The quality assurance of Dual and Joint Qualifications

Dr Frank Haddleton, Director of Academic Quality Assurance

University of Hertfordshire

www.herts.ac.uk/

The Characteristics Statement

Qualifications Involving More Than One

Degree-Awarding Body

• Developed in response to demand from the

sector for guidance on dual and joint awards

• Aims to build a common understanding of these

qualifications and approaches to quality

assurance

• A formal component of Part A of the Quality

Code, which includes the Expectation that HE

providers 'consider and take account of QAA's

guidance on qualification characteristics' in order

to secure threshold academic standards.

The Characteristics Statement

What’s included?

• a qualification involving more than one degree-

awarding body, underpinned by a genuinely

joint enterprise and partnership between them

What’s not included?

• professional qualifications, titles or status, or

licence-to-practise aligned to a qualification

• articulation and progression arrangements

• A joint programme of study followed by separate

specialist routes, separate final qualifications

• franchise or validation arrangements

Category 1 – Joint, double or multiple degrees

1. Co-dependent, mutually contingent qualifications

• Students must fulfil the requirements of all degree-awarding bodies

• The final award(s) requires students to achieve a single set of criteria

• Joint programme design, development, programme management and

decision-making on student achievement

• Joint degrees: joint involvement in delivery and assessment.

Students gain a single certificate

• Double or multiple degrees: joint involvement in delivery and

assessment. Students are awarded two (or more) interdependent

awards. Certificate or transcript refers to the other award(s)

• Variant 2: delivery involves one partner more than another

• Variant 3: students undertake a programme with a greater volume of

study than that required for a single award

Category 2 – dual degrees

2. Integrated but independent qualifications

• Joint programme design, development, management and oversight

• Each DAB delivers a substantial proportion of the programme

• Two separate qualifications, possibly at different levels

• Awards are not interdependent (students achieve separate outcomes)

• Variant 1: joint initial curriculum, followed by two consecutive blocks

at each partner. The overall study period and volume of learning is

longer than for either of the individual awards separately

• Variant 2: two programmes with overlapping curricula, completed

consecutively rather than an initial joint element (articulation?)

• Variant 3: a student could gain one award but not the other due to

additional requirements to gain the qualification of the non-UK degree-

awarding body (eg. national or cultural requirements).

Approaches to quality assurance

• Academic oversight (Expectation A2.1)

• Academic regulations (Expectation A2.1)

• Programme approval (Expectation A3.1)

• Assessment (Expectation A3.2)

• Examination board (Expectation A3.2)

• External examining (Expectation A3.4)

• Monitoring and review (Expectation A3.3)

• Certification and transcripts (Expectation A2.2)

The University of Hertfordshire (UH)

Our key strategic objectivesWe will be internationally renowned as the UK's leading business-facing university by:• Offering workplace engagement and

overseas learning opportunities• Developing students’ social and global

awareness• Fostering and strengthening research

with global partners

• Developing international partnerships • Strengthening the global perspective in the curriculum • Developing students with the knowledge, skills and attributes to

succeed in business and the professions• ………..

Dual and Joint Awards at UH

Joint Awards

• MSc in Pharmacovigilance and Pharmacoepidemiology (EU2P

Consortium)

Dual Awards

• MSc Global Business (IBSA Alliance)

• MSc International Business (Vancouver Island University)

• BA International Management (TABSA Alliance)

• BA Accountancy (INTI International University)

• BA Business (INTI International University)

• BA Financial Planning (INTI International University)

• BA Mass Media and Communications (INTI International University)

• MA Management Studies (INTI International University)

The Eu2P Consortium

• The Eu2P consortium:

- 15 pharmaceutical

companies

- European medicines

agency & French

medicines agency

- 6 Universities

• Combines study with all

6 Universities (in

English) over 2 years

• Award: MSc in

Pharmacovigilance &

Pharmacoepidemiology

SWEDEN

Karolinska Institute

GERMANY

Bayer Healthcare

Boehringer

Ingelheim

DENMARK

Lundbeck

NovoNordisk

ITALY

University

of Verona

SPAIN

Catalan Institute of Pharmacology

Laboratories Almirali

UNITED KINGDOM

European Medicines

Agency

University of

Hertfordshire

Astra Zeneca

Eli Lilly

Glaxo Smith Kline

SWITZERLAND

Novartis Pharma

FRANCE

University Bordeaux Segalen

ANSM

Roche

Sanofi Aventis

BELGIUM

Amgen

Janssen Pharmaceutica

UCB Pharma

NETHERLANDS

University Erasmus

Medical Center

University of Utrecht

FINLANDOrion Corporation

The International Business School Alliance (IBSA)

• An Alliance with 5 universities:

- Hochschule Bremen, Germany

- University of Valencia, Spain

- University of North Carolina, USA

- Novancia Business School, France

- Institute of Business Studies, Russia

• Established in 2003, to develop a Business Master’s

programme by combining study in any two Universities

(in English) over 1 year

• Leads to the award of two Master’s degrees

• UH award: MSc Global Business

Responsibility for academic standards

QAA Quality Code Chapter B10, Indicator 11:Degree-awarding bodies are responsible for the academic standards of all credit and qualifications granted in their name. This responsibility is never delegated. Therefore, degree-awarding bodies ensure that the standards of any of their awards involving learning opportunities delivered by others are equivalent to the standards set for other awards that they confer at the same level. They are also consistent with UK national requirements

So how do you take responsibility for academic standards of the elements of dual and joint awards delivered by partners? (especially when you operate a two-tier examination board system)

Partner approval process

Enhanced Partner approval visit (School +

Centre for Academic Quality Assurance)

PVC (International) (approval in principle)

Academic School proposal

Academic Development Committee

(School proposal + due diligence)

Memorandum of Agreement

signed by VC

Financial

Audit

(Finance)

Institutional Audit (Academic Registry)Academic

Services

(due diligence)

Programme approval

Enhanced partner approval

Purpose: to satisfy UH that the management of contributory elements of

the programme delivered by that partner meets the expectations of the

UK Quality Code, so allowing academic standards to be safeguarded.

The enhanced partner approval visit should:

• identify national expectations of academic standards (and equivalence

to FHEQ or FQ-EHEA);

• establish legal and regulatory capacity to grant joint awards;

• review academic regulations, and their equivalence to UH regulations;

• propose a grade equivalency between UH and the partner;

• agree protocols for dealing with academic misconduct, complaints and

appeals, establish student rights & responsibilities at each institution;

• agree protocols for programme administration and management

Programme approval (Expectation A3.1)

Standard programme initial approval, development and validation

processes are used, with the exception that:

• Enhanced partners approval status means that they are not required to

‘prove’ that they can deliver the curriculum

• Enhanced partners therefore only take part in the validation process to

approve the standard and coherency of the curriculum

• With consortia of Universities, only the lead University would be

required to attend the validation event

• For joint awards, academic regulations are also considered (typically

Academic Board approval is subsequently required)

NB. Joint development is essential, but joint approval is difficult, as many

countries do not have suitable approval processes in place

• University of Bordeaux - Eu2P lead

institution

• Joint Eu2P Education Board

• Joint Standard Operating Procedures

• International Business School Alliance

annual meeting

• Each degree awarding body oversees its

own qualification

• UH policies and procedures

Academic oversight (Expectation A2.1)

• Eu2P bespoke Joint Academic

Regulations (UPR AS22)

• IBSA – UH academic regulations

• No award ‘with commendation’ or

‘with distinction’

Academic regulations (Expectation A2.1)

• Eu2P Education Board – holistic view

of assessment strategy

• Each Eu2P partner is responsible for

the assessment of the module(s) it

delivers

• Grade equivalency table

• Programme external examiner

reviews a sample of work across

partner organisations

• UH responsible for overall

assessment strategy

• Each IBSA partner is responsible for

the assessment of the module(s) it

delivers

• Grade equivalency table

• Retrospective assessment review

using a portfolio approach

Assessment (Expectation A3.2)

• UH approach (dual awards):

– External examiner appointed to all

UH-delivered modules and UH

awards

– External examiner maintains an

oversight of partner-delivered

modules, through reviews of sample

portfolios of assessed student work

• UH approach (joint awards):

– External examiner appointed to take

responsibility for all modules and the

joint award

International

Logistics and

Supply Chain

Management

Management in

Emerging

Economies

International

Business

Development and

Consulting

International

Finance and

Investments

International

Marketing

External Examiners (Expectation A3.4)

• Approach depends upon your examination board system:– Integrated system? (i.e. grade/progression/award Boards)

– Two-tier system? (i.e. Module Boards & Programme Boards)

• UH approach (dual awards):– UH regs for UH-delivered modules

– Partner’s regs for partner-delivered modules (assurance provided through

enhanced partner approval and grade equivalency)

– Separate UH and Partner programme boards for awards

• UH approach (joint awards):– Joint regulations for all modules (assurance provided through enhanced partner

approval and UH approval of joint regulations)

– Joint Programme Board for awards

Examination Board (Expectation A3.2)

Joint strategic/operational board with enhanced

partners - Eu2P Education Board

Standard UH AQ processes apply:

• Programme committee (or equivalent)

• Link tutors/Country Liaison Tutors

• Programme Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Reports

• Re-validation at least every 6 years

Reports submitted through each partners own QA

framework

Monitoring and review (Expectation A3.3)

For Joint awards:

• UH approval of joint certificate

• Co-ordinating joint award institution takes responsibility for issuing

certificates and transcripts

• Enhanced Diploma Supplement

For Dual awards:

• Separate certificates

• UH enhanced transcript identifies:

– location(s) of delivery

– language(s) of delivery and assessment, by module

– All modules (including those studied at partner organisations)

– dual award status, and other awarding institutions

Certification and Transcripts (Expectation A2.2)

Internationalisationagenda

Competitiveness and

employability

Cultural enrichment

Newways of thinking

Student mobility

Professional development opportunities

Research collaboration

Benefits of Dual and Joint Awards

Thank you

Dr Frank Haddleton

Director of Academic Quality Assurance

F.Haddleton@herts.ac.uk

Centre for Academic Quality Assurance

University of Hertfordshire