In August 1999 QAA wrote to all UK higher education institutions requesting
information on their overseas collaborative provision in Egypt and Cyprus.
On the basis of the information returned to QAA by institutions, together with
information collected in the course of previous UK and overseas audits, QAA proposed
a programme of audits of partnerships between UK higher education institutions
and institutions in Egypt and Cyprus.
Each of the UK institutions selected for audit was asked to provide a Commentary on its arrangements which would describe the collaborative link, making reference to the extent to which it was considered to be representative of its procedures and practice in all its overseas collaborative activity, or was specific to its collaborative activities in Egypt and Cyprus. Each institution was also asked to provide a view of the effectiveness of the means by which it assured itself of the quality of the learning opportunities and student support offered through this overseas link, and to offer its view of the effectiveness of the means by which it assures itself of the standards of awards gained through this overseas link.
The guidance provided by QAA to UK institutions preparing such a Commentary referred them to the HEQC Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education, 1996 (the HEQC Code) and invited them to discuss in their Commentary the degree to which the arrangements they operated were congruent with the guidelines set out in the HEQC Code. The guidance also referred to the recently published section of the QAA Code of practice on collaborative provision, due to come into effect in Autumn 2000.
The UK institutions were asked to list the sources and nature of the evidence on which they relied to assure themselves that the quality of the educational provision leading to their awards (or awards for which they had responsibilities) was meeting their requirements and expectations, and that the standard of the relevant awards were being safeguarded. Institutions were asked to make this evidence available to the QAA audit team on the occasion of its visit (see below).
The audits were conducted by a team of academic auditors and an audit secretary appointed by QAA. Each Commentary was scrutinised by the audit team, together with accompanying information, and discussed at a briefing meeting convened for the purpose. On the basis of the information in the commentaries and associated documents, the team proposed a programme of meetings for its visits to the UK and overseas partners, and requested additional information to be made available by the UK institution in its base room for the duration of that visit.
Following its discussions with members of each UK institution and drawing on the information provided, the audit team drafted an interim report of its findings to support the visit to the relevant partner institutions in Egypt and Cyprus and to assist it to prepare a report on the findings of the audit of the partnership as a whole.
The members of the audit team were: Professor P W Bush; Professor J Cowan; Dr S Jackson; Dr A Saul and Ms S Haselgrove, auditors; and Mr R A Platt, audit secretary. The audit was coordinated for QAA by Dr D W Cairns, Assistant Director, Institutional Review Directorate who also accompanied the team on its UK and overseas visits for QAA.
1 This is the report of an academic audit carried out by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) of the quality assurance arrangements for a collaborative partnership between Middlesex University (the University) and the Regional Information Technology Institute, Cairo (RITI), to support the delivery of a programme of studies leading to the award of a degree of Master of Science in Business Information Technology (MSc (BIT)). QAA is grateful to the University and its partner for their willing cooperation. The audit formed part of a wider review by QAA in 1999-2000 of collaborative arrangements between institutions of higher education in the United Kingdom and their partners in Egypt and Cyprus.
2 The visit to the University took place on 20 and 21 March 2000, in the course of which members of the audit team discussed quality arrangements for the link with RITI with members of the institution and studied materials made available in a base room. Members of the University who met the team included the Deputy Vice-Chancellor; the Head of the University's Quality Assurance and Audit Service (QAAS); the Dean of the School of Computing Science; the School's Director of Curriculum Learning and Quality (DCLQ); the School's Liaison Tutor, and other members of the School with experience of the quality assurance arrangements for the link. In all, the team met 13 members of the University, some on more than one occasion. The members of the team who visited the University were Professor J Cowan and Ms S Haselgrove, auditors; and Mr R A Platt, audit secretary. Dr D W Cairns, Assistant Director, Institutional Review Directorate, accompanied the team for QAA.
3 Members of the audit team subsequently visited the University's partner in Egypt, RITI, on 9 May. On this occasion the team comprised Professor P W Bush, Professor J Cowan and Dr S Jackson, auditors; and Mr R A Platt, audit secretary. Dr D W Cairns again accompanied the team and coordinated the audit overall for QAA. In the course of the visit the team met senior staff of the Institute and staff with teaching and administrative responsibilities in relation to the University's programme in Cairo. The team also met students following the MSc (BIT) in Egypt, and two graduates from the franchised programme.
4 The audit team wishes to record its appreciation for the readiness of all those whom it met on its visits to the University and RITI, to make time to meet it to discuss the University's arrangements to assure the quality of the MSc (BIT) programme and the academic standards of the University's award.
The University context for collaborative provision
5 The Commentary stated that the 'University regards its collaborative provision as a fulfilment of its Mission, Vision and Strategic Objectives; [which] embrace, inter alia, a commitment to the principle of life-long learning, and articulate the desire of the University to provide educational opportunities for all those who are capable of taking advantage of our academic programme'. At the time of the present audit the University was engaged in some 250 collaborative arrangements with partner institutions in 40 countries. An addendum to the Commentary listed the University's collaborative arrangements.
6 The University has participated in three previous academic audits of its quality assurance arrangements. In 1995 the former HEQC published the report of an audit of the University's quality assurance arrangements for its educational provision and its measures to safeguard the standards of its academic awards (the 1995 report). A separate report addressing the University's quality assurance arrangements for its collaborative provision was published in 1996 (the 1996 report) and the University's link with 'Vital - the Tel Aviv Center for Design Studies' was the subject of a QAA overseas audit, the report of which was published in 1998 (the 1998 report).
7 The University's quality assurance arrangements for its collaborative provision remain largely as described in the 1996 HEQC report and in the 1998 QAA overseas audit report, although the titles of some units and postholders have since been changed in line with internal restructuring. It remains the case that the University considers that 'collaborative programmes are subject to precisely the same procedures regarding validation, review, external examining, annual monitoring and so on' as programmes provided by the University on its own campuses.
8 The typology used by the University to describe each of its collaborative arrangements, set out in paragraph 14 of the 1996 report, also remains unchanged. Collaborative programmes are categorised by the University as validated, where the programme 'is designed, delivered and assessed by the providing institution and, having undergone due process of scrutiny by the University, is deemed to be appropriate to qualify its students, on successful completion, for an award of the University'; a 'validated University programme which is developed and taught jointly with a partner institution' is termed by the University a joint programme; a franchised programme is defined as a validated University programme, designed, assessed and quality-assured by the University but delivered by and through a partner institution and an accredited programme or module is one which is designed, validated, delivered, assessed and quality assured by a partner institution, successful completion of which entitles a student to claim appropriate credit points within the University's Academic Credit Scheme, and thus contributes towards an award of the University. The University's partnership link with RITI although delivered jointly by the partners, in practice, is based on the MSc (BIT) offered by the University on its own campuses in the UK and through other partnerships elsewhere, and is regarded by the University as a franchise.
The Regional Information Technology Institute and the Regional Information Technology
and Software Engineering Center
9 The Regional Information Technology and Software Engineering Center (RITSEC), based in Cairo, was established in 1992, as a project funded jointly by the United Nations Development Program and the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development. It is hosted in Cairo by the Cabinet Information and Decision Support Centre (IDSC) of the Government of Egypt. RITSEC was created to 'help accelerate the development of an information technology and software engineering industry in the Arab region'. In November 1993, RITI was inaugurated as RITSEC's training unit. The mission of RITI is defined as to 'establish a centre of excellence for the design and delivery of progressive academic and professional development programmes in information technology and their application in different domains for the delivery of first class managers, experts, practitioners and trainers'.
10 RITI does not aspire to become a higher education institution in its own right and it has established a range of collaborative arrangements for postgraduate awards with US and European higher education institutions, of which that with the University is one. It has also established a number of 'strategic alliances' with major national and international companies and organisations. Between 1992 and 1996 RITI conducted 150 programmes (60,000 'trainee hours') for 250 clients from the public and private sectors drawn from 40 African, Asian and European countries.
The University's Commentary and base room
11 The University's Commentary referred to previous HEQC and QAA audit reports, and the University's responses to them, and described the origins of the link and its establishment and aspects of its delivery. The Commentary described the University's arrangements for establishing partnership links in general and this link in particular, and provided a guide to the University's generic quality assurance procedures for partnership links, emphasising the contributions of the University's QAAS, formerly its Academic Development and Quality Assurance Unit, and the former Pro Vice-Chancellor (Quality & Standards) (the PVC (Q & S)). The Commentary also described the establishment and remit of the University's Eastern Mediterranean and Regional Office, based in Israel.
12 The University has delegated to its constituent schools many of the responsibilities for quality administration that were formerly discharged by its faculties on behalf of Academic Board. As stated in the 1998 report, therefore, the 'delivery of collaborative provision is managed at School level'. The Commentary provided little guidance to this layer of the University's quality arrangements, and without the further information which the School of Computing Science provided in its base room (see below, paragraph 13) it would have been difficult for the audit team to follow the part played by School-level academic quality and standards arrangements in the management of the University's partnership links. The 1995 report noted that actions flowing from reports generated by the University's quality processes 'were reviewed through the management structures of the University', which then included ASQC and Academic Board, in addition to the Management Team. The Commentary provided no information on what part the management layers of the University played in the University's current approach to managing the quality of its provision and safeguarding the academic standards of its awards.
13 As noted earlier, information on the quality arrangements operated by the School of Computing Science was provided in a series of supplementary statements placed in the base room which the School established on behalf of the University. The information in the base room was carefully indexed and linked to relevant sections of the advice offered by QAA on such matters, and to the Commentary. The University is to be commended for the care with which the School had arranged the base room.
14 The Commentary stated that the quality arrangements that it outlined 'seem to the University to have served the University well in its obligation to have in place (and to be seen to have in place) arrangements and processes which enable it to know that it is discharging effectively its responsibilities for this particular link'. The Commentary concluded that the arrangements and processes in operation for its link with RITI were 'in no way bespoke to this link, but that, rather, they [were] merely typical of the arrangements and processes in force in relation to all the University's offshore collaborations'. The University's view of the account of its quality arrangements offered in the Commentary was that it had 'deliberately "erred" on the side of explanation and analytical description'. This was not a view which the audit team found itself wholly able to support.
Quality assurance of collaborative provision
Overall approach to quality assurance
15 The University's approach to academic quality was described in the 1995 report and subsequent developments were noted in the 1998 report. The latter report noted that the University's Academic Board was responsible for assuring the quality of all the University's academic provision. The Commentary did not mention the part played by Academic Board, the Board's Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC) and the latter's Monitoring and Evaluation Sub-Committee (MESC) in the University's quality arrangements for its collaborative provision. It did, however, state that the 'quality assurance of all the University's academic provision is the responsibility of its QAAS' (see below, paragraph 49). In this connection, the audit team noted that the 1995 report stated that it was not possible at that time to be sure 'how effective was the operation of the committees which carry specific responsibility for monitoring academic programmes, and for encouraging a sense of ownership of the University's quality assurance processes among staff'.
16 The Commentary stated that under the University's quality arrangements franchised programmes such as that operating at RITI, together with their 'parent' programme, were subject to the 'full panoply of quality assurance arrangements which obtain in the University [sic]'. It also stated that the 'quality assurance of all the University's academic provision is the responsibility of its QAAS', rather than Academic Board, as had formerly been the case, although the terms of reference of Academic Board did not appear to have been changed from those in force at the time of the 1998 report. The University subsequently stated its understanding that Academic Board was ultimately accountable for academic quality.
17 For information on the University's quality arrangements the Commentary referred to the University's Quality Assurance and Audit Service Procedures Handbook (the Handbook) published on its web site (see below, paragraph 86) and specifically the University's Policy on Collaborative Provision. These in turn referred to the processes of initial approval of a partner institution; for the validation and approval of a proposed franchise; and for the construction and agreement of a Memorandum of Cooperation between the partners. Subsequently, approved partnership programmes are subject to annual monitoring and periodic review in the same way as other University provision, with the addition that the University, via the dean of the relevant school, appoints a 'Link Tutor' for each partnership link, with responsibility 'for ensuring the maintenance of the standards and delivery of the collaborative programme, and for effective liaison with each other and with the key administrators in each [partner] institution'.
18 The University's Deputy Vice-Chancellor told the audit team that it was satisfied that it could be confident that its schools were undertaking the quality tasks they had been assigned, and taking action where this was warranted, and that it was content to work on the basis of trust and confidence in colleagues. He also stated that the University's approach to franchised programmes assisted it to focus on outcome standards, rather than processes, when seeking to safeguard the academic standards of awards.
19 The University's approach to establishing the suitability of a proposed partnership link is described in paragraph 21 et seq of the 1998 report, which noted that when 'initiating a collaborative partnership with a new institution the University always undertakes an institutional visit which predates, and is separate from, any course approval event'. The institutional approval process provides an opportunity for the proposer(s) to satisfy the University, via the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, that the proposed link is consistent with the University's policy framework for collaborative provision, and that the potential partner organisation is academically and financially sound. The process of institutional approval is fully set out in the Handbook.
20 In describing the initial development of the University's contacts with RITI, the Commentary noted that the University had 'a history of academic development involving the Republic of Egypt, nurtured especially by several of its Egyptian-born staff' and that it was through such contacts that the Director of RITI had arranged to visit what was then the Faculty of Technology in October 1995, part of which now comprises the School of Computing Science. Following discussions between the School and RITI, in November 1996 the Dean of the School requested the University's Deputy Vice-Chancellor and the PVC (Q & S) that the latter should carry out an institutional visit to RITI. Should that visit result in a positive outcome, the Dean indicated that he would want to commence the process of validating the franchise of the School's MSc (BIT) to RITI.
21 Initial inquiries made by the PVC (Q & S) and the University's Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office led the University to the view that the complexity of relations between RITI, RITSEC and IDSC was such that all three organisations should be involved in any institutional visit. Prior to the institutional visit itself the University, drawing on the Handbook, provided RITI and RITSEC with advice on the documentary information needed for the institutional visit. Amongst other information, RITI was asked to provide a copy of its prospectus and its most recent annual report, as well as details of its mission; governance; legal status; internal structure; quality assurance procedures; equal opportunities policy; physical and learning resources; student support and guidance arrangements; and any relevant insurance. Conditions attached to the report of the institutional visit indicated that not all the information requested had been made available to the University by the time of the visit.
22 The institutional visit took place in March 1997 and its proceedings were conducted in English. The PVC (Q & S) chaired the event, with administrative support from a member of his staff. Also representing the University were the then Acting-Dean of the Faculty of Technology (subsequently Dean of the School of Computing Science), the Head of the University's Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office and the member of Middlesex staff who had first demonstrated the potential for establishing a link with RITI. The visit report stated that the panel met staff from the three organisations and visited their premises, including the accommodation and learning resource facilities. At the end of the institutional visit it was indicated to RITI staff that the panel was minded to recommend to the University's Deputy Vice-Chancellor that institutional approval be granted, subject to the satisfactory resolution of a number of outstanding matters relating to the legal status of RITI and RITSEC. Further documentation was provided to satisfy these conditions.
23 The audit team discussed with the University's Deputy Vice-Chancellor how RITI and RITSEC had been able to confirm that the financial and institutional arrangements of RITI met the University's expectations. It was clear to the team that the Deputy Vice-Chancellor had undertaken detailed inquiries of RITI and RITSEC and had received authoritative assurances from high-level sources in the Egyptian administration, which had enabled the University to decide by June 1997 that all the outstanding conditions of the institutional visit had been met. It was also clear to the team that the University expects decisions on the suitability of prospective partners to be made on its behalf drawing on objective information, generally, but not invariably, obtained from sources independent of the partner institution and the University itself. The team found that the University's decision to approve RITI as a partner institution had been taken following the procedures set out in the Handbook, that the inquiries carried out by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor had been conducted with commendable scrupulousness, and that there could be confidence in this aspect of the University's quality arrangements for its partnership links.
Franchise validation and approval
24 Prior to the recommendation of institutional approval from the PVC (Q & S), preliminary steps had been put in hand to prepare for consideration of the academic merits of the proposed franchise. First, an application for initial approval of a proposed programme to be delivered at an overseas institution was completed in November 1996 by the Dean, Chair of Faculty Academic Development Committee, and the Principal of the Collaborating Institution. Second, the University's Programmes Planning Committee (PPC) considered and approved the proposal in May 1997, subject to confirmation of institutional approval. Third, the proposal was subjected to the scrutiny of a validation panel operating under powers delegated by the University's ASQC.
25 The University's normal procedures are drawn up on the basis that validation panels will be convened on the premises of the partner institution, although this is not an absolute requirement. On this occasion the PVC (Q & S) agreed to permit the validation event to take place in London. Differing rationales were offered for this decision, including that this variation had been allowed because the learning resources to support the proposed franchise had been checked during previous visits by University staff to Cairo and that this rendered a further visit to Cairo unnecessary (see below, paragraph 68). The audit team was unable to establish the facts of the matter. The validation event took place in November 1997 and was attended by the Director of RITI and a second senior member of RITI. The constitution of the panel followed the requirements of the Handbook and its members included specialist external advisors.
26 A noteworthy feature of the proposal submitted to the panel was a provision that the MSc (BIT), to be offered in Cairo in part-time mode, should be delivered in intensive blocks of tuition and study, supported by RITI and University staff in and out of class, followed by a period for supported revision before examinations. The panel recommended that the annual monitoring report should be used as a vehicle to check on the effectiveness of this arrangement (see below, paragraph 33). The franchise validation panel recommended the approval of the part-time programme, subject to the fulfilment of recommendations relating to the student handbook, and receipt of a satisfactory response from the External Assessor. In due course the PVC (Q & S) received copies of the Memorandum of Cooperation, the validation report and minutes of the relevant School Committees that related to the detailed validation of the franchise. On the basis of information received from the School's Academic Administration Manager (AAM), the Chair of the panel confirmed in January 1998 that the recommendations had been addressed, and the first intake to the programme commenced study in Cairo in February 1998. The nature of the information on which the Chair had relied in this instance was not clear.
27 The records of the validation panel and the supporting documents on which it relied were provided in the base room. They were thorough and comprehensive; however, there was no indication that the University had subsequently checked for itself that the panel's recommendations had been addressed. The audit team also noted that an error in the panel's report, in regard to quoted figures for contact times, did not appear to have been identified by the University prior to its confirmation of the report. It also appeared to the team that in the light of subsequent difficulties encountered in providing access to some necessary learning resources in Cairo (see below, paragraph 69), the University's decision to conduct the franchise validation in London, rather than at the partner institution, might have been unsound.
28 Following receipt by the University of advice from the Egyptian Government, the formal Memorandum of Cooperation between the University and its partner in Egypt was concluded with both RITI and RITSEC in December 1997. The Memorandum provided a clear and appropriate framework for the operation of the franchised programme. It confirmed that the admissions requirements, programme content and mode of the yet to be franchised programme would be that validated at Middlesex. Students were to be recruited by the Institute which would undertake an initial selection but the University would conduct the final selection of students. Students were to be assessed at a common Assessment Board in London, in the presence of key RITI teaching staff, and assessments were to be scrutinised by the external examiners for the parent programme.
29 The Memorandum confirmed that tuition was to be provided jointly by the University and the Institute, and that the learning resources for the programme were to be 'to the same level as those provided for the University MSc' (see below, paragraph 74), that the programme delivered at RITI would be subject to the same quality assurance procedures as the parent programme, but that the student experience at RITI would be the subject of a separate 'evaluation of the programme prepared at the Institute' (see below, paragraph 34). The Memorandum required RITI to establish a board for the franchised programme to meet at the Institute, which the Middlesex Programme Leader would attend each semester; with representatives from the student body and the teaching staff in attendance. The Memorandum also required RITI and the University each to 'appoint a senior link person [a Link Tutor] to coordinate joint planning and developments' (see below, paragraph 41).
Annual monitoring arrangements
30 Arrangements for the annual monitoring of programmes of study, as operated until the beginning of the 2000 session, are set out in detail in the Handbook. The process begins with the preparation of annual reports by those charged with the leadership of modules, subjects and programmes, using standard forms available via the QAAS pages on the University's web site. The compilation of these reports is subject to the initial scrutiny of the boards of study responsible for the management of each programme. In the case of franchises, a report for the franchised programme is usually prepared separately by the partner's Programme Leader on behalf of the board of study in the partner institution. Reports for all University-based and partnership programmes are subsequently drawn upon by the DCLQ of the relevant school to provide an analytical report, and associated action plan, on the annual monitoring exercise conducted by the school for submission to QAAS in January each year. Under the former system, analytical reports from schools were then sent by QAAS for consideration by the University-level MESC of ASQC, itself a sub-committee of Academic Board. Under the University's former arrangements for annual monitoring MESC reviewed analytical reports from schools in February each year.
31 According to the Handbook, school-level analytical reports, or Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs), should be no longer than 10 sides and cover matters under 19 separate headings, one of which requires the school to comment on the operation of new programmes, and those offered through partnership arrangements, in their first year of operation. Feedback on the outcomes of the annual monitoring process are provided to schools through their deans, who are members of ASQC and of the University's Management Team. The Commentary alluded briefly to the University's annual monitoring arrangements. It did not provide any information on how annual monitoring of the link with RITI had been conducted in practice, or an indication of any outcomes of that process which might be relevant to the audit. The base room prepared by the School did, however, describe these arrangements and provided examples of the detailed records kept by the School and used to compile the AMR.
32 Each school in the University is authorised to decide how its AMR should be compiled; however, the procedure adopted by the School of Computing Science in 1997-98 and 1998-99 had broadly followed the process described above. The School-level AMRs provided in the base room addressed all the on-campus and partnership provision for which the School is responsible, of which since 1998-99, information on the MSc (BIT) has constituted one element. The audit team was told that in drawing up the report on the MSc (BIT) and the partnership link with RITI the School was able to draw on module marks; student feedback information (see below, paragraph 84); oral and written reports from the Link Tutor and from visiting staff (see below, paragraph 45); external examiners' reports (see below, paragraph 64); and the minutes of the two Boards of Study for the MSc (BIT) which meet in London and Cairo. This information is held and collated by the School's DCLQ. The team noted that the AMR for the School of Computing Science referred in detail to the School's overseas links and, in a summarised form, to those in the UK.
33 As noted in paragraph 26 above, the franchise validation panel recommended that the particular mode of delivery adopted for the part-time MSc (BIT) programme in Cairo should be kept under review via the annual monitoring process. The audit team was able to verify that this requirement had been met in the School's 1998-99 AMR, and that in the 1997-98 AMR the School had reported that its DCLQ would discuss this matter with students.
34 The Deputy Vice-Chancellor told the audit team that under the system of annual monitoring operated until the 1999-2000 session, a report from the partner should be attached to the reports on the progress of the franchise generated by the School; however, members of the School told the team that this requirement had now lapsed. In this instance the team was unable to determine the facts of the matter. In the case of the link with RITI, members of the Institute told the team that they participated in the annual monitoring exercise through the University's Link Tutor who, it appeared to the team, had taken responsibility for preparing the report on behalf of RITI. The University subsequently informed the team that this approach had been seen as the best way of identifying all potential difficulties, and had served as a useful staff development exercise for the RITI Link Tutor. While the team considered that the adoption of this approach had obvious benefits for the dissemination of good practice, it did have the effect of blurring the lines of scrutiny and responsibility between the University and RITI Link Tutors, so rigorously adhered to elsewhere in arrangements between the University and the Institute.
35 Following consideration and agreement by the School's Quality Committee, the analytical report on the annual monitoring exercise for 1998-99 had been tabled for consideration at a meeting of MESC. The minutes of the meeting of MESC which considered this report provided no indication that the progress of the RITI link, which had then recently commenced, had been subject to any particular consideration.
36 Within the School of Computing Science, annual monitoring arrangements for partnership links, as exemplified by its link with RITI, are the subject of detailed and careful attention, often as a result of initiatives by the Link Tutor. The audit team came to the view that the School had conscientiously complied with the requirements of the University's former annual monitoring process. Above the level of the School, however, there was little to show that Academic Board, through QAAS, MESC and AQC, was in a position to take a detached view of the progress or otherwise of an individual partnership link via the annual monitoring process.
37 For the 1999-2000 session the audit team was told that above the level of the schools the University had adopted a different process of annual monitoring to that described above. This new process of annual monitoring was described to the team as being linked to the University's planning process and was stated as coming under the aegis of the University's Planning Strategy Group. The intention, the team was told, is to ensure that the University's strategy for allocating resources can be more directly linked to need. At the time of the audit there was no further information available on how this new form of annual monitoring was to be conducted and the team is therefore not in a position to offer a view on the likely effectiveness of this new approach. As the University takes forward its new approach to annual monitoring, it might wish to consider the advisability of updating its Handbook to cover its new arrangements. It might also wish to consider how its newly introduced annual monitoring arrangements might be enhanced to ensure that Academic Board can more clearly be informed of the quality assurance of individual collaborative links (see below, paragraph 51).
38 The University operates two forms of periodic review, reviews of academic provision, and reviews of subject and/or programmes. Reviews of academic provision are conducted under the auspices of QAAS, using the criteria adopted by QAA for its subject reviews with, in addition, 'a focus on costs, with the use of benchmarking to compare costs of similar academic provision in other comparable institutions'. Reviews of subjects and/or programmes are conducted at school level by schools approximately every six years, and their scope extends to programmes provided through partnership arrangements. Reviews of programmes follow a similar format to that adopted for programme validations, but in the case of a review the panel is expected to test how the programme has operated in practice 'and the experience of the students enrolled on it'.
39 At the time of the audit the information provided in the Commentary indicated that the MSc (BIT) offered in Cairo had yet to undergo either form of review. The University subsequently informed the audit team that a programme review had been undertaken of the MSc (BIT) offered in Cairo, in May 1998. The Commentary did refer, however, to an 'informal "quality assurance progress review"' at RITI in November 1999 conducted by the PVC (Q & S), together with the Head of the University's Eastern Mediterranean Office, the Head of the School of Computing Science, the Link Tutor, and the School's DCLQ. The team was not made aware of the formal findings of this latter review nor did it see any resulting report. The University subsequently informed the team that matters arising from this informal quality assurance progress review would be covered in the School's annual monitoring exercise relating to 1999-2000.
Revisions to franchised programmes
40 The Handbook sets out the University's procedures for revisions to programmes. Major revisions require the approval of the University's Academic Planning Committee. Minor changes to programmes, including those with no resourcing implications, no impact on student numbers, changes to three or fewer modules, additions, deletions or revisions to modules; or the merger of subjects, can be sanctioned at school level if the school's own Academic Planning Committee approves. There was no information on what minor changes might have been made to the University's programme in Cairo in the Commentary, although a statement in the base room provided detailed guidance on this matter. Scrutiny of the information provided in the base room suggested to the audit team that only minor and constructive changes, chiefly emerging from feedback and monitoring, had been made by the School to the course provision in Cairo since its initial validation and that, in each case, careful records had been kept.
41 Under the terms of the Handbook, the dean of the school 'hosting' a partnership link is responsible for its overall development and operation. It is usual within the University, however, for responsibility for the day-to-day operation of partnership links to be allocated to a Link Tutor, who will normally be a member of the host school. The responsibilities of Link Tutors appointed respectively by the University and by partner institutions are set out in the Handbook. For a University-based Link Tutor, these responsibilities include ensuring that 'the collaborative programme is being delivered in accordance with the arrangements agreed at validation, and that any difficulties and changes are being recorded and addressed by the University and partner institution'; ensuring that the provision and exchange of 'essential documents and information is taking place'; and that 'review, annual monitoring, audit and other procedures as described in the...Handbook and in the Memorandum of Cooperation are being followed'. In addition, the University Link Tutor is required to ensure that the University's assessment procedures are adhered to in respect of the franchise by the partner institution.
42 The Link Tutor appointed by the partner institution is expected by the University to be responsible for ensuring that their University equivalent is provided with 'lists of students to be enrolled or registered with the University'; with the minutes of meetings held of programme management committees (usually referred to as 'boards of study') held at the partner institution; lists of students' assessment grades; confirmation that assessment arrangements are in line with the University's expectations; first destination statistics; and the annual monitoring report as it relates to the franchised component of the programme. The person appointed by the Dean to act as the University's Link Tutor had been associated with the proposal to franchise the MSc (BIT) to RITI from an early stage, and had continuing teaching responsibilities within the UK-based MSc (BIT). As an Egyptian national, he had invaluable first hand experience on which the University has been able to draw. For its part, RITI chose to appoint two Link Tutors to share the responsibilities of the role, one of whom is the Director of the Institute. The same individuals have acted as the Link Tutors from the inception of the franchise; on their designation each had been briefed in detail on their responsibilities by the PVC (Q & S).
43 In the 1996 HEQC report on the University's quality assurance arrangements for its collaborative provision, the University was invited to 'review the roles, specification and training of University and College Link Tutors'. The 1998 report noted the University's positive response to this recommendation, and that workshops had subsequently been offered for Link Tutors in successive years. It was not clear to the audit team, however, whether these now constituted a settled and regularly repeated means of inducting new Link Tutors and disseminating good practice in quality procedures and administration from link to link.
44 The audit team discussed their work and liaison activities with each of the Link Tutors on its visits to the University and to RITI respectively. Information in the University's base room showed that the Link Tutors maintained a frequent and frank correspondence via email and fax. Written exchanges (other than emails) were confined to formal records of agreements on particular matters and the information required by the University's quality and assessment processes. The Link Tutors have met frequently, for example, when the School's Link Tutor has taught at RITI (see below, paragraph 74) and when the Director of RITI has visited London to attend University meetings. Discussions with the School's Link Tutor showed a clear and commendable understanding on his part of the boundary between championing the franchise and safeguarding the University's interests as an awarding body, and the need to give the latter priority.
45 The audit team was told that as part of his duties, the University's Link Tutor customarily briefed University staff visiting RITI on arrangements and developments in the franchised programme, and that he invariably sought reports on their experiences from such staff on their return to the UK. The team read a sample of such reports, and noted that the Link Tutor and the School had developed a standard format for them, to ensure that relevant information on the operation of the franchise was captured. The team also noted that University staff visiting RITI to teach were provided, as a matter of course, with the report of the last person to visit RITI, which would also have been passed to the relevant module leader(s), together with information on any follow up action by the University and/or RITI. These commendable arrangements established by the School did not feature in the Commentary and it was not clear to the team that members of the University beyond the School were aware of them. The team judged these arrangements to be worthy of wider notice across the University, and further afield, but was unsure how, outside the School, the University under its present quality arrangements would know of this excellent practice and disseminate it, other than through the meetings of Link Tutors referred to in paragraph 43.
Administrative support for the franchised programme in the School, the University
and in RITI
46 The Handbook requires that the Memorandum of Cooperation with a partner institution should be accompanied by an 'administration annex' setting out roles and responsibilities in the University and its partner in connection with the support of the link, a requirement which was fully met. The responsibilities set out in the Handbook mainly concern the DCLQ and the AAM of the relevant school. AAMs are expected to carry out a range of responsibilities in connection with the day-to-day administrative support of the link, including maintaining contact with staff in the partner institution with similar responsibilities; organising the validation and reviews of collaborative programmes; and liaison with QAAS, the University's Academic Registry, and the University's Collaborative Programmes Officer (CPO), based in the Registry.
47 According to the Commentary, the CPO 'deals with all the purely administrative aspects of every collaborative programme, whether in the UK or overseas; these duties include the registration of students on collaborative programmes validated by the University and the management of the financial arrangements of most of the University's collaborative links'. The audit team was able to confirm that, like its Link Tutor, the School's AAM was in regular contact with colleagues in RITI by email and fax.
48 The Commentary provided no information on the administrative arrangements made by RITI in Cairo to support the link, although the Handbook provides an indication of particular responsibilities together with an indication of the level and nature of the postholder in the partner institution likely to be involved. The audit team was told that at an early stage in the development of the franchise, a senior member of administrative staff from RITI had visited the University to be briefed on the requirements for academic-related administration.
49 The Commentary stated that the University continued in its long-standing view that following the granting of institutional approval under its quality arrangements, 'collaborative programmes are subject to precisely the same procedures, regarding validation, review, external examining, annual monitoring, and so on, as the University's own "domestic" programmes'. It added that this 'pivotal feature of the University's approach to collaborative provision cannot be stressed too strongly'. This approach appears to rest on the assumption that once a partnership has been established, and the initial franchise or validation has been approved, the risks of untoward developments are the same in collaborative provision as for on-campus provision. It also understates the degree to which the University itself has recognised the special challenges inherent in collaborative provision in its designation of Link Tutors who are explicitly required to safeguard its interests.
50 From the Commentary, the materials in the base room, and from its meetings with members of the University and RITI, it was clear to the audit team that at the beginning of the University's partnership with RITI, the PVC (Q & S) and the staff of QAAS had played an important part in implementing the University's procedures for the establishment of such a link. Following the establishment of the link, however, both the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and the current Head of QAAS confirmed that responsibility for operating the University's front-line quality control processes rested with its schools. QAAS exercises an audit function over some of these quality processes, but the team was told that such QAAS audits were conducted in response to issues raised in annual reports, or as preparations for the QAA and University subject review cycle. It appeared to the team that the scope of such audits did not extend to checking that annual monitoring processes in schools had been conducted satisfactorily and that the information on which AMRs were based could be relied upon. Other than through its involvement in institutional approval visits, therefore, it seemed to the team that QAAS dealt predominantly with secondary evidence provided by schools, the accuracy of which it had little opportunity to check.
51 At present, the University receives independent reports from its external examiners on the progress of individual programmes of study, though where these include elements franchised to partners, external examiners are not required to report separately on such links. It appears to be the case, however, that other than through its external examiners, the University lacks the means to take a detached view independent of the schools which operate them, of the manner in which partnership links are progressing following their establishment. In such circumstances, the University's knowledge that individual links are progressing satisfactorily comes from the summary evidence provided by the schools in their annual analytical reports. These were formerly sent via QAAS to MESC, and are now sent to the Planning Committee. The University must therefore work on the basis, as its Deputy Vice-Chancellor acknowledged, that colleagues in its schools can be trusted to discharge their responsibilities for quality. This does not support the University's claim in the Commentary that its quality arrangements meet 'its obligation to have in place (and to be seen to have in place) arrangements and processes which enable it to know that it is discharging effectively its responsibilities for this particular link'.
52 In the case of the University's link with RITI, the School of Computing Science has diligently discharged its designated responsibilities for quality processes and has justified the University's trust. It was not clear to the audit team, however, that if matters had gone awry, the University could be sure that it would have learnt of this through QAAS or other means, independently of the School. If, as the Commentary claimed, the University's quality arrangements in respect of its link with RITI are 'merely typical' of its other partnership links, this would be a general weakness of the University's quality arrangements for its collaborative provision.
53 QAAS presently provides the University with an internal quality auditing service, the scope of which covers, inter alia, 'the manner in which Schools are discharging their responsibilities for the validation and review of discrete programmes of study, for validating modules and module changes, and for approving minor changes to programmes delivered by collaborative partner institutions on a validated basis'. In view of the dependence of QAAS on secondary information, the University may wish to consider the merits of extending the remit of QAAS audits to allow the testing and verification of the evidence cited by schools in the reports they make to QAAS itself, and to the University's central committees, including Academic Board.
54 The 1996 report noted that the University required those developing modules and programmes to address academic standards when stating criteria for assessment and module and programme outcomes. For the present audit, the Handbook provided little explicit guidance, however, on the University's approach to setting and maintaining the academic standards of its awards other than to identify the importance of the role played by the external examiner.
55 The Commentary provided several references to academic standards. It stated that the programme at RITI was an 'exact replica' of the MSc (BIT) programme offered by the University in London and that 'parity of academic standards was underpinned by joint staff development activities' (see below, paragraph 73). Elsewhere it noted that there was considerable joint teaching in Cairo by University and RITI staff (see below, paragraph 74) and that the admission of students to the franchise was 'a responsibility jointly shared by RITI and the University's School of Computing Science' but that the University had 'the final say'. The Commentary also stated that the 'franchise [was] subject to the normal annual monitoring procedures of the University' (see above, paragraph 30 et seq), and that assessment arrangements were 'identical between the parent programme and the Egyptian franchise: the same examination question papers are used, at the same time, and the external examiner who acts for the parent programme also acts for the franchise'.
Admission and induction of students
56 The Commentary stated that the 'admission of students [was] a responsibility shared jointly by RITI and the University's School of Computing Science' (see above). Members of the School told the audit team that the criteria for selecting students to join the franchise programme, and the processes for admitting them, mirrored those followed by the School in London, and were overseen by it. RITI staff further told the team that they provided applicants with advice on the nature of the programme and that all applications, including those judged by RITI to be unacceptable, were sent to the University for a formal decision on acceptance or rejection. Applications are dealt with on a 'first come first served' basis.
57 Students are admitted to the programme at the beginning of each semester. A member of Middlesex staff usually participates in the induction of new students and, amongst other matters, provides briefings on the assessment requirements, which are also set out in the copies of the Middlesex regulations with which new entrants are provided. Students are provided with a University identity card which they valued as a tangible symbol of their status. The audit team was told that the Dean of the School usually arranged to address new students at some point in their first semester. Students in Cairo confirmed that these arrangements were conducted as described above.
58 The audit team discussed admission and induction arrangements with students at RITI. It was able to confirm that the arrangements described to it by the University had been carefully adhered to by the School and RITI. The team noted the students' appreciation for the care members of RITI had taken in explaining the nature of the programme and its likely demands. To date, the University and RITI have been willing to accept applications from candidates with no prior experience of computing science. It appeared to the team that the University and RITI might have underestimated the challenge to such individuals of entering a programme in which the manner of its organisation might require them to commence an advanced topic in a new field of study immediately on enrolment (see below, paragraph 76). This is a matter on which the University might wish to reflect.
Assessment and examination arrangements
59 As noted earlier, the University's stated approach to safeguarding the academic standards of awards attained through study on franchised programmes is to focus on 'outcomes rather than processes'. In this connection the audit team noted that the University was satisfied that its academic standards were secure if a cohort of students, following a franchised programme with a partner, achieved results comparable to those of the cohort following the same programme, and subject to the same assessment instruments, at the University. The team found evidence in feedback information from students in Cairo and from studying the pattern of their curriculum (see below, paragraph 76), however, that they arrived at the point of assessment after following different patterns (sequences) of study from their peers in London. This suggested to the team that the basis for comparison between the attainments of the two cohorts might not be entirely sound, and might not therefore provide as firm a basis for securing academic standards as the University believes. This is a matter on which it might wish to reflect.
60 The Commentary stated that the same examinations and assignments were set for this franchise as for other modes of delivery in the UK, and that all examinations were taken in Cairo at the same time as those in the UK, with appropriate dispensations arranged for prayer times and Ramadan. The Commentary also stated that examination papers and assignments were marked and moderated by University staff, and that assignments were set in Middlesex and first marked by the lecturers who delivered the module, whether RITI or Middlesex staff. The audit team was told, however, that where a module is delivered by a member of RITI, the marking of the corresponding assignment is moderated by Middlesex staff, usually across the cohort, rather than by individual script or assignment. From the information in the base room, and from discussions with members of the University and RITI, the team was able to confirm that these arrangements were adhered to.
61 The audit team was told that meetings of the Assessment Board for the entire MSc (BIT) programme, including the franchise to RITI, were held in London and were attended by a senior member of RITI. The team was also told by members of RITI that they regarded attendance at such meetings as necessary to allow the circumstances of RITI students to be properly considered. The minutes of such meetings, however, indicated that a representative from RITI did not always attend Assessment Boards in London and the team was subsequently told that when it was impossible for a member of RITI to attend the Board, the University's Link Tutor conveyed the views of RITI staff to the Board.
62 The Commentary emphasised that the University's external examiners deal with the students on the RITI franchise of the MSc (BIT) in precisely the same manner as they do with UK-based students. External examiners and other members of the Assessment Board are provided with a breakdown of statistics regarding the performance and progress of the various cohorts. External examiners are explicitly invited to join in the discussion of these statistics at the Assessment Board and to report accordingly thereafter - although that responsibility is not specifically intimated in their terms of appointment. The University's documentation in the base room provided ample evidence of a rigorous assessment procedure diligently followed by the School.
Arrangements to safeguard against malpractice
63 The University regards academic malpractice as a serious matter and there was evidence from the report of the RITI franchise validation panel and other sources in the base room that it is committed to firm action when malpractice, such as plagiarism, is detected. Students are provided with clear briefings on the nature of plagiarism, for example, and the need for its avoidance, and the audit team noted with interest the range of measures being taken by the University to identify and minimise plagiarism. These were reported as including moves towards the adoption of a greater proportion of assessment by examination; the use of assignments designed to thwart plagiarism (and particularly plagiarism from the web); demands that passes be achieved in both assignments and examinations for satisfactory progression or the attainment of an award; and the use of search engines to detect plagiarised text. Members of the MSc (BIT) programme team in Cairo told the team that they took care to scrutinise assignments for plagiarism and that when plagiarism was detected the offending assignment was rejected.
Reports from external examiners
64 The Handbook states that the work of its external examiners is 'central to the University's quality control and quality assurance procedures' including the maintenance of academic standards 'and comparability of standards with highest national norms in the subject'. External examiners are expected to submit their reports to the Head of QAAS, following a standard format which requires them to address student performance; the assessment process; the quality of teaching; and recommendations or lessons arising from the assessments; and to comment on the comparability of the level of the particular award with that of other institutions with which the examiner is familiar. The audit team was told on several occasions of the reliance placed on external examiners to identify matters requiring attention, and that they were expected to report on any perceived weaknesses in the security of the assessment process.
65 Reports are required from external examiners within four weeks of the date of the relevant assessment board, and need be no longer than two sides of A4 paper. The Handbook states that where a report 'raises issues of serious concern', the Head of QAAS will draw such matters to the attention of the Dean of School, and request a formal response in order to inform the external examiner of urgent action taken to remedy the situation. External examiners' reports are also scrutinised at School level and any action taken in response to a report goes forward as an agenda item to the subsequent assessment board meeting. In their AMRs, module and Programme Leaders are expected to address points raised by external examiners in their reports. Early in the session following that which the examiner has reported on, QAAS produces an annual review of reports from external examiners which is sent to ASQC. Whilst the University's procedures require external examiners to be briefed on relevant collaborative arrangements, they are not required to comment specifically on such arrangements in their annual reports.
66 The audit team was provided with the extant reports from the external examiners for the MSc (BIT); the minutes of the relevant assessment boards; the AMRs and the QAAS report on external examiners' reports University-wide. It noted that the external examiner for the MSc (BIT) had reported that the status of the franchise had been discussed at the Assessment Board in some detail and that good progress had been reported. The external examiner's report with which the team was provided concentrated on discussions held at the Assessment Board, reporting that the 'collaborative link with RITI Egypt was discussed in some depth and the overall impression was most positive'. It would appear that, in this example at least, QAAS could not be aware of the extent to which the external examiner was familiar with all the steps that the School had taken to assure the overall quality of the student learning experience.
67 The Commentary stated that in programmes delivered through partnerships 'the University's anxieties are always focussed on the quality of the student experience at the proposed partner institution'. In the course of its visit to the University, however, the audit team was told by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and by members of the School, that the sole criterion by which the University judges such provision is the students' achievement of the stipulated learning outcomes. The team confirmed that the University's arrangements for setting and grading the assessments taken by students following the MSc (BIT) are identical for students in Cairo and London. It saw ample evidence that the manner in which the assessment process for the MSc (BIT) is conducted is subject to scrutiny and reporting at several levels within the University outwith the School. The University might, however, wish to consider the merits of satisfying itself that the curriculum model that it has adopted in delivering the MSc (BIT) in Cairo has not hampered students studying at RITI from achieving even higher levels of attainment than those they have demonstrated.
68 The audit team noted that the institutional visit conducted by the PVC (Q & S) had included a review of the learning resources available to support a franchised master's programme for which the Dean of the School had acted as the subject specialist. The report of the institutional visit stated that the relevant learning resources provision had been inspected and approved. The franchise validation panel which met later in London had required the provision of details of the exact facilities and resources relevant to the support of the franchised programme. This requirement was met through a presentation made by the Director of RITI to the panel in London. There was therefore no independent check conducted by the University on the nature and suitability of the learning resources available to students at RITI following that conducted in the course of the institutional review. The University may wish to review the effectiveness of its present arrangements for checking the adequacy of the learning resources available through partner institutions at the beginning of a partnership.
69 Amongst the documents provided in the base room, several described difficulties in providing the learning resources needed by students at RITI, particularly multiple copies of key texts. The audit team discussed this matter with members of the School and RITI and was told that the availability of multiple copies of fixed texts continued to present difficulties and that the rapidly changing nature of the subject and the recommended textbooks increased this difficulty. Members of RITI also stated, however, that students following the MSc (BIT) were expected to make use of other higher education libraries in Cairo in the course of their studies, a matter hitherto not referred to, for example, in the University's report of its institutional review of RITI, or the franchise validation report. The team was told that, as one response to the acknowledged difficulty of acquiring key texts in sufficient numbers, the School had assisted RITI in streamlining its purchasing arrangements. That the University's quality control arrangements, diligently operated by the School, should have revealed a difficulty, and led to its resolution, is reassuring. However, given the University's previous experience in offering the MSc (BIT), and that the franchise to RITI had been subject to the 'full panoply' of the University's quality assurance arrangements, it is surprising that this matter had not been identified for attention when settingup the partnership (see above, paragraph 68).
70 The School monitors the learning environment at RITI in the course of visits by its Link Tutor and other members of staff, and through monitoring the proceedings of the Cairo-based Board of Study for the MSc (BIT), which is usually attended by the University and RITI Link Tutors. Students in Cairo told the audit team that when they experienced difficulties with learning resources, reporting these to the Board of Study invariably produced rapid remedial action, a matter confirmed by staff members of the Cairo-based Board of Study. Whilst the papers made available by the University in the base room showed that gaps in the learning resources available to students were raised in meetings of the Cairo Board of Study, there was no evidence in the same records that the matters raised had been resolved. From records available to it the University would have no means, therefore, of checking for itself, independent of the School, that difficulties experienced by students in Cairo had been addressed.
71 The audit team was told by members of the School that when RITI wishes to appoint a new part-time member of staff, individuals are identified directly, and approached to take up posts for which they are judged to have both disciplinary experience and teaching competence. This is done mainly by the RITI Link Tutor, who maintains a database of CVs for this purpose. It was not clear from the information available to the team that the University was in a position to demonstrate that its policies on Equal Opportunities or Fair Selection had been a consideration in the appointment of staff based at RITI teaching the MSc (BIT) in Cairo.
72 The University's right to debar staff at RITI from teaching on the franchised programme is not mentioned in the Memorandum of Cooperation but members of both the University and RITI told the audit team that it was the University's right to do so. According to the Commentary, the University is consulted by RITI before all new appointments related to the delivery of the MSc (BIT) are made, and it vets the CVs of all RITI staff who teach on the franchise. Subsequently, the performance of staff is monitored by RITI through its own systems of teaching observation and student evaluation, and by the Link Tutor and other University staff during their visits to Cairo.
Staff development arrangements
73 Papers in the University's base room stated that the CVs of the Cairo-based staff at RITI demonstrated the contribution made to their professional development by members of the University and that there was also evidence for the briefing and support provided for teaching and administrative support of the franchised programme. The documentary evidence available to support these claims was not substantial. From its discussions with members of the University and RITI, however, the audit team is confident that extensive briefing on, and support for, the delivery of MSc (BIT) modules is provided by members of the School for their colleagues in RITI and that there was similar briefing and support for the staff at RITI responsible for the administrative support of the programme. The evidence available to the team was not sufficient to allow it to judge the adequacy of the staff development provided for members of RITI delivering the franchised programme. It concluded that the University was likely to be similarly placed. The team sought information on the staff development provided by the University for staff in the School teaching on the franchised programme or otherwise supporting its delivery, but it was not made aware of any specific arrangements other than the frequent informal briefings provided for colleagues by senior staff in the School, including the Link Tutor referred to in paragraph 44. The School DCLQ has received reports on teaching observations conducted by RITI on those of its staff teaching on the MSc (BIT). It was not clear, however, what use the School made of this information and scrutiny of the log of such observations showed that few had taken place since the commencement of the franchise.
Delivery of the franchised programme
74 The part-time mode of the University's MSc (BIT) franchised to RITI is delivered in intensive blocks of teaching to which members of the University and members of RITI staff contribute approximately equally. For those modules which are taught by Cairo-based staff employed by RITI, members of the University supply the module outlines. A feature of this mode of delivery is that teaching staff are required to be available to students for consultation outside normally programmed tuition hours and for periods of supported revision before examinations. In this connection the audit team noted that the franchise validation panel had made it a condition of its approval of the franchise that this mode of delivery be closely monitored in the first years of the franchise (see above, paragraph 26).
75 Academic counselling and pastoral support arrangements for students in Cairo rely on the frequent presence of University staff, supplemented by frequent email correspondence. Whilst the audit team found no evidence that this aspect of the support arrangements for students in Cairo was a source of concern to them, the University's existing feedback arrangements, including summaries of questionnaires and the minutes of Boards of Study meetings, do not appear to provide it, at institutional level (that is, beyond the level of the School), with the means to check that either academic counselling or pastoral arrangements are working satisfactorily.
76 Students accepted onto the programme are generally in full-time employment in demanding positions. The programme is modular and all modules are notionally of the same level of difficulty. Admission to the programme, as noted in paragraph 57, takes place twice each session. Students who have newly-entered the programme, and those who have begun their studies six months earlier therefore take modules together, and are assessed at the same point. The University represented to the audit team that students did not study advanced topics immediately upon entry to the programme and that such topics were introduced after 'adequate preparatory study of core material'. The team was unable to understand how, within the confines of the curriculum model the University had adopted for the programme, this could be the case. Students with whom the audit team discussed the way in which the programme is delivered could not remember having been consulted on its operation, and some indicated to the team that they had found adapting to its demands difficult. In particular, students with little prior background in computing science could find the way in which the curriculum was organised for their cohort exposed them to what they perceived as advanced topics from the first day of study (see above, paragraph 58). As it reviews the progress of students on the programme, the University might wish to review the merits of adopting a curriculum for the MSc (BIT) which will permit all students to progress from introductory topics to those which are more advanced, and might also wish to review the effectiveness of its arrangements for scrutinising feedback on the curriculum from students.
77 In the course of its visits to the University and RITI the audit team discussed pedagogic arrangements with the staff of both institutions. From these discussions, and from the papers in the University's base room, it was apparent that staff in the two institutions had developed a lively and stimulating style of working in which they are in frequent, close and effective communication with each other, and which is centred on the Link Tutors. This constitutes a constructive partnership in which the University's seniority is freely acknowledged and in which responsibility for the quality of the learning experience and the standard of the University's award is jointly accepted. The team commends the integrated partnership that has been achieved by the University and RITI, and in particular the contribution made by the Link Tutors to sustaining and encouraging it. The team also noted that the high level of joint teaching on the MSc (BIT) significantly enhanced the School's ability to assure itself directly and indirectly of the quality of the students' overall learning experience.
78 The teaching provided for Cairo-based students is subject to classroom observation which applies equally to University- and RITI-based staff. Prior to the commencement of teaching for the MSc (BIT), Cairo-based staff were briefed by the University's Link Tutor on the University's approach to teaching and learning and the audit team was told that there are also regular visits from other School-based staff; that members of the School carried on a continuing and supportive dialogue with those of their colleagues at RITI charged with the delivery of modules; and that Middlesex staff have carried out and have been the subjects of teaching observations while at RITI. The University's institutional review report noted that it is the practice of RITI to terminate the contract of teaching staff who receive unsatisfactory student evaluations.
79 The Commentary stated that the existence of an Equal Opportunities policy in a partner institution was an important consideration for the University. The audit team therefore sought to understand how Equal Opportunity matters were monitored by the University. It was told that a University Equal Opportunities Officer was in post, and that statistical analyses by gender were carefully scrutinised and compared with national norms. In the case of the University's partnership with RITI the team found no evidence that Equal Opportunities matters were reported on or monitored. As the University continues to develop its Equal Opportunities monitoring for partnership arrangements it may wish to consider the merits of monitoring such matters as the comparability of turnaround times for assignments; fair selection in appointment processes; and anticipation of the disadvantages attendant on devout religious observance.
80 Reviewing the University's capacity to monitor the learning environment available to its students in Cairo, the audit team found that at the level of the School there was the capacity for up-to-date first-hand knowledge of arrangements to enable remedial action to be taken when needed. In the case of the University, however, the information that has been formerly provided to Academic Board via MESC and ASQC has been insufficient for it to be possible for the Board to be confident that the franchise is being delivered in line with its expectations. This is a matter on which the University might wish to reflect. The team also found, however, that students' experience of the curriculum for the MSc (BIT) in Cairo might not have assisted them to progress in an optimal manner. As noted earlier, in the Commentary, the University stated that in programmes delivered through partnerships 'the University's anxieties are always focussed on the quality of the student experience at the proposed partner institution'. In this particular case, the University did not appear to have taken the steps, which might have been expected in the light of this statement, to monitor and report on the quality of the learning experience it offers its students, on a continuing basis, in order to assuage its anxieties.
81 The Commentary emphasised that the part-time MSc (BIT) franchised to RITI, was 'an exact replica' of a degree programme offered in both full-time and part-time modes at the University. Discussions with staff and students at RITI confirmed that all teaching and all assessments were conducted through the medium of English, and that the supporting programme and module handbooks were provided in English. Earlier comments on the curriculum followed by students at RITI are therefore likely to have a relevance which extends beyond the franchise.
Internal and external communications
Communications within and between the partners
82 The internal communication arrangements relevant to the franchise can be divided into those between the University and the School, and between the University and its partner (and vice versa) designed to provide students and staff with the information each needs to meet the University's requirements and discharge their duties, and to allow the University to confirm that the franchise is being operated in line with its requirements. The external communication arrangements relevant to the franchise include publicity and promotional materials issued in Egypt on behalf of the University and communications with the relevant authorities in Egypt.
83 In respect of internal communication arrangements, contacts between members of the School and staff and students at RITI have remained close and frequent throughout the partnership to date. The regular presence of School staff at RITI, both for teaching and as part in the School's quality management processes has ensured that any changes to School arrangements or University requirements have been quickly communicated. All such communications are in English. Boards of Study at RITI have been convened regularly and in line with the pattern followed by the 'parent' MSc (BIT) Board in London. There was evidence to suggest that the Board of Study at RITI had provided an effective means of communication and feedback between students and staff in Cairo and between the franchised programme in Cairo and its parent in London, although little information on the operation of the programme appeared to progress beyond the School, into the University's quality systems. The School has recently decided that, as soon as technical conditions permit, it will open a video link to RITI to assist project supervision in particular and communication in general.
84 Student members of the Board of Study are self-selecting: many are in full-time employment and are unable to make time to attend. Student representatives considered that meetings of the Boards were effective, but had no knowledge if matters reported there - whether positive or otherwise - would be considered or acted upon at a higher level. All students in Cairo have received the University's Guide and Regulations, which contain an indication of how potential complaints and appeals are dealt with and are given copies of the University's Charter for Students on Collaborative Programmes which is also available on its web site. The Commentary stated that there had been no such complaints or appeals. This was confirmed by students in Cairo, who stated that they were aware of their formal rights in these matters but that issues had usually been resolved on an informal basis by the module leader or other lecturer, by the RITI Link Tutor, or through the Board of Study. The University uses questionnaires to solicit feedback information from its students at several points in their studies. As noted elsewhere in this report, the organisation of the curriculum for the MSc (BIT) is such that students at the point of assessment may have been required to progress via markedly different routes. This might reasonably be expected to colour their experience and understanding of the programme, and affect their feedback responses accordingly. This did not appear to have been allowed for in the University's analyses of the feedback information it had collected from students based at RITI.
85 Within the School, communications in respect of quality matters relating to the franchise are frequent and well-recorded, providing DCLQ and the School Quality Committee with sufficient information to allow them to monitor the development of the franchise. Communication on quality matters from the School via QAAS to MESC and from the latter to ASQC, however, appeared to the audit team to provide insufficient information on the quality assurance of individual partnership links, including that with RITI, for the two Committees to be confident that they could monitor the School's stewardship of those links. When the team discussed the University's reporting arrangements with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, he stated that he considered that the University's terse reporting style could make it vulnerable. In the team's view the Deputy Vice-Chancellor's judgement in this matter is sound. The University might wish to consider how it might enhance its reporting arrangements to permit Academic Board to monitor the development of partnership arrangements more effectively.
86 The University's arrangements for establishing partnership links and for managing the quality of such provision are published via the University's web site by QAAS in the Handbook, which is laid out in comprehensive, substantial, and clearly set out web pages. Members of the University regard the Handbook as an authoritative statement of University policies and administrative procedures for securing the quality of its educational activities.
87 The Commentary stated that the University had found the publication of the Handbook on its web site particularly useful 'since it enables our partner institutions to gain easy and immediate access to up-to-date quality assurance information' and noted that the University no longer published the Handbook in 'hard copy'. The audit team consulted the University's Handbook on a number of occasions throughout the audit. It found that the information on a key quality process - annual monitoring - no longer related to the current process, as described to it by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (see above, paragraph 37). It was also told by members of RITI that they referred to the Handbook infrequently.
88 In the first year of operation the student handbooks in the UK and Cairo were identical. Subsequently RITI took responsibility for producing a 'local version' in conjunction with the Middlesex Link Tutor. The audit team found differences between the 1999-2000 handbooks for the MSc (BIT) issued to students in London and Cairo and was told that RITI had submitted the draft handbook to the School for checking but that scrutiny of the handbook had not been sufficiently thorough. The University may wish to consider how it might enhance its arrangements for checking the accuracy of such documents in a timely and thorough fashion.
89 For each module, a handbook is provided consisting chiefly of lecture and study notes, and the same handbook is used by students in London, Cairo and elsewhere. There were marked variations in the styles in the module handbooks the audit team scrutinised, and there was evidence in feedback from students based at RITI that many such handbooks, which had been used in the UK, where they had been subject to the University's quality arrangements, had been judged to be unsatisfactory. Changes had subsequently been made to some handbooks, but the University did not appear to have drawn any conclusions about the adequacy of its quality arrangements for module handbooks. The University might wish to assure itself that its arrangements for checking that module handbooks meet its requirements are as effective as it would wish, and that it can regularly review whether its requirements in this matter meet the needs of its students. In view of the statement in the Commentary that the arrangements for this franchise are 'merely typical' of those in place for other programmes at the University and elsewhere, this is a comment which might have wider relevance.
Approval of promotional materials
90 The Memorandum of Cooperation requires all promotional material to be approved by the University. In its briefing materials the audit team was provided with two advertisements (in English) that had been sent to and approved by the University's Head of QAAS. The team was also provided with copies of email messages from the Middlesex Link Tutor requiring RITI to amend the information on the franchised programme which was provided on their web site. The team was confident that the University and its partner were abiding by the terms of the Memorandum.
The nature and language of the award certificate
91 It is University policy that 'in the case of franchised programmes, the award certificate is identical to that issued to students following the same programme in the University' without any reference to place of study. In its briefing materials the audit team received a copy of a sample certificate that followed this model. The team was told by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor that (unspecified) legal requirements in Egypt precluded mention of the place of study on the degree certificate although the University transcripts provided for students identify the campus at which study has taken place, in this instance 'RITI Campus'.
92 Middlesex University has established a collaborative partnership with the Regional Information Technology Institute in Cairo, under which the University franchises a part-time programme of study leading to the University's award of an MSc (BIT). The first students were registered in February 1998, and the first cohort of graduates received their awards in 1999. The partnership has developed from professional links between staff in the two institutions.
93 Prior to the commencement of the partnership the University, via its QAAS, and its School of Computing Science, took care to establish the capacity of RITI to support the franchised programme. For this purpose, the University conducted an institutional review of RITI, the favourable outcome of which paved the way for the formal validation of the franchise and its approval. In each case there was a detached and rigorous overview within the University of what was being done or proposed, and this was informed by objective data.
94 The Commentary which the University prepared to support the audit provided a generally accurate statement of those of its quality arrangements directly under the scrutiny of involving QAAS. The Commentary therefore provided an accurate representation of the restricted view of the University's partnership links which its present quality arrangements provide for ASQC and, through the latter, for Academic Board. This is a weakness of which senior figures in the University are aware, and which it would now be advisable to address.
95 The proposed franchise was the subject of a formal validation process conducted in London rather than in Cairo. Scrutiny of the learning environment in the validation process therefore fell back upon the initial assessment of the learning environment conducted in the course of the earlier institutional visit. Subsequently, there were difficulties in providing elements of learning resources for the franchised programme at RITI. This suggests that, in this instance, the University's decision to conduct the franchise validation in London might have been unsound.
96 Following its formal validation, the quality management of the franchise became the operational responsibility of the School of Computing Science. The School's procedures for dealing with quality and standards for the RITI cohorts are generally thorough, and broadly consistent with what is done in the case of cohorts studying for the same award, though via different modes of delivery, on the University's campuses and other partnership sites. There are, however, some differences in the way the curriculum is presented at RITI which have the potential to affect the learning experience of students, of which the University appears to be unaware.
97 The University makes provision in such links for the appointment of a Link Tutor to act for itself and for the partner also to appoint one or more Link Tutors. In the case of its link with RITI, the ability of the University and the School to be confident that their expectations are being met rests on the existence of a close and principled working partnership between the University's own Link Tutor and the two Link Tutors appointed by RITI. Both the University and RITI appear to have been well-served in this respect. The Middlesex Link Tutor has two potentially conflicting functions: gatekeeper and advocate. These have been reconciled through an awareness of the need to involve others, especially at a senior level in the School, at each stage of the process and of the need for championship of the interests of the link to be balanced by the engagement of others, who are independent of the link, in its evaluation.
98 The University's regulations and procedures appear to be scrupulously and willingly followed by all concerned, from the checking of publicity materials through recruitment, application and admission, to the conduct of examinations and assessments and the determination of awards. The view of one of its senior members is that the University is confident that its schools are undertaking the quality tasks they have been assigned, and taking action where this is warranted, and that the University is content to work on the basis of trust and confidence in colleagues. In the case of its link with RITI, the University's School of Computing appears to have justified this high level of trust. It is open to question, however, whether the University's present quality arrangements are capable of alerting it in a timely fashion of a contrary situation. It is also open to question whether its present quality arrangements are as effective as they could be in identifying and disseminating the good practice evident in the School's conduct of the link with RITI.
99 The University's quality arrangements for its partnership link are managed at an operational level by the School of Computing Science, and at that level they command broad confidence. Above the level of the School the University's quality arrangements are most actively employed in vetting potential partners for suitability. These arrangements are broadly effective. The University's arrangements to monitor the subsequent development of its partnership links depend, however, on summary reports from its schools which do not appear to be checked for accuracy outside the school from which they originate. Until the University has the means to check for itself what is being done in its name by its schools it will be difficult to place complete confidence in its quality arrangements for its partnership links. It is the University's view that the quality arrangements for its link with RITI are typical of those in place for other such links. The findings of this report are therefore likely to be relevant to other franchised links operated by the University.
100 The University's arrangements maintain identical assessment arrangements for students in Cairo and London, the work of whom goes to the same assessment board and is seen by the same external examiners. The University's arrangements to safeguard the academic standards of its award are sound and command confidence.
The University welcomes the positive tone of this report and wishes to offer the following comments.
Comments on issues raised in the report
The University focuses on the achievement of learning outcomes, but also places great emphasis on monitoring and enhancing academic quality, with the annual monitoring system playing a key role in this process. New arrangements for annual monitoring introduced this year include:
- the introduction of stages in the process designed to ensure that the annual monitoring process identifies all key issues (including those of collaborative links), and that these are brought to the attention of QAAS;
- an extension of the role of annual monitoring to include the dissemination of best practice; and
- an increased emphasis in the reports on the monitoring of collaborative links.
The procedures handbook is being updated in line with extensive revisions currently being undertaken.
With regard to the specific note on the difficulty perceived by students of material introduced early within the programme, we note the course was designed to ensure that no potential sequence of modules exposes students to advanced level topics without the requisite preparation having occurred. The programme was validated, and subsequently approved at review in this form. However, in the light of comments raised by students at RITI, we will review this aspect of the programme.
Top