to cover the following:

i. The legal names of the bodies which are parties to the agreement

ii. The duration of the agreement and review arrangements

iii. Status of the students

iv. The responsibilities and obligations of each of the parties in the delivery and

assessment of the programme and for the academic standards and quality of

provision

v. Quality assurance arrangements

vi. Reporting and communication requirements



vii. Intellectual property considerations (the IPR is owned by the partner for the

articulated programme; the University of Sheffield owns the IPR for the associated

University of Sheffield award)

viii. Publicity and promotional material

ix. Admissions criteria and responsibilities in the admissions process

x. Responsibilities for maintaining student records

xi. Number of students permitted to be recruited onto the programme and to transfer

to the University

xii. Language of instruction and assessment

xiii. Suspension, termination and arbitration provisions

xiv. Residual obligations to students on termination of the agreement

xv. Financial arrangements

xvi. The legal jurisdiction under which disputes will be resolved

xvii. Signatures of appropriate members of both institutions

The above list is not exhaustive and further provisions may be needed. LeTs holds

templates for the main forms of collaboration which may be used to develop the

agreement.

Agreements for collaborative taught programmes must be signed by the following:

1) Director of Finance or Chief Financial Officer AND 2) Pro-Vice Chancellor for Learning and Teaching and/or the relevant Faculty Pro-Vice Chancellor.

The Vice-Chancellor may be asked to sign particularly significant agreements.

9.5 ONGOING ASSURANCE OF QUALITY AND STANDARDS

Primary responsibility for ensuring that the programme is delivered in accordance with

the agreement rests with the relevant University academic department. The head of

department is required to nominate a member of staff as an academic link, usually the

programme director or admissions tutor, who will undertake the tasks that are required

to ensure the department fulfils its obligations. Principal responsibilities are likely to

cover the monitoring of:

i. Staffing quality

ii. Course delivery

iii. Resources

iv. Student support



v. Assessment (the usual expectation would be for University of Sheffield staff to

have a role in moderation of assessment)

vi. Any changes to the course content or assessment methods and continued

equivalence/fit vii. Student performance

viii. Admissions to the University of Sheffield

ix. Progression to the University of Sheffield

x. Student performance at the University of Sheffield

xi. Adherence to the terms of the agreement

The programme director (or other nominated member of academic staff) would

normally be expected to make an annual visit to the partner institution and to report on

the outcomes of the visit.

9.6 ANNUAL MONITORING

In order to monitor the performance of the University of Sheffield’s articulations

arrangements, Academic Departments are required to complete an annual monitoring

report each academic year, the outcomes of which will a) feed into

Departmental/Faculty Annual Reflection and b) be used by the University to inform

the future development and management of articulation arrangements. 9.7 EXTERNAL EXAMINING

Given that the partner organisation’s programme does not lead to a University of

Sheffield award, the University does not require an external examiner to be appointed.


10. COLLABORATIVE AGREEMENTS As well as ensuring that all appropriate approval processes are observed in accordance with

University of Sheffield policy, the delivery of provision in association with an external body

will normally require the University to enter into a written and legally binding agreement or

contract setting out the rights and obligations of the parties. It is essential that any such

agreements are established on a sound legal basis and are appropriate in scope and

content, to protect the interests of the University of Sheffield and its students, the quality and

standards of provision that is delivered in the University of Sheffield´s name, and to limit the

level of risk to which departments and the University are exposed. For this reason, any department considering introducing a programme which is likely to

involve an external party should refer to these notes of guidance and consult the named staff

contacts in Learning and Teaching Services (LeTS) (see Section 1) who hold templates for

different types of collaborative arrangements and will provide co-ordination for the drafting

and approval of agreements Issues that should be considered by those proposing to

establish some form of partnership for the delivery of a programme and which may feature in

a contract might include:

• Period of agreement

• Obligations of the University of Sheffield and the partner body for:

• quality and academic standards;

• course delivery and management;

• assessment;

• recruitment;

• student support/administration;

• student discipline, complaints and appeals;

• learning resources/accommodation;

• awards;

• issuing of certificates and transcripts.

• Intellectual property rights;

• Student status;

• Student numbers;

• Programme and contract review arrangements;

• Insurance arrangements;


Section 10. Collaborative Agreements

• Termination arrangements;

• Consequences of termination;

• Dispute resolution procedures;

• Governing law and jurisdiction;

• Publicity and confidentiality issues;

• Data protection;

• Issues relating to compliance with the Equality Act 2010 and Bribery Act 2010;

• Fees.

Process for Establishing Memoranda of Understanding

Memoranda of Understanding normally express a general convergence of good will between

the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. They tend to be used in cases

where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or where the parties cannot create a

legally enforceable agreement. Ideally, generic MoUs should only be used as a preamble to a

more specific and binding agreement. To find out more about how to establish a

Memorandum of Understanding, please see: http://www.shef.ac.uk/ssd/student-

recruit/recruitiro





11. RENEWAL OF AN EXISTING COLLABORATIVE AGREEMENT Agreements should indicate the timescale for review of the agreement prior to renewal.

Approval will be needed as follows based on review of a proposal from the Programme

Director (or University of Sheffield lead academic) and existing documentation on the

collaboration:

• Approval by Department

• Approval of academic and business case for continuation by Faculty

• Approval by FLTC (or equivalent faculty committee) for continuation of the

programme following a review of L&T

• Approval by the Committee for Collaborative Provision of the

collaborative arrangements

• Approval of the text of the new agreement by Faculty and the Committee for Collaborative Provision

Proposals will vary depending on the nature of the collaboration but will normally need to

include:

Part A:

• Overview of the collaboration

• Statement from the Programme Director proposing extension

• Academic and business case for extension

• Any proposed changes to the existing business/financial arrangements/agreement

Part B:

• Self-evaluation of L&T over the period of the agreement

• Copies of programme committee minutes and annual reports

• Copies of external examiner reports

• Any proposed changes to the collaborative arrangements/agreement

Please contact the International Relations Office (international collaborations) or LeTs (UK

collaborations) to discuss planning for the review and re-approval of an existing collaborative

agreement.

12. FACULTY AND INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE

UNIVERSITY’S COLLABORATIVE PROVISION

Area of Work

Faculty Responsibility

Central Oversight

Comments

Approval of new collaborative programme

FPVC or designated person/committee: Approval in principle of business plan

FLTC: Approval of programme of study.

Committee for Collaborative Provision: Approval of partner organisation and model of collaboration Representative of Dept/Faculty to be invited to present proposal at Sub-Group meeting as appropriate.

Support for new programme approval provided by LeTS and other professional services

Annual monitoring/annual reflection

FLTC: Consider outcomes of annual monitoring of ofcollaborative programmes as part of Annual Reflection exercise Report on annual reflection/ monitoring and external examining to QSC.

Committee for Collaborative Provision/QSC: Oversight of Faculty annual reflection/monitoring reports.

Support regarding annual reporting requirements provided by LeTS

Periodic review

Input into Periodic Review as for standard provision

QSC: Oversight of Periodic Review

Managed by LeTS

Collaborative agreements

Faculty Finance Officer or designated person: Checking draft agreement

FPVC: Co-signature of collaborative agreement if

i d

Committee for Collaborative Provision: Oversight of collaborative agreements.

Support for drafting collaborative agreements provided by LeTS. Agreements to be approved by the Collaborative Provision Committee prior to signature on behalf of the University.

Review and renewal of an existing collaborative agreement

FPVC: Approval of business case for extension of agreement

FLTC: Renewal of approval of programme of study. Support for extension of agreement

Committee for Collaborative Provision: Renewal of approval of partner organisation and model of collaboration

Support for reviews of collaborative programmes provided by IRO with input from LeTS/Faculty.

Agreement extensions/renewals to be approved as outlined above.

Framework for the Approval and Management of Taught Collaborative Provision 63 September 2015

Framework for the Approval and Management of Taught Collaborative Provision Revised Aug 2015, currently under review

64

13. ROLE OF COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMME DIRECTOR (OR NAMED LEAD ACADEMIC)

For jointly-delivered, jointly-awarded and dual award programmes

The Programme Director (or named collaborative lead academic) will be the University’s key

contact regarding the collaborative programme and will also be the first point of contact for

the partner organisation. Programme Directors play an important role in managing the

quality of the collaborative programme and communicating with the Department, Faculty and

other parts of the University on issues relating to the collaborative programme. The Head of Department is responsible for designating a member of staff to be the

Programme Director for each of the department’s collaborative programmes. Programme

Directors should be full members of the relevant Department and should be conversant with

the UK academic infrastructure and University quality assurance processes. The Programme Director will be expected to undertake the following:

• Liaise with the key academic contact and other relevant staff at the partner

organisation on all aspects of the programme

• Ensure that the terms of the collaborative agreement (in relation to recruitment,

admissions, registration, student handbook, student records, programme

management, access to University facilities and assessment and so forth)

continue to be met by the Department and partner organisation

• Ensure that appropriate quality assurance arrangements are in place across the

programme

• Visit the partner institution at least once a year (unless otherwise agreed by

Faculty) to meet staff and students to gain an overview of how the programme is

being delivered at the partner organisation and to ensure the continued suitability

facilities and learning resources at the partner institution

• Complete an Annual Review of the collaborative programme on behalf of the

Department, to be submitted to the Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee.

Monitor actions resulting from Annual Review.

• Update the Departmental Risk Register for the collaborative programme on an

annual basis

• Ensure that all academic staff at the partner organisation involved in the delivery

and assessment of any part of the programme which leads to TUOS credits have

received appropriate TUOS approval


65

Section 13. Role Of Collaborative Programme Director (Or Named Lead Academic)

• Oversee the assessment arrangements between the partner organisations

• Ensure that suitable external examining arrangements are in place and that the

external examiner is fully briefed on the collaborative programme

• Undertake other activities relating to the collaborative partnership, as may be

required For information on the responsibilities of the academic lead for articulation programmes,

please see Section 8.


66

Section 16. Student Handbooks

14. REVIEW AND MONITORING OF COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES

Extract from QAA Quality Code Chapter B10 on Management of Collaborative

Arrangements

"Institutions should consider the appropriate balance between routine monitoring and

periodic review of programmes so that there is a continuous cycle. Routine monitoring is an

activity likely to be undertaken within the providing unit. Periodic review is normally an

institutional process, involving external participants of high calibre and with

academic/professional credibility. In developing and evaluating such processes, institutions

will want to be assured that they are monitoring the cumulative impact of small/incremental

changes.” 14.1 ANNUAL MONITORING

The annual monitoring of collaborative programmes is a key part of the University’s

processes for the assurance of standards and quality and risk management of its

collaborative provision.

Annual monitoring forms are circulated by the Faculty Support Team to Collaborative

Programme Directors/Academic Leads in Summer each year.

The completed forms are also be forwarded to Departmental Directors of L&T for

inclusion in Departmental/Faculty Annual Reflection. The outcomes of annual

monitoring of collaborative provision are also used by the University to inform the

future development and management of collaborative provision. 14.2 PERIODIC (FIVE YEAR) REVIEW OF COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES

The University conducts five yearly Periodic Reviews of the taught provision of

academic departments. Arrangements will normally made for collaborative

programmes to be considered within these Reviews (unless otherwise advised by the

Quality and Scrutiny Sub-Committee or its Sub-Group for Collaborative Provision). A

separate Review may be required in certain cases, for example for large overseas

collaborations or prior to the renewal of a collaborative agreement (see Section 11).


67


15. STUDENT REGISTRATION STATUS AND SUPPORT, STUDENT REPRESENTATION AND STUDENT FEEDBACK

15.1 STUDENT REGISTRATION STATUS AND SUPPORT

Student registration status and arrangements for student support by the collaborative

partners will vary considerably depending on the model of collaboration. The

proposed provisions will be considered as a part of the development and approval

process and the arrangements will be detailed in the collaborative agreement. Further

information on student registration is provided in Section 8 of the Framework.

It is particularly important for staff and students to be fully aware of the student

registration status at all stages of the collaboration, the support arrangements and

access to facilities provided by the collaborating institutions and the relevant staff and

student responsibilities. Departments and Programme Directors are responsible for

disseminating this information in student handbooks and other channels, as

appropriate. 15.2 STUDENT REPRESENTATION

Arrangements for student representation may vary, depending on the model of

collaboration and on local practices at a partner institution. However, there should be

opportunities for students to be represented on relevant committees. Proposed

arrangements will be considered as part of the approval process. Details should be

provided in Student Handbooks. 15.3 STUDENT FEEDBACK

Provisions should be made with partner organisations for collecting student feedback

and sharing information which is relevant to both of the partners, depending on the

model of collaboration. Proposed arrangements will be considered as part of the

approval process. Details should be provided in Student handbooks.


68


16. STUDENT HANDBOOKS Programme Directors/Link Academics are responsible for the production of student

programme handbooks. Prior to the start of the programme, draft handbooks should be

submitted to Learning and Teaching Services (see Section 1) for approval. Generic guidance on student handbook content is provided on the Learning and Teaching

Services website www.sheffield.ac.uk/lets Further guidance on handbooks for particular

collaborative arrangements is provided below. 16.1 HANDBOOKS FOR JOINT AWARD PROGRAMMES

Jointly-prepared by both universities, the student programme handbook should

normally include the following information (unless provided by another agreed means):

• Statement on student registration status (checked by Registry Services) and

related entitlements

• The programme specification/programme regulations approved by both partner

universities

• Approved unit outlines or link to these

• Copy of approved joint assessment regulations

• Assessment arrangements

• List of key contacts at each institution

• Details of periods of study at each institution (with details of how to access

support with accommodation, visas etc)

• Complaints procedure

• Appeals procedure 16.2 Handbooks for Dual Award Programmes

Either a jointly-prepared student programme handbook providing information on the

programmes/awards of both universities or a separate handbook should normally be

provided by each party at the start of the dual award programme including the

following information:



69


• Statement on UoS student registration status (checked by Registry Services)

and related entitlements

• The UoS programme specification/programme regulations (or link to these)

• Approved UoS unit outlines and those of any provision by the partner

organisation that will count towards the UoS award

• Link to UoS assessment regulations

• Assessment arrangements





• Appeals procedure 16.3 Handbooks for Jointly-Delivered Programmes (which lead to a UoS award only)

A jointly-prepared student programme handbook should normally include the following

information:

• Statement on student registration status (checked by Registry Services) and

related entitlements

• The programme specification

• Approved unit outlines or link to these

• Link to UoS general assessment regulations

• Assessment arrangements (including arrangements for assessment at partner

organisation)





• Appeals procedure


70


17. STAFFING AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT FOR COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES

Collaborative proposals require information about the staffing and staff development for

collaborative programmes, although the precise requirements may vary according to the

type of collaboration and proposed partner organisation. In the case of a joint award with a peer institution, the normal expectation would be that due

diligence checks would include information on staffing provision at the partner organisation,

but that approval of individual staff CVs would not be required. For some types of

collaborative arrangement, approval of partner staff CVs may be required by the QSC

Collaborative Sub-Group for Collaborative Developments. In particular, approval of partner

organisation staff CVs will be required in order to grant “Associate Lecturer” status, which

allows access to University electronic and library resources. Departments developing a collaborative programme will need to consider staff development

needs including:

• Staff development for staff involved in overseas delivery: cultural awareness,

student expectations and needs, local contextual information

• Staff development/training for the whole team, including staff at partner institution

to ensure consistency in approaches where needed, including delivery of teaching

and assessment

framework for the approval and management of taught collaborative provision/file/framework... ·...

Documents