Quality Assurance of Overseas Collaborative Provision
The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) was established in 1997 to promote public confidence that the quality of provision and standards of awards in higher education offered by UK institutions are being safeguarded and enhanced. As part of its activity, QAA undertakes regular academic quality audits of individual institutions to review the operation and effectiveness of arrangements for assuring quality and standards. A brief guide to the various quality assurance processes operating in UK higher education is available from QAA on request.
Quality audits also cover the arrangements which institutions use to assure the quality and standards of their awards and programmes offered in collaboration with other partners, both within and outside the UK. As part of this process, QAA audit teams visit overseas partners of UK institutions so that the same enquiries can be made about how the quality and standards of UK awards and programmes offered to students outside the UK are safeguarded, as are made of UK-based provision. This initiative is designed to help provide enhanced confidence in the work of British universities and colleges operating outside the UK.
QAA's audits of overseas partnerships use as their main reference point the Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education, 1996 (2nd edition) which was published by the former Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) and which QAA has endorsed for the purpose of the current programme of visits. This offers guidance on good practice, and a framework within which institutions can review and consider their current and future activities. The Code of Practice has been widely welcomed by universities and colleges. While UK institutions participating in the programme have not been narrowly 'measured' against the Code (which is not intended to be a definitive check list), their experience of using it, and the findings from the overseas visits in general, will contribute to its revision and further development.
This report is published following an overseas audit programme to Israel undertaken in the spring of 1998 which looked at collaborative arrangements between several UK institutions and their overseas partners. It should be read in conjunction with QAA's (and, where appropriate, the former HEQC's) published audit report(s) on the UK university or college concerned, details of which can be found in this report.
The UK universities and colleges which participated in this overseas audit programme did so voluntarily and with the agreement of their overseas partners. Their collaborative links cover between them a range of programmes and subjects, levels of award and different forms of institutional partnership, involving a mix of partners from small, privately funded organisations to large, publicly funded universities.
Introduction
1 This is the report of an audit carried out by the Quality Assurance
Agency for Higher Education (QAA), of the quality assurance arrangements
for a partnership between Coventry University (also referred to as 'the
University' or 'Coventry') and Ruppin Institute (also referred to as 'the
Institute' or 'Ruppin') for the purpose of offering programmes of study
in Israel leading to awards of the University, in particular several BEng
awards in various fields of Engineering.
2 The audit of Coventry University was one of seven undertaken in the spring of 1998, covering a range of collaborative partnerships which UK higher education institutions have established in Israel. In every case, visits were made to both the UK and partner institutions. Further information about quality audit and QAA is contained in the preface at the front of this report.
3 The general quality assurance arrangements of Coventry University were the subject of an academic quality audit by the Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) in 1994 and published in a report in 1995. The University's collaborative provision was the subject of a further quality audit in 1995 and the report was published in 1996.
4 The Agency is grateful to the staff and students of the University and
Ruppin Institute for their assistance and their co-operation with the audit
team.
The audit process
5 Prior to the audit visit, the University provided QAA with briefing documents, comprising a description of the University's processes for the approval of arrangements for the delivery of existing award-bearing courses. The audit team requested a number of supplementary documents concerned with the relationship including the Student Handbook, documents relating to the accreditation of the programme, Advisory Board minutes and further information on the partners concerned.
6 Members of the audit team visited Coventry University on 26 January 1998. Discussions took place between members of the team and a number of University staff, including Pro Vice-Chancellors, the Dean of the School of Engineering, the Academic Director and the Assistant Director of Coventry Programmes in Israel, module leaders and teaching staff involved in operating the link. The team visited Ruppin Institute itself on 3 March 1998 and held discussions with 16 people, including the Institute General Manager, the Dean and Director of School, the heads of academic programmes, teaching staff and students from the programmes and the Head of Academic Administration.
7 The audit team comprised Dr S Jackson, Professor D J Murray, Professor
D R Webb, auditors and Mr D C Attwood, audit secretary. The audit was co-ordinated
for QAA by Miss A R Hynes, Assistant Director, Institutional Review Directorate,
who accompanied the team to Israel.
8 The period of preparation for the audit and subsequent visit to Israel coincided with discussion of changes to the law governing higher education in Israel. An amendment to the law was enacted in February 1998 and this altered the powers of the Israel Council for Higher Education (CHE) as a licensing and accrediting body for higher education in Israel. QAA understood that the amendment made to the law further empowered CHE and changed what had been an advisory relationship with regard to some educational activities of foreign universities in Israel into one of a regulatory authority. It was explained that these changes were designed to address internal concerns about the activities of non-Israeli universities that were offering higher educational provision within Israel. The period to which this audit was addressed was prior to the amending legislation coming into operation.
9 Prior to February 1998, institutions conferring degrees on the basis of study undertaken at a partner institution in Israel could, at their discretion and in respect of certain forms of provision, seek a form of approval from CHE. In the group of institutions considered by QAA, practice on this matter varied. Therefore, reflecting on paragraph 10.3 of the HEQC Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education, 1996, which states that '…students and applicants should be clearly informed whether or not the award for which they wish to register has been given official recognition…', the audit team based its enquiries around the position taken by each institution. It asked what statement, if any, was being made by the UK university about approval by CHE or other government department or agency, whether the university monitored claims made by a partner institution; and, whether any claims made accorded with a reasonable interpretation of a form of approval secured from the Council.
Matters given consideration in the audit
The University context for collaborative provision
10 A detailed description of the University's arrangements for the management of collaborative provision is included in the HEQC 1995 audit report (see above, paragraph 3). The majority of the University's links are with partners in the United Kingdom, particularly within the West Midlands region. Currently the University has connections with seven overseas partners located in Western Europe, the Middle East and the Far East.
11 The management of franchised arrangements is governed by a Code of Practice which stipulates certain practices that Coventry University school-based staff should follow in the operation of franchised programmes. In addition, the University has produced a Handbook for Educational Partnerships which summarises policy, recommended procedures and terminology for use in partnership arrangements.
12 The University states in the Code of Practice that the objective for any franchise arrangement is that it should offer '...students an educational experience which is equivalent to that offered to students based in Coventry University on the same course...'. University staff are encouraged to work with staff from partner institutions to evolve good practice. The Code also states that any quality assurance procedures should '…monitor and enhance the quality of the student experience in the partner college...' and that these procedures should be '...equivalent but not necessarily identical to those of the University...'.
13 The University defines its relationship with Ruppin Institute as a 'hybrid franchise'. The courses are essentially programmes whose syllabuses have been designed in the University and the students achieve a Coventry University award. However, the students are considered to be Ruppin students and the Institute takes responsibility for all matters relating to the administration of the programmes. These include: '...the enrolment of students, staffing, timetabling, mounting examinations, welfare of students, provision of physical resources, and the maintenance of academic quality to the standards required by Coventry University'. Ruppin Institute is not considered to be a branch of the University operating in Israel and there are restrictions imposed by the University on how it may be represented by the Institute, including not allowing the use of the University logo.
14 The principal responsibility for the relationship rests with the School of Engineering at Coventry, operating within the framework of the University's procedures for quality assurance. The provision of BEng courses is controlled through the Programme Boards for the BEng courses, the School Board of the School of Engineering and the Quality Assurance Committee (QAC) of the Academic Board. The Dean of Engineering carries primary responsibility for the partnership acting with an Academic Director and an Assistant Academic Director who provide the principal liaison between the School of Engineering and Ruppin Institute. In its documentation about the quality assurance of collaborative provision, the University states that for hybrid franchised courses '...it is desirable where appropriate to recognise an existing, effective equivalent structure rather than require a new arrangement, provided that the existing structure articulates with Coventry University's quality assurance arrangements to which the courses will be subject'.
15 In order to oversee the operation, and monitor the progress of the Coventry
University-Ruppin Institute partnership, an Advisory Board has been established
with terms of reference to consider annual and interim reports from both
the University and the Institute, to advise on market opportunities, government
educational policies, and approve plans for future activities.
The background to the partnership
16 The origins of the franchise programme at Ruppin Institute date back to 1991 when the University established a one year 'bridging course' for Israeli students who had achieved the Handesai Diploma in Engineering (equivalent to the HND programme in the UK). The initial agreement with the Institute was arranged by Campus Educational Management Ltd, a commercial company which acted as the advisor for the University in respect to the School of Engineering operation in Israel. The University also engaged the services of a legal advisor to assist in the establishment of the partnership by progressing the application for approval from CHE and by seeking recognition from Israeli professional bodies.
17 The bridging course included level two (second year) modules from the Coventry programmes in Civil Engineering, Electrical and Electronic Engineering and Mechanical Engineering. A programme in Manufacturing Engineering and Business Studies was added in 1992 but did not run. In addition, students received support in English language training. Completion of the bridging course gave entry to the final year of the programmes available in Coventry.
18 In 1994 the University gave approval for the franchising of the first two years (level one) of four-year undergraduate programmes to Ruppin Institute, with the exception of Civil Engineering which was withdrawn because of issues connected to professional body requirements. To meet the requirements of higher education provision in Israel, the programme included a foundation year as well as the level one programme from Coventry. The foundation year included modules in applied science, engineering and English studies. The assessment for these modules was devised by staff at Ruppin Institute and approved by Coventry module leaders. With the exception of the module in English studies, approval was given for the foundation year and level one programme to be taught in Hebrew by Israeli staff. Recruitment to the revised BEng in Industrial Engineering and Management course began in 1994, followed in 1995 by the BEng in Electrical and Electronic Engineering.
19 The University carried out an Institutional Review of Ruppin Institute during 1995 and a separate event, held in the course of this visit, gave approval for the operation of years three and four of the programmes at Ruppin. Progression to year three required successful completion of level one, including an acceptable level of competence in English language. Subsequently the partnership has been extended by the introduction of additional programmes of study leading to the award of a BEng in Computer Hardware and Software Engineering. This has involved participation by the School of Mathematical and Information Sciences at Coventry. Currently the University is discussing with Ruppin the possibility of offering taught postgraduate programmes, in Israel, in Engineering Business Systems and Information Technology for Manufacture.
20 All three programmes have approval from the Registrar of Engineers in Israel which will allow graduates to register as engineers on graduation. However, at the time of the audit the programmes had not received approval from the Engineering Council in the UK. The University has formally requested that the franchised programme should be included in the IEE's accreditation programme for 1998. If this request is granted, the programme will also be approved by the UK Engineering Council.
21 The academic year 1997-98 is the fourth year of operation of the Coventry programmes. At the time of the audit, the audit team was informed that there were 314 students registered on three programmes. The first students from the Industrial Engineering and Management course will graduate in July 1998.
22 The first meeting of the Advisory Board (see above, paragraph 15), in
January 1998, received information about the predicted growth in student
numbers over the next five years. By the year 2001-02 it is expected that
approximately 880 students will be studying on the programmes, including
a number of students entering directly into year three with Handessai qualifications,
having followed a supplementary studies course at Ruppin. This programme
has the approval of the Registrar of Engineers in Israel. The Board also
discussed the possibility of developing a part-time variant of the Coventry
programmes, the proposed masters programmes and proposals for a BEng award
in telecommunications systems. The University may wish to reflect on the
pace of development of its undergraduate programmes in Israel and whether
the existing arrangements to assure the maintenance of its academic standards
will be sufficiently robust to support a significantly larger and more
complex scale of operation in the future. In particular it may consider
whether or not approval of postgraduate programmes, before the first cohort
of undergraduates has completed its studies and the School of Engineering
has had the opportunity to review the outcomes, is advisable.
23 The management and operation of the relationship between the University and Ruppin Institute is detailed in an agreement signed by both parties in February 1997. This agreement replaced the original memorandum of co-operation signed in 1994. This indicates that the ultimate academic control of the approved courses and the awards lie with the Academic Board at the University. It also states that the University will '...use its reasonable endeavours to obtain accreditation of the Approved Course by the UK Engineering Council at the appropriate time'. In addition the University has signed a separate agreement with Campus Educational Management Ltd (commercial advisor) and the Institute's legal advisor.
24 The HEQC Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in
Higher Education, 1996 includes advice to UK institutions on
the use of educational agents as brokers or facilitators of collaborative
links with overseas partners. In the light of the Code, the University
may find it desirable to continue to monitor the role of the agents supporting
its activity in Israel.
25 The procedures for approval are detailed in the Handbook for Educational Partnerships and in Guidelines for Institutional Review of Partner Colleges (see above, paragraph 11). The development of the Coventry programme with Ruppin Institute has involved a series of visits by staff from the University in association with approval and review activity. In total there have been six events as well as a number of informal visits.
26 In 1995, in line with national recommendations, the University implemented a process of institutional approval for all new collaborative partners and for existing overseas partners. As a consequence, a panel of senior academic staff, supported by an external member with relevant expertise, visited the Institute in June 1995. This event was held during the same visit, and with the same membership, as the Partnership Approval and Review Panel for the undergraduate programmes in Engineering. The outcome of the event was a recommendation for approval with a number of conditions and recommendations. A response to these was provided in October 1995 by the Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies in the School. This included further information from the General Manager of the Institute.
27 The audit team recognises that there are some advantages in combining
Institutional Approval and Programme Approval as part of a single visit.
The University is, however, a member of the Council of Validating Universities
(CVU) whose Code of Practice (1997) stresses the importance of separate
processes of institutional and programme approval. The University may wish
to consider the desirability of keeping these activities separate to allow
for a wider perspective and to ensure a degree of independence in the process
of Institutional Approval.
Arrangements for programme monitoring and review
28 The agreement between the University and Ruppin Institute includes a requirement that '...the Ruppin course team shall submit an annual monitoring report to the Programme Board.' These reports are considered within the School of Engineering alongside reports from the Coventry based programmes. An annual report for the years 1994-95 (Industrial Engineering and Management), 1996-97 (Industrial Engineering and Management) and 1996-97 (Electrical and Electronic Engineering) were included with the documentation provided for the audit team. These reports provide a statistical summary of students enrolled on the programmes in years one and two. The report for 1994-95 also included information taken from student feedback on the first semester. All reports included a brief commentary on issues relating to the programme delivery, although there appeared to be little evidence of self-critical analysis or identified points for action. The specification of the University's requirements for quality assurance of validated and franchised courses places emphasis on the requirement for annual reports to facilitate the scrutiny of the previous year's work.
29 In addition, the operating manual for the franchised programmes in Israel includes a requirement for course tutors to prepare '...a short report summarising the activity and performance of the course over the past 12 months which is passed to the Programme Manager'. There was no evidence in the annual reports provided for the audit team to confirm that this process of reporting had yet been implemented.
30 Whilst the audit team acknowledges the desirability of ensuring that monitoring procedures are efficient and not overburdensome on staff, the School may nevertheless wish to reflect on whether it has a consistent record of monitoring activity and whether the current reporting procedure is providing sufficient information to allow the Programme Board to be assured that the quality of provision is being adequately maintained.
31 Annual monitoring procedures are designed to provide information on
the progress of the individual programmes of study, but implementation
of the procedures has not been consistent. The University might also consider
whether this constitutes a sufficient mechanism for assuring itself about
matters relating to institutional management and organisation and the development
of the partnership.
Student assessment and standards
32 The principal mechanism for assuring comparability of standards is the requirement that students at the Institute be assessed using the same examination papers, taken at the same time, as students at Coventry and that both groups of students complete similar coursework.
33 For years three and four, examination papers and marking guides are determined by staff within the School of Engineering. These are sent to the Institute for comment and amendment where appropriate. The external examiner moderates the agreed papers which are sent to the Institute well in advance of the date of examination. Examinations are conducted within the Institute using the Institute's procedures for the conduct of examinations. Independent invigilators are recruited by the Institute to supervise the examinations. In line with accepted practice in Israel, staff with responsibility for individual modules are required to be in attendance at the beginning of examinations to answer any student queries regarding the examination papers and clarify the meaning of questions.
34 The audit team noted that the School of Engineering, rather than the University itself, had approved this way of conducting exams. The University may wish to consider whether or not any consequences flow from the differences in accepted procedure in Israel and the UK, particularly with regard to the presence of module tutors in examinations and the role they may play in answering students' queries about the examination questions that reach beyond matters simply of typographical accuracy.
35 Examination scripts are first and second marked by staff at Ruppin. A sample of six scripts for each paper is selected by staff from the Institute for moderation at Coventry (two best, two worst, plus two in the middle). An internal examiners' meeting is held at Ruppin, in the presence of a representative from the School of Engineering. This meeting makes recommendations to the Subject Assessment Board and Programme Assessment Board held in Coventry. Ruppin staff are encouraged to attend the Subject Assessment Board and the Academic Director (or Assistant Academic Director) is expected to attend the Programme Assessment Board. The course documentation states that the external examiner receives a sample of scripts from level two and level three. To date only one cohort of students in Industrial Engineering and Management has completed assessment at level 2.
36 Papers, model solutions and marking schemes for foundation modules (Z modules) taken in year one and some of the level one modules taken in year two are set by staff at the Institute in Hebrew. Following internal moderation, English translations are forwarded to the School for approval. Papers are commented on and returned by staff in the School of Engineering. Following some delays in this process, the audit team learnt that a new procedure had been introduced under which if staff at Ruppin do not receive a reply within a week they may assume approval by the School of Engineering. Whilst recognising the need to ensure a speedy approval of papers, the team considered that this arrangement might not provide adequate safeguards for monitoring the content of papers. The School may wish to reconsider this procedure.
37 The audit team was informed of a number of problems which arose with the management of the marking procedures during 1996-97. In particular, delays were experienced in the transfer of information between Ruppin and Coventry. Of particular concern had been the failure to transfer Ruppin marks in time for consideration by the appropriate Subject and Programme Assessment Boards. As a consequence they were considered separately from the marks of the students who had followed the same programme at Coventry. The School is aware that this prevented a direct comparison between students who had followed the two parallel programmes and is considering steps to ensure that this problem does not recur. As the comparison of marks provides one of the key methods for assuring comparability of standards, the team was of the view that this matter should be accorded a high priority. The University will, no doubt, wish to be reassured that the necessary action taken by the School will prevent similar problems occurring in the future.
38 Coursework assignments in the foundation year are produced by staff at Ruppin and submitted with a marking scheme to module leaders in Coventry for approval. For the remainder of the programmes Ruppin staff either use Coventry assignments or set assignments based on similar coursework exercises to those used in the School of Engineering. Module leaders in Coventry are required to provide approval for these assignments and for the marking schemes, but there is not normally any involvement of the external examiners at this stage. Samples of assessed coursework are supplied to Coventry for moderation, and for years three and four these are also provided for the external examiners. Work from year two (level one) is not normally sent to the external examiners although they have the option to see samples if they wish.
39 From the documentation provided and from discussions with both staff and students it was apparent to the audit team that a significant difficulty had been encountered with the differences in marking conventions and marking scales between Israel and the UK. Assessment in the first two years does not contribute to the final award and consequently has been conducted using an Israeli scale. Assessment for years three and four is required to follow Coventry (and hence UK) conventions. The School of Engineering has attempted to resolve these difficulties by introducing a formula for converting marks between the two scales: The Ruppin Formula. However, the team learnt from students that transcripts were sometimes shown to potential employers and that recorded UK marks would not be well understood. The team was informed that the proposed solution to this problem was to implement a scheme based on letter grades rather than percentage marks. The team identified a number of issues relating to the conversion of marks between the two scales. A particular concern relates to the subtleties of the application of marking scales by academic staff in both countries. The School may wish to give further consideration to the use of its conversion formula to reassure itself that the mathematical transformation of marks accurately reflects the meaning attached to individual marks in the two marking scales, particularly with regard to borderline marks.
40 The audit team received a copy of a report from the external examiner
of the manufacturing undergraduate programme at Coventry, resulting from
a visit to Ruppin in May 1997. The purpose of the visit had been to provide
'...an overview of the operation in Ruppin Institute, review procedures,
teaching methods and facilities and to ensure that they correspond with
those performed at Coventry University for the same programme'. The examiner
identified a number of issues relating to the standards of marking. Staff
from the School of Engineering assured the team that these matters were
being given serious consideration. In particular, attention was being paid
to improving the specificity of marking schemes (both in Coventry and at
Ruppin). In addition, all final year papers from Ruppin would be marked
by staff from the School of Engineering. The School may wish to give further
consideration to ways of enhancing marking standards, including further
staff development activity for staff at Ruppin Institute and the possibility
of involving external examiners more closely with the process at the Institute.
41 The principal entry requirement for the Coventry programmes is the school-leaving certificate (Bagrut Certificate). Students are required to achieve nine units of study, out of a minimum of 20, in mathematics and physics with a mark on the Israeli scale of at least 70 in each. There is also a requirement for four units of study in English language with a mark of at least 75. Students must also attend an admission interview. A preparatory course of study is provided for students who do not possess the necessary entry requirements.
42 The University expects the Institute to conform to its policy on equal opportunities. The audit team was informed that an approach by another institution, for a partnership link, had been turned down as the partner institution had been unable to comply with Coventry's requirements for equal opportunities. At present between 10 and 15 per cent of the Institute's students are Israeli Arabs. The team was informed that it was keen to extend its activities to include further opportunities for Palestinian students and students from Jordan.
43 The formal procedures for the management of the operation of the courses at the Institute include a reference to the responsibility of the Dean and General Director of Ruppin Institute to make arrangements for the academic counselling of all students, based on the School of Engineering's practice. In documentation provided by the University it was stated that the Programme Board was required to establish a Course Consultative Committee for the courses '...with equal representation of staff and students from the courses to discuss and resolve any matters concerning the day-to-day operation of the courses or to refer them to the Programme Board for action'.
44 The audit team was informed that the Institute had a well established staff-student committee which met on a weekly basis, but that it had proved problematic to institute a full personal tutoring system. Some support had been provided for students in connection with industry through securing placements and overseeing activity in the workplace. So far as the team could judge, students in their final year had a close working relationship with their project supervisors. The team was assured that relations between staff and students were generally good and conducted in an open and constructive manner. A number of issues had been raised as matters of concern by students, some of which had been taken up with representatives from Coventry on visits to the Institute. Evidence was presented to suggest that actions had followed from these representations, including responses from the University. Whilst the numbers of students on the programmes remain relatively small, and staff are able to respond on individual issues, these arrangements may enable students to feel reassured that their concerns are being addressed. However, the School might wish to reflect on the sufficiency of these arrangements were the University and the Institute to proceed with the introduction of further programmes and admit the larger numbers envisaged in the future.
45 Established Ruppin procedures are used for the collection of feedback from students, with results given to the course management teams for action. The report of the Partnership Approval and Review Panel of June 1995 included a recommendation that a system should be developed for '...the formal consideration of the results of student questionnaires.' From its enquiries, the audit team learnt that at present no formal feedback is received at Coventry but that matters are dealt with informally by the Assistant Academic Director with responsibility for the programmes. The School may wish to consider whether it is making sufficient use of existing systems for student feedback to support its procedures for quality assurance.
46 Students on the programmes at Ruppin have been provided with copies
of the Coventry undergraduate student handbook. The Institute is currently
in the process of producing its own version of a handbook, in Hebrew, which
it told the audit team it intended to make available to all students. A
draft version of this handbook was provided for the team. As part of its
concerns that students are kept fully aware of the requirements and entitlements
of Coventry undergraduate programmes, the School may wish to ensure that
the matter of producing a comprehensive guide for students is expedited
as a matter of some urgency.
Staffing and staff development
47 In granting approval to Coventry University to operate its programmes in Israel, the Israel Council for Higher Education included a requirement that the majority of the courses should be taught on a regular basis by staff with academic posts at the University and that Israeli teachers on the programmes would be approved by Coventry University (see below, paragraph 49). The University has experienced some difficulty in finding experienced lecturers who are willing to spend an extended period working in Israel. An experienced research assistant was seconded to Ruppin to support the teaching of English and Computing during 1994-95 and a further research assistant and part-time lecturer provided support for the Industrial Engineering programme in 1995-96 and 1996-97. Some staff from Coventry contribute to the programmes during visits to Ruppin. The Academic Director for the programme from Coventry makes a regular contribution to teaching on bi-monthly visits.
48 The University has addressed this issue by re-directing part of its fee income to fund the employment of additional locally recruited staff. Currently 1.5 full-time staff are supported in this way to complement the staffing establishment at the Institute.
49 The School of Engineering has established a procedure for approving all staff who teach on the Coventry programmes. A curriculum vitae is forwarded to the School of Engineering for consideration before staff commence teaching on the programme. To date, all staff recommended by the Institute have received approval in writing from the School of Engineering. Procedures for staff recruitment are managed by the Institute. Applicants are identified primarily through existing contacts and the audit team was told that, so far, there had been no need to advertise for staff. The interviewing and appointments procedure are the responsibility of the Dean and the appropriate Programme Leader at Ruppin.
50 Staffing issues have been a recurring theme in the reports from approval and review activities over the past four years - particularly concerns about the dependence on a large number of part-time staff and the rapid turnover in staff. The Institutional Review in June 1995 made a condition that 'Ruppin Institute should continue to move towards the development of a core of full-time staff to support the programmes'. This concern was reiterated in the report of the Partnership Approval and Review Panel.
51 The audit team was assured that such a dependence on part-time staffing was normal in Israel where many staff have long-standing contracts to teach in several universities and colleges. Ruppin has adopted a policy of replacing part-time lecturers with permanent staff and upgrading the quality of its teaching team. The audit team was informed of a number of significant changes in staffing, following the appointment of the present Dean at Ruppin, which included bringing in better-qualified staff. One of the full-time programme leaders whom the team met was also studying for a PhD at the University of Tel Aviv. The University has made it a requirement that the posts of programme leader and course administrator should be full-time appointments. Whilst acknowledging the improvements in staffing, the team would encourage the School to keep the matter under review to reassure itself of the adequacy of staffing arrangements, particularly with regard to the continuity of staff on the programmes.
52 Staff development activity has been facilitated by the regularity of contact between Ruppin and the University. However, the audit team was aware of a number of matters relating to the understanding of Coventry's procedures and practices, particularly relating to the administrative arrangements of the University's modular scheme. In addition there have been misunderstandings in the past regarding Coventry's approach to teaching and learning and the extent to which this may be varied to suit the context of Ruppin. The School may wish to give some consideration to the development of a more formalised programme of staff development, including an induction process for all newly appointed staff at Ruppin.
53 Contact between staff at Coventry and Ruppin is maintained through the
channels of email, fax and telephone, supplemented by periodic visits.
The audit team learnt that, increasingly, documentation was being exchanged
by using file attachments to email and that this was helping to alleviate
some of the previous delays in communication. The agreement between Coventry
and Ruppin includes a clause to the effect that 'Coventry University School
of Engineering will provide to Ruppin as early as possible all the academic
support materials (course notes, coursework assignments etc) pertaining
to the Approved Courses'. In the early stages of the programme difficulties
were encountered because Ruppin staff did not receive teaching materials
and coursework assignments in sufficient time for them to be assimilated
into the programme. Although this situation has now been improved, the
School may wish to consider ways of strengthening the links between module
leaders in both institutions as a way of broadening the basis of communication.
Claims made for approval in Israel
54 Permission has been granted by CHE for Coventry University to operate programmes in Israel and the University has agreed to abide by principles stated in the approval. These include an assurance that the programmes will be essentially the same as those provided at Coventry, that the award will provide access to postgraduate studies in the UK, that the award will be recognised by the British Engineering Council, that the majority of the programme will be taught by staff employed by Coventry University and that Israeli staff will be approved by Coventry University.
55 QAA is not in a position to comment upon the extent to which UK universities
operating in Israel comply with these requirements. However, the audit
team noted that the procedures of approval applied by the University have
taken account of the fact that the programmes have received 'endorsement'
from CHE and by implication the provision of this endorsement has provided
one of the measures for assuring the quality of provision in Israel. There
have been some departures from the requirements of CHE and the University
may wish to reflect on whether they have, in any way, influenced the confidence
it places in the School of Engineering and Ruppin Institute to fulfil its
requirements for quality assurance.
Publicity and promotional materials
56 The 1996 HEQC collaborative provision audit report drew attention to difficulties experienced by the University with the accuracy of promotional material produced by partner institutions. At its visit to Coventry the audit team heard of problems the University had experienced in the past in ensuring that the Institute provided fully accurate material about the relationship. However, the team was assured that these difficulties had been overcome by the closer institutional and individual relationships that had developed more recently.
57 The audit team noted that the current agreement did not include any
reference to who was responsible for publicity and the need for clearance
from the University. As part of its continuing monitoring of the operation
of the partnership the University may wish to ensure that its checks on
publicity and promotional material are effective and prevent any misleading
information being published. In line with the HEQC Code of Practice
for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education, 1996,
the University may wish to consider inserting a clause about information
and publicity when the agreement with Ruppin Institute is renegotiated.
58 As the first cohort of students studying at Ruppin will graduate in 1998 the audit team was unable to review the content of the certificate that they will receive. The University provided an assurance that the name of the Institute would be included on the certificate.
Conclusions
59 The University's relationship with Ruppin Institute has developed
rapidly since the introduction of the degree programmes in 1994. The evidence
of student demand for these programmes and the satisfactory progress of
students suggests that they are fulfilling an identified need and will
produce graduates who are adequately prepared to practice as engineers.
The University has taken steps to ensure that the experience of students
at Ruppin Institute is similar to that at Coventry and maintains links
with the Institute both to reassure itself of the continuing effectiveness
of its provision and to assist in the further development of the programmes.
60 The pace of development - from bridging course to taught postgraduate programmes in a little over four years - has been driven by the aim of providing opportunities to the students initially recruited to the programmes. The University has employed an incremental approach to approval, beginning with a foundation year and level one and then progressing to levels two and three. At the time of the audit the postgraduate programme was planned for implementation in September 1998. Given initial difficulties experienced with the programme, the University may wish to reflect on whether this rapid pace of development has provided adequate opportunity to review the establishment of its programmes at Ruppin Institute and allowed reassurance that its own procedures have been fully embedded within the operational arrangements in place at the Institute. It is not clear how proposals for future developments at Ruppin relate to the overall plan of the School of Engineering. The University may wish to consider ways of encouraging a closer link between strategic planning within the School of Engineering and Ruppin Institute to ensure that future developments are in line with the University's priorities.
61 Throughout the duration of the Ruppin programmes a good working relationship has been established between the Institute and the School of Engineering. This is reflected particularly in the role of the Assistant Academic Director in the School, as the principal liaison point, who not only visits the Institute on a regular basis but also makes a contribution to the teaching programme. Whilst acknowledging the benefits of vesting responsibility for the link in a member of staff who is able to mediate the interests and requirements of staff and students in both institutions, this role may become increasingly demanding as the number of students enrolled on the programmes increases. The School of Engineering may wish to consider ways of broadening the basis of the liaison to ensure a closer working relationship between course tutors and a greater sharing of responsibilities.
62 The School of Engineering is aware of the importance attached to the staffing arrangements for the programmes and has acknowledged a number of difficulties experienced in the past in recruiting appropriate staff. The measures taken over the past two years to upgrade the staffing profile of the Institute have undoubtedly removed many of these earlier concerns. However, the School may wish to reassure itself that the monitoring of staff appointments, particularly for part-time and temporary staff, adequately relate to procedures in place within the University. In addition, it may also wish to give further consideration to its provision for staff development activity, particularly to ensure that all staff appointed at the Institute are fully conversant with the regulations and procedures applied by the University.
63 The University has established a strong link with Ruppin Institute which offers much potential to both institutions for future development. The University may wish to consider whether its current procedures allow it to be fully confident that the operation of this relationship complies with all its arrangements for quality assurance. If the partnership continues to develop along the trajectory established over the past four years the University may find it desirable to consider ways of strengthening the association and providing a closer link with operational procedures at the level of the School and of providing additional support and oversight within the senior management of the University.
Annex
Commentary on the audit report supplied by Coventry University
Between 1992 and 1994 a total of 53 Israeli students graduated from Honours Degree courses in the School of Engineering at Coventry University. The students entered the courses having previously obtained the Israeli Handessai Diploma and attended Coventry-approved bridging courses in Israel. They undertook one year programmes at Coventry and obtained good degrees: the results compared favourably with the better UK graduates. The experience gained by the performance of the Israeli students was in all respects extremely positive and prompted the University to seek permission from the Israeli Higher Education Council (HEC) to operate franchise courses in Israel in partnership with Ruppin Institute.
In order to gain approval for the franchise, the HEC required that the programme in Israel would be the same as that studied by UK students in Coventry but with additions, so that the programme should also equate broadly with courses at Israeli Universities (Technion, Tel-Aviv, Beer-Sheva). Consequently they required Israeli students to take additional modules, which were generally concerned with strengthening the Mathematics and Physics element of the courses, which is a tradition of Israeli degrees. The additions to the Coventry curriculum were accommodated by extending the Coventry programme from the traditional 3 years to 4 years and making creative use of the free choice modules in the Coventry modular scheme. In order to satisfy the University and HEFCE quality standards, and to produce genuine bi-lingual engineers, English Language studies were made a compulsory element in the courses and all examinations and assessments in the final two years of each course have to be in English and taken concurrently with students in Coventry.
Franchising a 4 year programme is inherently far more difficult than the popular 1 year MBA, MEd courses. Whilst the language of Mathematics and Business is international, the language and philosophy of Engineering can and does differ considerably between countries. Whereas Israeli Engineering courses are more theoretical with strong Mathematics and Physics content, the trend in the UK, particularly in the newer Universities, has been towards application-based degrees. These differences created initial problems in teaching and assessment which have been gradually resolved through increased contact between staff from Coventry and Ruppin.
Initially the Ruppin laboratory facilities were not adequate to support degree programmes. However, the management at Ruppin has invested over one million dollars to bring them up to the standard required by the University and accrediting bodies.
Whilst the trend in UK Education has been to reduce class contact and encourage student-centred activities and self-learning, the Israeli approach remains one of higher contact hours and 'drill' (structured tutorial) hours. This structured approach produces tangible benefits to students in analytical subjects such as Mathematics, Physics and Electronics, but there is a down-side in that Israeli students struggle more with subjects such as Design, Management and Manufacture where a range of solutions are possible for any given problem. Israeli students therefore generally expect to have a more formal structured approach to learning. This cultural difference has manifested itself in a rapid and successful harmonisation of Israeli students into the Electrical and Electronic Engineering and Computer Hardware and Software Engineering programmes, but some difficulties in harmonising the programme in Industrial Engineering and Management have been experienced.
This problem has been recognised by Coventry and Ruppin staff and, although considerable progress has been made, more remains to be done. There is a growing understanding of these cultural differences by the staff in both Ruppin and Coventry and the difficulties are being resolved.
The induction of new staff at Ruppin into the Coventry system of working and quality procedures has been given a high priority and a formal programme of staff development is being introduced.
The first cohort of students (1994) graduated in July 1998. The results of the 46 students who took the final examinations were as follows:
First - 5
2.1 - 23
2.2 - 15
3 - 0
Deferred - 3
An IEE accreditation visit took place in August 1998 and the Industrial Engineering programme has been accredited for all current students and entry up to and including 1999.
The response from industry to the courses has been extremely positive.
Many final year projects are industry-based and graduates are being actively
recruited by those companies supporting the projects. Graduates from the
Ruppin courses and former Coventry graduates are now moving into senior
positions in Israeli companies and are being compared favourably with graduates
from Israeli Universities.
It would have been unrealistic to think that a franchise of this nature could be introduced without posing significant challenges to both partners. It has taken some time to appreciate the complexities of the Israeli system and to understand their thinking about education and their procedures. Similarly, the staff at Ruppin have experienced difficulties in adapting to the Coventry modular system, organisation and quality assurance procedures. However there has been a clear commitment from all concerned to make the franchise work. A process of "kaizen" - gradual and continuous improvement - has been adopted, because the alternative of an imposed step change in Israeli thinking and procedures would have been counter-productive. Establishment of a rapport with our colleagues in Ruppin Institute has required an understanding and appreciation of each other's views, procedures, culture and a high degree of patience on both sides. However a great deal of progress has been made, particularly in the last 12 months, much of it due to new staff appointments in Ruppin and an increased teaching contribution from Coventry staff which is helping to harmonise quality procedures.
In conclusion, after a problematic beginning the joint venture is now settling down and, although there are still problems to be overcome, with the goodwill of the staff in both Ruppin and Coventry this franchise is expected to grow from strength to strength.
Top