Introduction
1 This is the report of an audit, carried out by the Higher Education Quality
Council (HEQC), of the quality assurance arrangements for a collaborative partnership
between the University of Lincolnshire and Humberside (hereafter referred to
as ‘the University’) and the University of National and World Economics
(hereafter referred to as UNWE), Sofia, Bulgaria, leading to the award of a BA
European Business Administration (BAEBA). The audit included a visit to UNWE
in June 1997. The Council is grateful to the University and to UNWE for the willing
co-operation provided to the members of the audit team.
2 The quality assurance arrangements of the University were the subject of a quality audit in January 1995 leading to the publication of a report in January 1996 (HEQC Quality Audit Report University of Humberside (January 1996)). A separate audit of the University’s collaborative provision took place in March 1996, leading to the publication of a collaborative audit report in January 1997 (HEQC Quality Audit Report University of Lincolnshire and Humberside Collaborative Provision (January 1997)).
3 The University supplied a set of documentation relating to its collaborative provision in general, and to the link with UNWE in particular. At its briefing meeting, the audit team requested further documents which were supplied by the University. Two preliminary meetings were held with several groups of University staff. The first, held in Hull on 19 May 1997, included the Pro Vice-Chancellor/Quality Commissioner, staff of the Quality Unit, the Director and the Academic Programmes Manager of University of Lincolnshire and Humberside International (ULHI), staff involved in teaching the programme at the University who had visited UNWE, and administrative staff concerned with the programme. The second meeting was held on 5 June 1997 in Sofia with the present and former regional managers (see below, paragraph 13) responsible for the programme. The team visited UNWE on 6 June 1997 and met the Rector, the Course Leader, members of UNWE staff involved in teaching and administering the programme, groups of students registered for various years of the programme and recent graduates. At a meeting at the University on 4 July 1997, after the visit to Sofia, members of the team met the Quality Commissioner, the Director of ULHI and the Regional Manager responsible for the programme.
4 The audit team comprised Professor T J Kemp, Dr J Longmore, Dr D Timms, auditors, and Mr D P Fearnley, audit secretary. The audit was co-ordinated for HEQC by Ms V M Rivis, Assistant Director, Quality Assurance Group.
Recent organisational changes within the University
5 The University has been undergoing rapid change since the first quality audit of 1995: the establishment of a new campus near the centre of Lincoln was reflected in the change of name to the University of Lincolnshire and Humberside in January 1996. The University body with prime responsibility for organising and monitoring overseas collaborative provision is University of Lincolnshire and Humberside International, now known as ULHI, which at the time of the 1996 collaborative audit visit was known as the Open Learning Institute, and prior to that, as the International Centre. The audit team heard from University staff with responsibility for the collaborative partnership in Bulgaria that the University’s initial strategy for overseas collaboration was to ‘adopt a pro-active role in Europe’, but that in the current mission of the University, the international dimension was now implicit rather than explicit. Nonetheless the team learnt that the University now viewed its educational mission as global, not just British or European. The University has links with over 70 institutions in many countries. Collaborative partnerships involve programmes that are either validated, franchised or credit-rated by the University. A commentary, prepared by the University, is appended to this report.
The overseas collaborating partner: University of National and World Economics (UNWE)
6 The University of National and World Economics, Sofia, was founded in 1920 and is one of the largest and oldest institutes of higher education in Bulgaria. It is a state university for economics, business and management studies. Its main academic building is located in the student campus at the foot of Mount Vitosha, with further academic buildings in the centre of Sofia. The scale of UNWE’s operation can be judged from its student population (over 12,000 full-time and over 11,000 part-time students), its library (340,000 volumes, 420 periodical subscriptions), large-scale computing facilities, student accommodation (4,500 units) and other student facilities such as sports and catering. The administration of UNWE is headed by a Rector.
Cultural, educational and economic context
7 The political changes which occurred from 1989 onwards in Eastern and Central Europe have had significant consequences for the university sector in Bulgaria, not least in the fields of economics and management, as the curriculum moved away from a Marxist-Leninist philosophy to one modelled on Western-style free market economics. This has begun to transform not only the content and analysis of academic topics, but also the whole approach to learning, where didactic formalism has begun to give way to a more student-centred style. The audit team heard that the British Council had concluded that one way of fostering this process might be to introduce, within what it regarded as a notable East European institution, a complete, established, UK degree programme in business studies, which had already been offered in a similar way by another partner of the University in Budapest. Following a series of staff visits in 1992, supported by the British Council via its Bulgarian Academic Links Programme (BALP), the University agreed with UNWE to offer the BAEBA as one of its franchised programmes.
8 The first cohort of 28 students on the BAEBA was admitted to UNWE in September 1992, to study a programme comprising mainly British and some Bulgarian course units. A validation visit took place subsequently, in June 1993 (see below, paragraphs 15-16). This confirmed the academic status and viability of the programme and defined its curriculum, management and quality assurance arrangements. A decision to terminate the programme was taken in June 1996, so that no recruitment took place in September 1996. The audit team was told that this outcome was regarded with regret by both partners, who were unable to overcome a series of financial and legal constraints. The team heard from both the University and UNWE that the remaining student cohorts would finish the programme as planned (see below, paragraph 18).
9 The BAEBA programme was taught in English, with certain variations, to students who were simultaneously registered for a Bulgarian degree-level award. These variations reflected the particulars of Bulgarian business law and practice, the needs of Bulgarian graduates to secure employment and, most significantly, the need to satisfy the Bulgarian Education Ministry that the degree met its own criteria for recognition as a Bulgarian, as well as a British, qualification. The audit team noted that this was an example of a single degree programme leading to a dual qualification from universities in two countries, subject to two sets of quality assurance arrangements, and to different types of external regulation and recognition.
Systems and arrangements for quality assurance
10 The University has established a Board of Studies for ULHI, in common with academic schools of the University. It works closely with the University’s Quality Unit, which oversees the University’s quality assurance arrangements under the direction of the Pro Vice-Chancellor/Quality Commissioner. The Academic Board has ultimate responsibility for the approval of new collaborative provision, although it acts upon the recommendations of its Academic Standards Committee, where more detailed discussion takes place.
11 The version of the Memorandum of Co-operation provided to the audit team sets out the respective responsibilities of the two partners. It includes provision for the establishment of a course committee at UNWE to oversee the delivery of the programme and the submission of annual reports from UNWE to the University, together with the appointment of boards of examiners and external examiners to oversee the examinations and assessment arrangements. In discussions with University staff, the team learnt that annual reports are received by the Quality Unit, which distributes them to the Vice-Chancellor, Quality Commissioner and other interested parties. The Memorandum also provides for staff from the University to be involved in the preparation and approval of assessment procedures and materials, subject to the continued availability of British Council or other funding. All of these features of the organisation of the programme represented significant departures from accepted UNWE practice. According to the Memorandum, the UNWE Centre for Inter-University Studies was responsible for the programme and its day-to-day running, and, it stated, must follow all the rules and regulations of the University regarding the conduct and operation of the joint programme. The responsibilities of the Centre include the recruitment and local registration of students, appointment of teaching and administrative staff, development and implementation of student feedback procedures, and the implementation of the programme according to the Definitive Course Document (see below, paragraph 17). The team commends the enthusiasm demonstrated by UNWE staff in implementing the University’s quality assurance procedures, many of which were previously unknown in Bulgarian higher education.
12 The Memorandum also deals with legal matters of dispute, exclusion, review and/or termination and refers to the duration of operation of the Memorandum, that is, the period for which the degree was validated. The original intention was that the programme should be subject to the University’s usual review procedure, normally every five to six years. Both institutions confirmed that, should either or both parties wish to terminate the collaboration for whatever reason, then both parties would collaborate to ensure that the students would be able to complete their course. However, the audit team noted that, while this version of the Memorandum was comprehensive, and touched on all the points detailed in the HEQC Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education 1996 in its coverage of the responsibilities of the partners, it came into force only after a decision had been taken to terminate the programme.
13 In addition, the Memorandum sets out the obligation of the University to provide liaison officers for academic, financial and quality assurance matters. The duties of the academic liaison officer include the provision of a programme calendar, including an assessment schedule and dates for Field and Award Boards of Examiners (the audit team learnt that these titles are now Subject Board and Undergraduate Board respectively within the Modular Scheme); an agreed teaching scheme for all units prior to the start of the academic year; logistics for moderation of assessments; an agreed assessment scheme, including indicative marking schemes for all units; a plan for the moderation of assessments in all units; and details of students’assessment performances for evaluation by Field and Award Boards of Examiners. During the preliminary meetings the team learnt that the Regional Manager for Eastern Europe (and latterly for the whole of Europe), based in ULHI, had recently assumed responsibility for all these activities, providing a single point of contact, although he was receiving support from the recently-appointed Academic Programmes Manager in ULHI and from the former Regional Manager. The Regional Manager is a member of the Course Committee (see below, paragraph 19) and of the Board of Examiners (see below, paragraph 23). In discussions with staff of the University and staff from UNWE, the team learnt that the Regional Manager pays regular visits to UNWE and has close contacts with the Course Leader. However, notwithstanding the level of informal academic contact between the two institutions (see below, paragraph 33), the team considered that these arrangements tended to place too much reliance on the Regional Manager as the single point of contact for all strategic, administrative, quality assurance and financial matters, which may not have afforded the programme the full range of support available from the University, given the much wider responsibilities of the Regional Manager throughout Europe. In view of the introduction of these new arrangements for academic liaison, the University may wish to review the effectiveness of the sharing of responsibilities between the Regional Manager and the Academic Programmes Manager and of the support they offer to the extensive academic links between University and UNWE staff, within the next year of their operation.
14 ULHI has recently produced an Off-Campus Programme Management Manual giving guidelines on all aspects of the academic life of an incoming student through to graduation. The audit team welcomes its production and distribution. The University may wish to consider how it makes this new and comprehensive document available to all staff in its partner institutions and how the procedures contained within it are implemented.
Validation and approval processes
15 The approval process for the programme consisted of a two-day validation visit to UNWE on 1-2 June 1993, involving senior staff from both institutions, to examine in detail issues relating to the Definitive Course Document (see below, paragraph 17) for the BAEBA, and to agree a Memorandum of Co-operation (see above, paragraph 11) between the University and UNWE for the delivery of the programme. The validation visit appeared to raise no serious concerns for the University and resulted in the formal approval by the University of the BAEBA at UNWE. The detailed report of the validation visit includes notes of the meetings held with the 1992 entrants to the programme. The audit team was told that one of the principal outcomes of the validation visit had been the recognition that the introduction of the BAEBA was seen by UNWE as a means of reorienting its curriculum to reflect broader international concerns and to act as a potential catalyst for the development of Western-style teaching and learning methods, including student-centred learning, in its other programmes. The level of learning resources available to support the programme was considered appropriate and the ability of the first student cohort was commented upon favourably. Approval of the programme was also subject to the approval of the Academic Council of UNWE and continued funding by the Bulgarian Education Ministry. Following the visit, a recommendation was made to the University’s Academic Board that the programme being offered should be validated.
16 The timing of the validation process, some 10 months after the first cohort was enrolled, was acknowledged by senior and operational staff of the University to have been ‘less than ideal’. The audit team was informed that, had the BAEBA programme not been fully validated, either by the University or by the Bulgarian authorities, then the first cohort of students would simply have continued to study for the Bulgarian Diploma in Higher Education for which they were also registered. However, the team was told that, in the University’s view, the risk of approval not being given was minimal. In its meeting with graduates of the course, the team was informed that this first cohort of students had enrolled on the understanding that they were working towards both the BAEBA award and the Bulgarian diploma. The team, while understanding the University’s wish to proceed quickly, particularly in view of the availability of BALP funding, considered that the decision to proceed must be viewed as precipitate. From the evidence supplied, and from discussions with staff of both institutions, it was by no means clear to the team how the newly-admitted students would have been treated if recognition of a programme comprising both University and UNWE course units had been withheld, either by the University or the Bulgarian Education Ministry, or if the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement had not eventually been agreed.
The Definitive Course Document
The Definitive Course Document, which is dated June 1993, provides comprehensive details of the aims, structure, management and delivery of the programme. The programme structure comprises 30 University units and 10 UNWE units which are studied over four years. Students are required to complete all the University units successfully for the BAEBA award, while the UNWE units are an additional requirement for the Bulgarian qualification only. The medium of instruction is described as English/Bulgarian but the audit team learnt that all the units based on the University’s material were taught and examined in English, while the units devised by UNWE to meet the Bulgarian qualification requirements were taught in Bulgarian. The Document also requires the University’s approval for any changes to its units and covers such areas as the programme aims, student admission arrangements, regulations for assessment and progression, course management and reporting structures, and the co-ordination and implementation of the University’s methodologies and standards at UNWE.
Variations in course structure
18 It appeared to the audit team that there was some confusion, on the part of both the University and UNWE, over the exact nature of the four-year programme followed by the first (1992) cohort of students. The team was variously informed that the programme consisted almost entirely of Bulgarian units (by University staff); that it was an approximately equal blend of University units and Bulgarian units (by UNWE staff); and that it was predominantly composed of University units (by the students who followed the programme). The team heard that the second (1993) and third (1994) cohorts took mainly Bulgarian units in their first year, making up the required University units in later years. This appeared to be a consequence of a number of internal and external changes experienced by UNWE, which appeared to make recognition of the joint programme by the Bulgarian authorities less secure for a time. The fourth and, as it turned out, final entry cohort (from 1995) was following a newly-devised programme structure of three complete years of the University’s units, followed by a fourth year of material required to fulfil the requirements of the Bulgarian qualification. In practice, the last two cohorts of students have been merged for the delivery of the University’s components of the programme. The team heard that these changes, which represented a major shift from the original programme structure, had resulted not only from a need to react to newly-imposed Bulgarian Education Ministry regulations on the national higher education curriculum, but also from the admission of a small number of foreign students who sought only to gain the University’s qualification, and not the Bulgarian diploma. In the view of the team, the failure of the University to ensure that its condition of approval relating to changes in the programmes was fully implemented (see above, paragraph 17) left scope for a series of changes in the way in which the course was delivered which, while accommodating short-term difficulties, called into question the equivalence of the student experience across successive cohorts of the programme.
Arrangements for programme monitoring and review
19 The Course Committee at UNWE is responsible, as outlined in the University’s current procedures, for the maintenance of academic standards and for providing a mechanism by which academic issues affecting the programme are raised and discussed. Changes to, and developments in, the programme structure, content and assessment are to be made only with the approval of the University’s Academic Board. The Course Committee normally meets once each term. Its membership comprises the Course Leader, the course tutors, the ULHI Regional Manager (see above, paragraph 13) and a student representative.
20 Since October 1996, the focus of responsibilities for quality assurance by the University has resided with the Board of Studies located within ULHI. Reports from the Course Committee in UNWE and annual reports come to this Board, on which all teaching staff from the School of Business who are involved in moderating the assessed work of UNWE students are represented. The University requires the production of annual unit reports commenting on students’performance and issues related to the students’learning experience; an annual course report, agreed by the UNWE Course Committee, which provides relevant statistics and a commentary on progress and any difficulties experienced by the course; and a periodic review report evaluating the work of the course. The annual reports seen by the audit team took the form of a set of highly detailed minutes from the Course Committee but lacked an accompanying commentary (see below, paragraph 21). Each unit tutor reported in writing on the progress of their students in their respective subjects. These refer, inter alia, to contacts with University staff either at UNWE on their visits, or at the University on reciprocal visits. These short reports are frank and provide the University with a source of detailed monitoring information. In 1995 the University introduced a pro forma to facilitate a more structured approach to the annual course report. The team saw examples of such reports. The 1995 report drew the attention of the University to structural changes in the programme, to matters raised by students during the year (some of a critical nature) and to points raised within the Course Committee. These included recommendations and comments relating to the content of some of the units, such as the need for greater recognition of the Bulgarian business culture and process, and the irregular attendance of some students. The November 1996 annual report again refers to matters raised in 1995 by both students (shortage of materials) and the Course Committee (student attendance, problem of the Bulgarian business/economic environment), again with evidence of specific remedial action taken or to be taken by UNWE. The team, noting the introduction and implementation of a more formal reporting mechanism, was told that operational matters needing attention were referred for action to the Regional Manager; any major questions were dealt with by the Pro Vice-Chancellor/Quality Commissioner. The University may wish to place greater emphasis in future in assisting UNWE in the compilation and consideration of these reports, in order that both institutions derive maximum benefit from both the process of self-evaluation and the important feedback which the reports contain on the operation of the programme and the quality of the student experience.
21 The University also reported to the British Council as the body responsible for disbursement of the BALP funding. The audit team received executive summaries of these reports for 1993-94, 1994-95 and a full report for 1995-96. From the evidence provided to the audit team, it appeared that, until the introduction of the annual report pro forma, the BALP reports to the British Council were the only form of annual report for the first years of operation of the programme.
22 As part of the monitoring of its degree programmes by the University, a ‘quality visit’was paid to UNWE in June 1996 by the Pro Vice-Chancellor who is also Quality Commissioner for the University. The aim of the visit was ‘to audit and assess the quality of teaching and learning on the BAEBA at UNWE’. The Quality Commissioner’s report concluded that the programme was well taught and well managed, and supported by staff from both institutions. It commented with regret that funding could not be found to sustain a programme which was making an important contribution to the development of modern business education in Bulgaria. The Quality Commissioner recommended that the University should make every effort, in both the students’interests and to protect the integrity and standards of the award, to offer support to continuing students. The report also made reference to the Open Learning Institute’s (now the ULHI’s) proposals for an open learning approach to future delivery and pointed out that the progress of the remaining three cohorts of students was to receive close attention. The audit team was initially unclear about the role of this visit within the University’s overall quality assurance strategy for its collaborative partnerships, given that the decision to close the programme had already been taken, but was told at the post-visit meeting that the University now intended to pay an annual quality visit to Bulgaria for the duration of its partnership arrangements with UNWE.
Arrangements for the assessments of students
23 For each programme for which it is responsible, ULHI maintains its own examination boards on which are represented the Director of ULHI, the Regional Manager, the Academic Programmes Manager and academic staff from the participating school, who act as internal moderators for the programme.The audit team was told that course leaders of partner institutions offering the programmes had the option of attending examination board meetings. Across the main programmes of the University, there is now a Subject (formerly Field) Board of Examiners responsible for the academic integrity of the units, and an Undergraduate (formerly Award) Board of Examiners responsible for approving assessment procedures and all awards made to students. All members of University staff involved with moderation of these programmes are members of the Award Board of Examiners, as are the external examiner(s). In discussion with senior staff of the University, the team heard that programmes operated through ULHI were not yet subject to these arrangements, although changes to bring such programmes into line with the rest of the University were under consideration. The team would encourage the University to pursue this course of action.
24 The audit team heard that the underlying philosophy of the programme was that the method of assessment should follow as closely as possible that experienced by UK BAEBA students. This applies to the consideration of assessed work and of formal examination papers. The ‘ownership’of the programme by the University is underlined by the fact that it moderates the marking of assessed work by UNWE staff, and by its approval of external examiners, who operate and report under University protocols. Recommendations relating to UNWE students are taken to meetings of boards of examiners held by the University (see above, paragraph 23). These boards make the recommendations for progression to the next year of the programme, or, in the case of final year students, confer the awards, on receipt of the moderated marks, following which appropriate lists of outcomes are sent to UNWE. The external examiner, who is in attendance, makes oral comments which are recorded, in addition to his formal report to the University.
25 The University sees the use of external examiner(s) ‘as a part of a continuous monitoring, evaluation and review process......(which) plays a highly significant part in the process’. The external examiners operate under the University’s Guidelines for External Examiners. The audit team saw sets of reports from two external examiners for the 1995-96 session. The team found evidence within the reports of the comparability of the programmes offered in UNWE and the UK, reflected by the comment by one external examiner that ‘the papers sat by the UNWE students are, with minor exceptions to allow for local conditions, those sat at Humberside’.
26 At its May 1996 meeting, the Board of Examiners dealt with such matters as methods of improving moderation; a possible case of plagiarism; and the need for consonance between the styles of question-setting by the staff from the two institutions. The question of plagiarism was raised by the new external examiner, as an item of concern at the October 1996 meeting, and was repeated in his formal report. The University responded that the external examiner may have been misled by the extremely high standard of English reached by the UNWE students. The audit team noted that this response was corroborated by the level of spoken English displayed by all the students and staff it met during the visit. The team noted that students of the programme attain uniformly higher grades compared with those of the University’s own students taking the same programme and examinations. The University attributes this to UNWE’s competitive selection process and the calibre of the students. The team noted that the external examiner commented in May 1996 that ‘the measures put into operation at the University to ensure comparability of standards seem to me to be exceptionally thorough’. The team formed the view that, from the evidence made available to it, the reasons for the particularly high levels of achievement by the UNWE students advanced by the University were generally substantiated.
27 The audit team noted that the new external examiner had pointed out that he had insufficient expertise over the range of topics he was expected to cover and heard that the University had accepted this was a problem needing attention for the next round of assessment. The team concluded that the external examining system for the collaborative programme appeared to be working well: the examiners were not slow to raise criticisms of varying severity and the University had responded to all of these in writing.
28 The University has no role in the formulation and assessment of the Bulgarian-based units which are offered to fulfil the requirements of the Bulgarian qualification. The audit team was told that certain of the University’s units had been supplemented by specifically ‘Bulgarian’material: the supplementary material was formulated and assessed entirely within UNWE and had no impact on the University’s qualification, although the University was informed of the grades awarded on these added components.
29 The audit team commends the University for ensuring that the assessment procedures of UK higher education have been adopted by, and embedded in the practice of, its collaborative partner in Bulgaria, within the BAEBA component of the programme at UNWE.
30 The selection of students for the BAEBA programme is based on UNWE’s competitive entrance examination and the students’own indication of preference of programme in their written application. Demand for entry to the BAEBA programme has been high. The audit team heard that there were some 1,500 applications for UNWE’s state-funded quota of only 20 student places on the BAEBA each year.
31 Within the context of the BAEBA programme, the principal factor governing the quality of the students’experience is their encounter with the philosophy of student-centred learning, as affirmed in the Definitive Course Document. The groups of students met by the audit team (representing the three remaining cohorts and also recent graduates of the programme) spoke warmly of their learning experience on the programme at UNWE. When problems arose they confirmed that they had good access to either the Course Leader, Course Administrator (who works to the Course Leader), year tutor, individual academics or, via their elected representative, to the Course Committee, whence their comments and any complaints or problems were passed in the minutes to the University. They also spoke of the value attached to the joint qualification in seeking desirable employment. Students met by the team, while regretting the closure of the programme, felt supported during their remaining period of study. The team commends the commitment and energy of the Course Leader and the academic and administrative staff involved with the programme at UNWE for their enthusiasm in maintaining the BAEBA programme despite continuing difficulties.
32 The students’opinions about their academic experience, as gleaned from their comments recorded in the annual course report (see above, paragraph 20), and as transmitted through the Course Committee, refer to a shortage of reading materials (especially periodicals) in certain topics and problems of access to information in the preparation of their fourth-year dissertations. Various actions were agreed to remedy these problems at local level, where possible. However, the audit team was unable to confirm how far the University had monitored the availability of essential reading materials available to BAEBA students in Bulgaria. The team was told of one informal arrangement made through the University by the Course Leader to improve the availability of reading materials. The team commends such individual initiatives by both UNWE and University personnel in addressing this problem, in the light of the heavy reliance of such programmes on western learning materials which are prohibitively expensive in Bulgaria, and the effective doubling of the continuing student cohort from 1996-97. However, the team would urge the University to adopt a more systematic and strategic response to monitoring the availability of, and access to, appropriate learning resources for its Bulgarian students.
Staffing and staff development matters
33 In entering into the collaboration with the University, UNWE recognised the need to reform its course material and mode of teaching: this is clearly set out in the Definitive Course Document (see above, paragraph 17). A singular feature of this collaboration, in the view of the audit team, has been the high level of interchange of staff, mostly academic but also at officer level, between the two institutions, especially specialist staff at the University’s Business School and their academic counterparts at UNWE. A series of detailed reports of visits to UNWE, by individual University academics, indicates their close involvement in monitoring the programme and in providing staff development to the UNWE participants. The team commends these visits, and the process of reporting on them, as an indication of the commitment of University staff to the delivery of the programme at UNWE.
34 The visit reports refer to staff development workshops for UNWE tutors and the identification of staff development requirements. Five such visits were made in late 1995 and, at the time of the audit visit, 12 University staff in total had made visits to UNWE. In their annual unit reports (see above, paragraph 20), UNWE tutors refer warmly to the benefits accruing to them from these visits. This view was confirmed in meetings with the audit team. These reports also refer to the reciprocal visits paid to the University by UNWE academics. The team formed the clear impression that the process of delivery of a UK curriculum by UNWE staff, with its associated quality assurance culture, had been a valuable experience and would undoubtedly have a lasting impact on all those concerned, in whatever form the teaching of Business Administration takes at UNWE in the future. The team commends the enthusiasm and commitment shown by UNWE staff in participating in staff development activities in the programme, and the reciprocal support offered by members of University staff.
Publicity and promotional materials
35 The Memorandum of Co-operation states that ‘UNWE must obtain the approval of the University for any advertisement promoting the programme’.The institutional prospectus supplied to the audit team, featuring advertising by UNWE as a whole, gives general information about the institution’s scope, history, facilities, administration, teaching programmes, organisation, faculties and research activities. No specific mention is made of the BAEBA programme or the link with the University, other than as part of a list of courses offered by UNWE. The audit team heard that potential students and their parents were active in seeking places, in what was perceived to be a very prestigious programme. The programme had recruited students mainly by word of mouth, as is customary in Bulgaria.
36 The decision to make the 1995 student intake the final one appeared to have been prompted by the inability of the University to continue to support the programme by covering academic and other direct costs, as the four-year BALP funding covered only the costs of exchange visits. The expected growth in the number of students able to finance themselves on the programme has, so far, failed to materialise, as Bulgaria has moved only slowly towards the establishment of a market economy. The University is, however, committed to supporting the costs of those students currently registered, as they progress through the programme. The audit team learnt that UNWE itself was unable to generate a franchise fee for the current programme. The final two student cohorts (1994 and 1995 entrants) were initially scheduled to transfer to the University’s BA (Hons) International Business Administration (BAIBA) programme by open and distance learning, but this decision had been reversed when it became apparent that the delays resulting from seeking the approval of the Bulgarian Education Ministry for this move were likely to be excessive. The team learnt that there had been active discussions between the University and UNWE about the validation of a very unusual form of the University’s BAIBA programme, under which the first three years would be based on Bulgarian units, to satisfy recent Bulgarian education legislation, while the fourth year would comprise 10 course units from the University delivered in an open learning mode. The team was concerned to learn that, although at the time of the audit visit this programme had not been validated for delivery at UNWE, the University hoped that students could be recruited for September 1997.
37 The audit team also learnt during the visit that TEMPUS funding secured by the Course Leader at UNWE in the summer of 1996 had enabled the University to offer its MBA programme at UNWE, the first cohort of students commencing the programme in December 1996. This was seen by UNWE as an important progression route for BAEBA graduates. At a meeting with senior staff of the University after the visit, the team learnt that the University had led a TEMPUS project which had resulted in an agreement with three partner institutions in Sofia to offer a suite of MBA programmes, through distance learning, including specialist programmes in information systems and housing. In the case of both the BAIBA (Level Three) programme and the general MBA, the intention was that UNWE would recruit students and provide tutorial support. The University would provide its distance learning materials and necessary quality assurance. While commending the zeal and enthusiasm of the Course Leader at UNWE in exploring new and collaborative programmes with the University, the team would wish the University to consider, in seeking to further this valuable and mutually enriching partnership, the exercise of prudence and caution, together with appropriate safeguards, in implementing any successor programmes to the short-lived BAEBA.
Conclusions and points for further consideration
36 The decision to make the 1995 student intake the final one appeared to have been prompted by the inability of the University to continue to support the programme by covering academic and other direct costs, as the four-year BALP funding covered only the costs of exchange visits. The expected growth in the number of students able to finance themselves on the programme has, so far, failed to materialise, as Bulgaria has moved only slowly towards the establishment of a market economy. The University is, however, committed to supporting the costs of those students currently registered, as they progress through the programme. The audit team learnt that UNWE itself was unable to generate a franchise fee for the current programme. The final two student cohorts (1994 and 1995 entrants) were initially scheduled to transfer to the University’s BA (Hons) International Business Administration (BAIBA) programme by open and distance learning, but this decision had been reversed when it became apparent that the delays resulting from seeking the approval of the Bulgarian Education Ministry for this move were likely to be excessive. The team learnt that there had been active discussions between the University and UNWE about the validation of a very unusual form of the University’s BAIBA programme, under which the first three years would be based on Bulgarian units, to satisfy recent Bulgarian education legislation, while the fourth year would comprise 10 course units from the University delivered in an open learning mode. The team was concerned to learn that, although at the time of the audit visit this programme had not been validated for delivery at UNWE, the University hoped that students could be recruited for September 1997.
37 The audit team also learnt during the visit that TEMPUS funding secured by the Course Leader at UNWE in the summer of 1996 had enabled the University to offer its MBA programme at UNWE, the first cohort of students commencing the programme in December 1996. This was seen by UNWE as an important progression route for BAEBA graduates. At a meeting with senior staff of the University after the visit, the team learnt that the University had led a TEMPUS project which had resulted in an agreement with three partner institutions in Sofia to offer a suite of MBA programmes, through distance learning, including specialist programmes in information systems and housing. In the case of both the BAIBA (Level Three) programme and the general MBA, the intention was that UNWE would recruit students and provide tutorial support. The University would provide its distance learning materials and necessary quality assurance. While commending the zeal and enthusiasm of the Course Leader at UNWE in exploring new and collaborative programmes with the University, the team would wish the University to consider, in seeking to further this valuable and mutually enriching partnership, the exercise of prudence and caution, together with appropriate safeguards, in implementing any successor programmes to the short-lived BAEBA.
Top