Collaborative provision in higher education in Wales
- a conference report

Metropole Hotel, Llandrindod Wells,
Thursday 22 May 2008

PDF version

Introduction

1    On Thursday 22 May 2008, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) held a conference on the subject of Collaborative provision in higher education in Wales. All the higher education institutions in Wales were represented at the event, as were the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, the Higher Education Academy and a number of further education colleges with directly-funded higher education provision (HE in FE).

2    The event comprised a number of presentations and discussion groups. In advance of the conference, QAA had provided links to two Outcomes from institutional audit papers on the subject of collaborative provision¹. While the papers related to developments in England and Northern Ireland, rather than in Wales, it was hoped that they would stimulate discussion at the conference.

Morning sessions

3    The conference began with a presentation from Dr Stephen Jackson, QAA’s Director of Reviews Group. Dr Jackson outlined the key elements of QAA’s 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) (the Code of practice)², and the various audit and review methods as they apply to the collaborative provision of higher education institutions in Wales. These include Institutional review, Developmental review for HE in FE and audits of overseas collaborative links. This was set in the context of the different arrangements for England and Northern Ireland where, in addition to Institutional audit, QAA has operated a review method known as Collaborative provision audit, and operates the Integrated quality enhancement review (IQER) for HE in FE. Dr Jackson went on to discuss some of the key messages related to collaborative provision coming from QAA’s Outcomes…papers and also from the recent Quality Assurance Framework Review Group. He pointed out the very considerable scale of the UK’s collaborative activities and the need to protect the UK’s reputation for quality and standards. Finally, Dr Jackson went on to discuss the likely provisions of the new points-based immigration system, as they affect institutions and international students coming to study in the UK.

4    Two case studies on institutional approaches to collaborative provision followed. The first was presented by Mr Lloyd Powell, from the University of Wales Institute, Cardiff (UWIC). Mr Powell outlined the type, range and scale of UWIC’s collaborative provision and went on to discuss its reasons for engagement with this kind of activity. Mr Powell gave an account of how UWIC manages collaborative provision, including the use of QAA’s Code of practice; the division of administrative responsibilities; the role of handbooks and guidelines; and the committee structure in place for overseeing collaborative activities. Mr Powell went on to discuss UWIC’s approach to developing capacity in partner organisations, including the assistance provided by moderators, and the provision of access to resources and staff development opportunities. Finally, Mr Powell outlined the internal and external challenges relating to the management of collaborative provision.

5    The second case study was presented by Dr Dawn Story from the University of Glamorgan. Dr Story explained how collaborative provision has developed at the institution, and outlined its range and scale. Dr Story went on to relate the institution’s collaborative provision arrangements to Section 2 of the Code of practice. The arrangements discussed included those used to determine collaborative strategy, the management structures for such provision and the regulatory framework within which it operates. Dr Story outlined institutional approval and programme approval, monitoring and review processes, the use of external examiners and the support offered to those teaching on collaborative links. The various postholders, committees and fora involved in managing collaborative activity were discussed, as was the role of faculties, academic staff and support departments. Finally, Dr Story relayed the approach taken to the enhancement and continual improvement of collaborative provision at various levels of the institution.

6    The first group discussion concentrated on Frameworks (policies and strategies) and procedures for collaborative links. It was widely agreed that aside from financial benefits to collaborative provision, there are benefits to be had in terms of the recruitment and progression of students to higher education, in utilising partners’ links with employers and in broadening staff perspectives and experience. From the point of view of partner organisations, benefits identified include access to higher education and the development of the academic skills of staff. Collaborative provision was seen as providing valuable opportunities for students to experience higher education in their local area. The benefits were weighed against the cost of investment in collaborative links in both terms of money and ‘opportunity costs’. The success of such links was seen as requiring considerable commitment on the part of both partners. The risks of collaboration, relating to reputation and to quality and standards, were also taken into account, although it was felt that these could be successfully managed. The need to take a cautious approach to collaborative provision was sometimes seen as a source of tension within institutions. It was suggested that greater sharing of information about the risks associated with collaborative provision at specific overseas locations would be helpful.

7    The importance of regular communication with partners was highlighted. Ways of facilitating this were identified, including making regular visits to the partner, both to discuss the operation of the link and to moderate assessments of student work. Also noted were particular policy and procedural elements, for example the value of clear written agreements, covering the operation of the link and the safeguarding of student learning opportunities should the link be dissolved. Clear policies and procedural documents were seen as helping links to operate, both for the staff of the institution managing the link and for the staff of the partner organisation. ‘Due diligence’ procedures and regular visits were also covered. There was some discussion about the need to modify the ‘normal’ quality assurance procedures applied to on-campus provision (for example, programme approval, monitoring and review) to take account of the increased risks associated with collaborative provision. While there were some comments about the length and language of QAA's Code of practice, it was generally found to be a helpful reference point.

8    There was some discussion about the elements found in genuine partnerships between institutions and their collaborative partners. The importance of open communication and the transparent sharing of information were stressed, as was the need to demonstrate a long-term commitment to the link, rather than one based on short-term expediency. It was felt there should be ‘buy-in’ to the link at all levels within institutions. Staff development opportunities for partner staff were also seen as important.

Afternoon sessions

9    In the afternoon, Professor Colin Raban from the University of Derby spoke on Prudence and partnership…managing the risks of collaborative provision. Professor Raban outlined the development of the concept of ‘risk’ as it applies to collaborative provision and discussed the various implications of risk (both positive and negative) and its components. He went on to discuss the risks delegation poses in terms of geographical, cultural and structural distance from the institution but pointed out that these risks could be managed. He also pointed out that ‘normal’ quality assurance procedures applied to on-campus provision may need some modification in order to manage the particular risks posed by individual links. Professor Raban drew attention to the importance of quality enhancement, as well as assurance, in managing risk in collaborative links.³

10    The second group discussion focused on Managing and enhancing assessment and other learning opportunities in collaborative provision. It was pointed out by some that the amount of authority delegated to a partner for the management of assessment, etc, can depend on the strength and maturity of the link, the willingness of the partner to take on additional responsibilities, and the willingness of the institution to invest time and resources in the partner.

11    There was some discussion about ensuring that assessment standards are pitched at a comparable level across collaborative and ‘on campus’ provision. Delegates drew attention to various methods used to do this, including common assessment criteria, assessment moderation and submission of work to a common external examiner. Some pointed out the need to provide staff development and joint working in support of assessment, as well as the need to make explicit comparisons of assessment results across various partner links.

12    Plagiarism was frequently discussed in relation to overseas collaborative provision and assessment. It was pointed out that there are widely differing perceptions among students as to what constitutes plagiarism and these perceptions need careful management. One institution has appointed a ‘plagiarism tsar’ to tackle such matters. It was also pointed out that different perceptions exist of what constitutes ‘good’ marks and what is a fair resit policy. In some countries, transferable skills are not regarded as important and this may affect the way that intended learning outcomes are achieved. It was also pointed out that it can be difficult to instil a sense of autonomous learning in students. Where this concept is unfamiliar and not properly assimilated, it can be a factor in student withdrawals.

13    It was frequently noted that in order for students participating in collaborative links to have an experience broadly comparable to that of students with on-campus provision, careful induction and support is required - whether the link is overseas or with HE in FE. One group discussed this in relation to distance learning, where it was pointed out that the success of such provision depends in part on the quality of learning materials available and the support provided by academic staff - hence it is important that staff are properly trained. In addition, the use of virtual learning environments and other elements of e-learning technology, for example on-line libraries, were thought useful in supporting students on such programmes, as were periods of residential study at the institution.

14    Student representation and feedback was regarded as an important mechanism in terms of assuring the quality of student learning opportunities. Delegates reported a range of different mechanisms for achieving this, including questionnaires, staff-student liaison committees and feedback through programme committees. Once again some delegates saw cultural differences as a challenge to the effectiveness of these mechanisms. In some cases cultural factors inhibit open communication, while in further education feedback is often collected through questionnaires, reflecting the practice in schools. Delegates from one institution reported a helpful matrix assessment exercise of student services, which explored the extent of the services’ impact on students, the extent to which changes had been made as a result of student feedback and the extent to which those changes had been reported back to students.

Conclusion

15    From the discussions held at this event, it would appear that higher education institutions in Wales take a careful interest in the quality assurance and enhancement of collaborative provision.

16    In summary, the main features discussed included:

• the benefits of collaborative provision, as weighed against the risks and costs
• the importance of good communications and clearly defined responsibilities between partners
• the importance of preparing staff to fulfil their particular roles in relation to collaborative provision
• cultural differences in relation to the educational experience
• student engagement in learning opportunities.

17    QAA would like to thank colleagues who gave presentations at this event and those who facilitated discussion groups. We are also grateful for the advice of the Welsh Academic Quality Development Group in the lead up to the conference.