Skip navigation

Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education

Section 2: Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning) - September 2004

Appendix 1

The Precepts

Part A

A1 The awarding institution is responsible for the academic standards of all awards granted in its name.

A2 The academic standards of all awards made under a collaborative arrangement should meet the expectations of the UK Academic Infrastructure. This applies equally to awards made as a result of FDL arrangements.

A3 Collaborative arrangements should be negotiated, agreed and managed in accordance with the formally stated policies and procedures of the awarding institution.

A4 An up-to-date and authoritative record of the awarding institution's collaborative partnerships and agents, and a listing of its collaborative programmes operated through those partnerships or agencies, should form part of the institution's publicly available information. This also applies to FDL programmes where these warrant a separate identification.

A5 The awarding institution should inform any professional, statutory and regulatory body (PSRB), which has approved or recognised a programme that is the subject of a possible or actual collaborative arrangement, of its proposals and of any final agreements which involve the programme. This applies equally to programmes for which significant FDL arrangements are developed after the programme has been approved or recognised. In any case, the status of the programme in respect of PSRB recognition should be made clear to prospective students.

A6 The awarding institution's policies and procedures should ensure that there are adequate safeguards against financial or other temptations that might compromise academic standards or the quality of learning opportunities.

A7 Collaborative arrangements should be fully costed and should be accounted for accurately and fully. This applies equally to FDL arrangements.

A8 The educational objectives of a partner organisation should be compatible with those of the awarding institution.

A9 An awarding institution should undertake, with due diligence, an investigation to satisfy itself about the good standing of a prospective partner or agent, and of their capacity to fulfil their designated role in the arrangement. This investigation should include the legal status of the prospective partner or agent, and its capacity in law to contract with the awarding institution.

A10 There should be a written and legally binding agreement or contract setting out the rights and obligations of the parties and signed by the authorised representatives of the awarding institution and the partner organisation or agent.

A11 The agreement or contract should make clear that any 'serial' arrangement whereby the partner organisation offers approved collaborative and/or FDL provision elsewhere or assigns, through an arrangement of its own, powers delegated to it by the awarding institution, may be undertaken only with the express written permission of the awarding institution in each instance. The awarding institution is responsible for ensuring that it retains proper control of the academic standards of awards offered through any such arrangements (see also paragraph 20 of the Introduction).

A12 The awarding institution is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the quality of learning opportunities offered through a collaborative arrangement is adequate to enable a student to achieve the academic standard required for its award. This applies equally to learning opportunities offered through FDL arrangements.

A13 An awarding institution that engages with another authorised awarding body jointly to provide a programme of study leading to a dual or joint academic award should be able to satisfy itself that it has the legal capacity to do so, and that the academic standard of the award, referenced to the FHEQ (the SCQF in Scotland), meets its own expectations, irrespective of the expectations of the partner awarding body.

A14 The scope, coverage and assessment strategy of a collaborative programme should be described in a programme specification that refers to relevant subject benchmark statements and the level of award, and that is readily available and comprehensible to stakeholders. This applies equally to programmes offered through FDL arrangements.

A15 The awarding institution should make appropriate use of the Code to ensure that all aspects of the Code relevant to the collaborative arrangement are addressed by itself and/or the partner organisation, and should make clear respective responsibilities of the awarding institution and a partner organisation in terms of addressing the precepts of the Code. This applies equally to FDL arrangements that involve other organisations.

A16 In the case of a collaborative or FDL arrangement with a partner organisation, or engagement with an agent, the awarding institution should be able to satisfy itself that the terms and conditions that were originally approved have been, and continue to be, met.

A17 The awarding institution should be able to satisfy itself that staff engaged in delivering or supporting a collaborative programme are appropriately qualified for their role, and that a partner organisation has effective measures to monitor and assure the proficiency of such staff. This applies equally to staff engaged in delivering of supporting an FDL programme.

A18 The awarding institution should ensure that arrangements for admission to the collaborative or FDL programme take into account the precepts of Section 10 of the Agency's Code of practice on Student recruitment and admissions (2001), or any successor document.

A19 The awarding institution is responsible for ensuring that the outcomes of assessment for a programme provided under a collaborative or FDL arrangement meet the specified academic level of the award as defined in the FHEQ (or SCQF in Scotland), in the context of the relevant subject benchmark statement(s).

A20 The awarding institution should ensure that a partner organisation involved in the assessment of students understands and follows the requirements approved by the awarding institution for the conduct of assessments, which themselves should be referenced to Section 6 of the Agency's Code on Assessment of students (2000), or any successor document.

A21 External examining procedures for programmes offered through collaborative arrangements should be consistent with the awarding institution's normal practices. This applies equally to programmes offered through FDL arrangements.

A22 The awarding institution must retain ultimate responsibility for the appointment and functions of external examiners. The recruitment and selection of external examiners should be referenced to Section 4 of Code on External examining (2004), or any successor document.

A23 External examiners of collaborative programmes must receive briefing and guidance approved by the awarding institution sufficient for them to fulfil their role effectively. This applies equally to FDL programmes.

A24 An awarding institution should ensure that:

  • it has sole authority for awarding certificates and transcripts relating to the programmes of study delivered through collaborative arrangements. This applies equally to programmes delivered through FDL arrangements;
  • the certificate and/or transcript records (a) the principal language of instruction where this was not English, and (b) the language of assessment if that was not English*. Where this information is recorded on the transcript only, the certificate should refer to the existence of the transcript;
  • subject to any overriding statutory or other legal provision in any relevant jurisdiction, the certificate and/or the transcript should record the name and location of any partner organisation engaged in delivery of the programme of study.

 

* except for awards for programmes or their elements relating to the study of a foreign language where the principal language of assessment is also the language of study.

* Reference in this section of the Code to 'foreign language' or a language that is 'not English' does not include programmes provided and assessed by Welsh institutions in the Welsh language.

A25 The minimum level of information that prospective and registered students should have about a collaborative programme is the programme specification approved by the awarding institution. This applies equally to an FDL programme.

A26 The information made available to prospective students and those registered on a collaborative programme should include information to students about the appropriate channels for particular concerns, complaints and appeals, making clear the channels through which they can contact the awarding institution directly. This applies equally for students registered on an FDL programme.

A27 The awarding institution should monitor regularly the information given by the partner organisation or agent to prospective students and those registered on a collaborative programme. This applies equally to students registered on an FDL programme.

A28 The awarding institution should ensure that it has effective control over the accuracy of all public information, publicity and promotional activity relating to its collaborative provision, and provision offered through FDL arrangements.

Part B

B1 Students should have access to:

  • documents that set out the respective responsibilities of the awarding institution and the programme presenter for the delivery of an FDL programme or element of study;
  • descriptions of the component units or modules of an FDL programme or element of study, to show the intended learning outcomes and teaching, learning and assessment methods of the unit or module;
  • a clear schedule for the delivery of their study materials and for assessment of their work.

 

B2 The awarding institution, whether or not working through a programme presenter, should ensure that students can be confident that:

  • any FDL programme or element offered for study has had the reliability of its delivery system tested, and that contingency plans would come into operation in the event of the failure of the designed modes of delivery;
  • the delivery system of an FDL programme or element of study delivered through e-learning methods is fit for its purpose, and has an appropriate availability and life expectancy;
  • the delivery of any study materials direct to students remotely through, for example, e-learning methods or correspondence, is secure and reliable, and that there is a means of confirming its safe receipt;
  • study materials, whether delivered through staff of a programme presenter or through web-based or other distribution channels, meet specified expectations of the awarding institution in respect of the quality of teaching and learning-support material for a programme or element of study leading to one of its awards;
  • the educational aims and intended learning outcomes of a programme delivered through FDL arrangements are reviewed periodically for their continuing validity and relevance, making reference to the precepts of Section 7 of the Agency's Code on Programme approval, monitoring and review (2000), or any successor document.

 

B3 Prospective students should receive a clear and realistic explanation of the expectations placed upon them for study of the FDL programme or elements of study, and for the nature and extent of autonomous, collaborative and supported aspects of learning.

B4 Students should have access to:

  • a schedule for any learner support available to them through timetabled activities, for example tutorial sessions or web-based conferences;
  • clear and up-to-date information about the learning support available to them locally and remotely for their FDL programme or elements of study;
  • documents that set out their own responsibilities as learners, and the commitments of the awarding institution and the support provider (if appropriate) for the support of an FDL programme or element of study.

 

B5 Students should have:

  • from the outset of their study, an identified contact, either local or remote through email, telephone, fax or post, who can give them constructive feedback on academic performance and authoritative guidance on their academic progression;
  • where appropriate, regular opportunities for inter-learner discussions about the programme, both to facilitate collaborative learning and to provide a basis for facilitating their participation in the quality assurance of the programme;
  • appropriate opportunities to give formal feedback on their experience of the programme.

 

B6 The awarding institution, whether or not working through a support provider, should be able to ensure that students can be confident that:

  • staff who provide support to learners on FDL programmes have appropriate skills, and receive appropriate training and development;
  • support for learners, whether delivered through staff of a support provider or through web-based or other distribution channels, meets specified expectations of the awarding institution for the quality of learner support for a programme of study leading to one of its awards.

 

B7 Students should have access to:

  • information on the ways in which their achievements will be judged, and the relative weighting of units, modules or elements of the programme in respect of assessment overall;
  • timely formative assessment on their academic performance to provide a basis for individual constructive feedback and guidance, and to illustrate the awarding institution's expectations for summative assessment.

 

B8 The awarding institution, whether or not working through a programme presenter or support provider, should ensure that students can be confident that:

  • their assessed work is properly attributed to them, particularly in cases where the assessment is conducted through remote methods that might be vulnerable to interception or other interference;
  • those with responsibility for assessment are capable of confirming that a student's assessed work is the original work of that student only, particularly in cases where the assessment is conducted through remote methods;
  • any mechanisms, such as web-based methods or correspondence, for the transfer of their work directly to assessors, are secure and reliable, and that there is a means of proving or confirming the safe receipt of their work.

 

Appendix 2

Glossary of terms used in this section of the Code

In the vocabulary of collaborative and FDL arrangements, many words are given different meanings or are used in different ways by different institutions and in different countries. This is a source of actual and potential confusion. It is important that readers of this section of the Code should be aware of the way in which its compilers have chosen to use words relevant to collaborative and FDL arrangements. As an aid to clarity for readers of this section of the Code, a glossary of terms is given below. The glossary is here to provide descriptions: it does not imply endorsement, approval, or disapproval by the Agency of any of the functions, processes or arrangements that are described in the glossary.

Academic Infrastructure has been developed by the Agency in cooperation with the whole of UK higher education. It is a set of nationally agreed reference points that help to define both good practice and academic standards. It addresses all award-bearing activity, wherever or however provided. It incorporates the Code, the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ - one for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the other for Scotland), subject benchmark statements, and guidance on programme specifications, the definition of each of which is given below.

Agent is used to describe a person or organisation employed by the awarding institution to facilitate a collaborative arrangement or aspects of an FDL arrangement through the provision of service functions.

Award is any UK higher education award or qualification as defined by the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or for Scotland.

Awarding institution is a university or other higher education institution empowered to award degrees, diplomas, certificates or credits by virtue of authority given to it by statute, Royal Charter, or the Privy Council, or under licence from another authorised body. It is the UK institution whose academic award is the award to which a programme of study leads.

Code of practice (the Code) is a suite of inter-related documents published by the Agency which, taken together, form an overall Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education for the guidance of higher education institutions subscribing to the Agency.

Delivery system refers to the means by which instruction and information is provided to a student on an FDL programme. It may be people-based, paper-based, web-based, or based on media such as audio or video links or recordings. Many FDL programmes employ a mixture of methods, each selected on the basis of being appropriate for its purpose. There is advantage in considering a back-up system for cases where the principal delivery system might be sensitive to failure of equipment or public services.

Dual award describes collaborative arrangements under which two or more awarding institutions together provide programmes leading to separate awards being granted by both, or all of them.

Framework for higher education qualifications (the FHEQ) for institutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland sets out the descriptors of the five levels of higher education qualifications awarded by universities and colleges in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The FHEQ for institutions in Scotland sets out the six levels of higher education qualifications awarded by universities and colleges in Scotland; this is part of the wider Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF). Qualification descriptors in both consist of a statement of the outcomes and achievements that a student should be able to demonstrate for the qualification to be awarded, and a statement of the wider abilities that the typical student could be expected to have developed in the process of attaining that 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.

Level is a broad indicator of the relative demand, complexity, depth of study and autonomy of learning associated with a particular award. Descriptions of the levels of UK higher education awards are given in the FHEQ and the SCQF.

Partner, or partner organisation, is the term used to describe the institution or other body or individual with which the awarding institution enters into an agreement to collaborate. It is also used to describe an institution or other body which the awarding institution commissions to deliver aspects of an FDL programme and/or to provide learner support. It does not presuppose any particular form of legal relationship between the organisations involved.

Programme (of study) is the approved curriculum followed by a registered student. A programme may be multidisciplinary, or refer to the main pathways through a modular scheme. In this section of the Code it is used to mean the academic provision which is the subject of a collaborative or FDL arrangement. The provision might be only part of a full programme, in which case it is referred to in this section of the Code as an element of the programme of study

Programme presenter is the term used to indicate the body charged with delivering a programme to the student. In many cases the programme presenter will be a part of the awarding institution, but the programme presenter could be an organisation that is not part of the awarding institution. The programme of study might be designed by the awarding institution, or the programme presenter, another body approved by the awarding institution, or a combination of these, but the definition of a 'programme designer' is not needed in these notes since it is a basic precept that the ultimate responsibility for approving the design of a programme of study leading to an academic award must lie with the awarding institution.

Professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs) is used to denote organisations which are authorised to accredit, approve or recognise specific programmes in the context of the requirements for professional qualification. Some such organisations have a prescribed statutory or regulatory responsibility to accredit, approve or recognise programmes and/or to determine the academic standards and professional or vocational components of such programmes.

Programme specifications provide concise published statements about the intended learning outcomes of programmes of study, information about the teaching, learning, learning support and assessment methods used to enable the learning outcomes to be achieved and demonstrated, and show how the units of study that make up the programmes will relate to levels of achievement.

Quality assurance is the means through which an institution ensures and confirms that the conditions are in place for students to achieve the standards set by it or by another awarding body.

Support provider is the term used to indicate the organisation, group or person(s) charged with providing learner support to students of a programme. Learner support may be provided directly by the awarding institution or by the programme presenter, but learner support could also be made available to students through a separate support provider, particularly in the form of 'local' support for students remote from the awarding institution and programme presenter.

 

Appendix 3

Membership of the Working Group for Section 2 of the Code: Collaborative provison and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning)

Pam Boulton - Director of Quality Enhancement, University of Derby

Svava Bjarnason - Head of Policy Research, Association of Commonwealth Universities

Rosemary Cardell - Director Academic Management and Standards, University of London External System

Dr Kate Clarke - Director, Validation Services, Open University

Professor Aldwyn Cooper - Pro Vice-Chancellor Operations, University of Glamorgan

Dr Peter Easy - Deputy Vice-Chancellor, The University of Gloucestershire

Frances Foster - Academic Registrar, Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College representing the Standing Conference of Principals

Ruth Moir - Director of Academic and Customer Services, Interactive University

Dr Derek Pollard - Chair, Council of Validating Universities

Seb Schmoller - Independent Consultant

Jonathan Slack - Chief Executive, Association of Business Schools

Professor David Unwin - Emeritus Professor, Birbeck College, University of London Formerly Learning Programme Director, UK eUniversities Worldwide Limited

Professor David Webb - Senior Dean and Dean of the Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, The Nottingham Trent University

David Young - Policy Adviser, Universities UK

Peter Williams - Chief Executive, The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education

Dr David Buckingham - Assistant Director, The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and Learning and Teaching Support Service, University of Exeter

Carolyn Campbell - Assistant Director (International), The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education

Gill Clarke - Assistant Director, The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and Director, Teaching Support Unit, University of Bristol

ISBN 1 84482 153 6

TopTop