Introduction
1 This is a report of an audit, carried out by the Higher Education Quality Council
(HEQC), of the quality assurance arrangements for a collaborative partnership
between the Open University (hereafter referred to as the University) and the
Technological Education Institute of Piraeus in Greece (referred to hereafter
as TEI Piraeus or alternatively, 'the Institute'), for the purpose of offering
the University's Master's programme in Manufacturing: Management and Technology
(M:MT) in Greece. It forms part of a series of audits of overseas collaborative
partnerships undertaken in June 1997.
2 This audit of the partnership arrangements between the University and the Institute examined the policies and procedures used by the University to satisfy itself about the academic quality and standards of its award being offered in Greece.
3 The Council is grateful to the Open University and TEI, Piraeus for their
assistance and co-operation.
Abbreviations used in this report
4 In this report the following abbreviations are used
1996 Report - The Open University. Collaborative Provision Quality Audit Report, HEQC, 1996;
AAU - Academic Audit Unit;
CVCP - Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals;
EU - European Union;
HEQC - Higher Education Quality Council;
M:MT - Masters programme in Manufacturing: Management and Technology;
OUWW - Open University Worldwide;
TEI Piraeus ('the Institute')Technological Education Institute, Piraeus;
TMA - Tutor Marked Assignment;
The University - The Open University.
The audit process
5 Following initial discussions, the University provided HEQC with documentation
describing the origin and development of its partnership with TEI Piraeus. At
a briefing meeting to discuss this material, the audit team proposed a programme
of visits to the partner institutions in the UK and in Greece and sought additional
contextual materials to extend its understanding of the structure and processes
of the University's quality assurance arrangements for this aspect of its overseas
collaborative provision. The audit team also consulted the reports of the Academic
Audit Unit (AAU) and HEQC audits of the University and of the University's collaborative
provision, which were published in 1992 and 1996 respectively.
6 To prepare for the visit to the University's partner in Greece, and to extend and confirm its findings after its visit to Athens, members of the audit team held discussions with a range of individuals and groups at the Open University, including the ProVice-Chancellor (Quality Assurance and Research), the Programme Director and the Course Manager of the Manufacturing: Management and Technology (M:MT) programme at the University, the Head of Examinations and Assignments, the Dean of the Faculty of Technology and his immediate predecessor in that post.
7 During the visit to TEI Piraeus, the audit team met managers and teachers, including the President of the Institute, staff acting as tutors and dissertation supervisors for the Diploma and Master's stages of the M:MT programme, and a student following the programme.
8 The audit team comprised Dr R M Allen, Professor A Gale, and Mr A Jones, auditors, and Ms D Cerqua, audit secretary. Dr D W Cairns, Assistant Director, Quality Assurance Group, accompanied the team to Greece and co-ordinated the audit for HEQC.
The University Context for overseas collaborative provision
The Strategic Plan
9 The University's strategic and development plans are outlined in Plans for
Change, an annually revised planning document which describes the mission, philosophy
and values of the University and establishes its strategic aims for the ensuing
decade. Here, the University sets out its intention 'to stimulate and respond
to a world-wide demand for open lifelong learning by making the Open University's
distinctive courses, awards, materials and expertise widely available internationally,
by developing these further to meet identified needs, and by positioning the
Open University as a respected, effective and accessible provider of quality'.
It is the University's intention that its policies will lead to an increase in
the number of institutions and students outside the European Union using its
courses and materials and drawing on its expertise.
10 Most of the University's provision overseas at present is not delivered through a collaborative arrangement with a local partner. However, the University plans to develop what it terms 'supported open learning': means of supporting open learning programmes, either by establishing local support arrangements wholly managed by itself, or by concluding partnership arrangements with local institutions for the same purpose (see below, paragraph 52). The balance between central support (that is support from the UK) and local provision of open learning, and how this combination works in practice in supporting quality, was a particular focus of the audit of the partnership between the University and TEI Piraeus.
11 The University's quality assurance arrangements for its collaborative
provision were the subject of an HEQC Report published in 1996 and are
fully described in paragraphs 19-25 of that Report. In summary, executive
responsibility for the University's policies and procedures for Quality
Assurance is vested in the Pro Vice-Chancellors for Quality Assurance and
Research, Curriculum Development, and Student, Tutorial and Regional Services,
who are responsible for the implementation of these procedures in their
areas of responsibility. The Quality Assurance Panel advises the Senate
on matters relating to quality in teaching and learning. It is chaired
by the Vice-Chancellor and its members include senior officers of the University.
Developments since the 1996 audit: OUWW
12 In October 1996, following an initiative by the Vice-Chancellor, the University
established Open University Worldwide (OUWW). This body incorporates the former
Office for International Collaboration (see 1996 Report, paragraph 25), and includes
a number of deliberative, advisory, financial and executive bodies and offices.
13 The business plan of OUWW specifies the outline criteria which need to be satisfied by prospective partners in collaborative provision. They must be quality providers of national education and able to maintain the University's quality standards and be committed to increasing educational opportunities for the adult population using open and distance learning.
14 Under the new arrangements for OUWW, a Joint Panel of the Academic Board
and of the Validation Board on Academic Collaboration assesses proposals
for new collaborative schemes outwith the UK, and ensures that they meet
the requirements of the guidelines of good practice set out in the HEQC's
Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education
(see 1996 Report, paragraphs 25-26). At the time of the audit, of the University's
approximately 7,000 overseas students (the majority of whom were resident
outside the EU) approximately 50 students were registered for the M:MT
programme in Finland and in Greece, of whom 20 were registered as following
the programme at TEI Piraeus.
Formal arrangements and memoranda of agreement
15 Where students following its programmes are based overseas, and numbers are
sufficient, the University follows its usual practice and enters into agreements
with local institutions or commercial concerns to rent the rooms and facilities
it needs to support teaching and learning. Where, however, the University enters
into a more substantial partnership with an overseas higher education provider
(as in this instance), it will usually expect to conclude an agreement, setting
out the obligations of the University and its partner in a memorandum of agreement
or formal contract (see 1996 Report, paragraph 21).
Background to the partnership
Open University presence in Greece
16 The University is one of the largest providers of UK degrees in Greece, with
more than 560 undergraduate and postgraduate students in total registered in
1997. Its recruitment has been rising at a rate of 25 per cent per annum since
1994. The University's Co-ordinator in Athens works from an information office
which is open to the general public on three days each week. The Co-ordinator
arranges local tutorials for any Open University course which has more than ten
students. She also maintains a team of invigilators to supervise the University's
examinations, including those for the M:MT.
The Technological Education Institute, Piraeus
17 TEI Piraeus is a legally constituted state institute of higher education,
created in 1983 from a number of formerly separate predecessors. The Institute
is self-administered under the aegis of the Greek Ministry of Education, providing
theoretical and practical education for the development and application of scientific
and technological knowledge. Its mission includes co-operation with industrial
concerns and local economic activities, the continuous training of its graduates
and members of various professions, and co-operation with other institutions
for the improvement and increased efficiency of its educational provision. The
Institute has some 300 full-time staff, of whom some 200 are faculty members,
together with 222 part-time faculty members. Its 22,000 square metre campus in
Piraeus has teaching accommodation, laboratories, a library, a refectory and
sports facilities. In 1996-97 the TEI had some 11,000 registered students and
at the time of the audit it was engaged in exploratory discussions with two other
UK universities to establish partnership arrangements.
18 The collaboration between the University and TEI Piraeus originated in 1992-93, when staff at the latter proposed that the Institute and the University should enter into a partnership to deliver the M:MT in Greece. The M:MT programme was seen as particularly suited to such a collaboration because it had been designed with the University's commitment to overseas provision in mind, and to enable students to analyse and reflect on patterns of manufacturing technology world-wide.
19 Following initial contacts, members of the Faculty of Technology visited the Institute to assess its suitability as a partner. Under the rules operating in 1992-93, University staff advocating a collaborative venture were not required to seek additional information on the standing of a potential partner, and in this instance University staff did not seek advice or comment from the British Embassy, the British Council, or the University's own Athens Co-ordinator, nor did they check the library facilities at the Institute. The University represented to the audit team that in this latter respect, it viewed students based at TEI Piraeus as in the same position as remotely-located students within the UK, pointing out that students recruited directly to University programmes largely used learning materials prepared by the University, and were not required to have access to a local higher education library. However, it appeared to the team that, at the time, all the implications of working with an overseas partner on a postgraduate programme leading to an MSc award might not have been fully appreciated.
Formal agreement
20 The discussions between the partners which underpinned their collaboration
dated back to 1992-93; however, the formal agreement enshrining their collaboration
was not signed until April 1997, some 12 weeks before the term of the agreement
was due to expire. In the University's view this delay was due to the relatively
low priority given to completing the formal memorandum of agreement by its own
administrators. In the absence of a formal memorandum of agreement the staff
at TEI formed the sincerely held belief that they had an exclusive contract to
deliver the M:MT programme in Greece. This view was not shared by the University,
and its Co-ordinator in Athens has registered a small number of M:MT students
in Greece, who receive their tutorial support from tutors based in the UK. That
such a misunderstanding could develop between the partners suggests that the
University should consider the necessity of satisfying itself that none of its
overseas collaborations is operating without the support of a formal memorandum
of agreement.
21 The University does not have an overall strategy, or a University-wide handbook, for the operational management of its overseas partnerships. Reviewing the experience of the Faculty of Technology in establishing the University's partnership with TEI Piraeus, it became clear to the audit team that in practice, each faculty within the University was free to explore and establish arrangements for collaborative provision, subject to the University's ultimate approval, and was not obliged to seek central guidance on operational procedures, or the conditions to be met before entering into collaboration with an overseas partner. Where members of staff do seek guidance from colleagues this appears to be informal, and largely restricted to their own faculty. In such circumstances, the successful initiation of an overseas collaborative partnership is dependent upon the candour and frequency of exchanges between the staff of the University's faculties, and the staff of the collaborative partner, and their ability to come to informal mutual understandings about the University's requirements.
22 On the evidence of this particular partnership the University's capacity to monitor the progress of each individual overseas collaborative arrangement is dependent on personal contacts between staff in each partner and their stability, rather than the formal exchange of undertakings at an institutional level. It seemed to the audit team that members of the University planning or supporting collaborative arrangements might find formal written guidance helpful, that the establishment of a University-wide forum to establish and exchange good practice in such matters might also be advisable, and that in OUWW the University had the means through which it could undertake any further measures it considered appropriate.
Initial approval and validation processes
The University's model of distance learning
23 The University's distance learning and learning support materials are developed
by teams over several years and employ a variety of media. Its study centres
are accessible to its students, and the University provides tutorial, counselling
and residential school support. Students of the University study the course materials
it provides, for the most part at home.
24 It is the University's view that the scale and nature of activities
constrain it to offer the learner what was described to the audit team
as an 'imperial' model of centrally defined, monitored and controlled teaching
and learning. In this 'imperial' model, course delivery and assessment
operate within a fixed, predictable, and predetermined timetable set by
the University from its UK headquarters in Milton Keynes. Students anywhere
in the world may register with the University for a uniform and guaranteed
educational product, provided in ways which have been bench-marked against
the University's attested quality standards. Clearly articulated and externally
validated standards govern the assessment of both course-work and written
examinations, wherever the student studies (see below, paragraph 52).
Design of new programmes of study and courses
25 The University's programmes of study progress from the initial identification
of a need or opportunity, to the elaboration of a concept into a proposal and
the development of a curriculum and syllabuses: the process is described in outline
in the 1992 AAU Report (see paragraph 14 et seq). The University's process of
validating and approving a programme of study includes the specification of the
number of times it can be offered (the number of 'presentations') before it is
reviewed. Some programmes of study have more than one presentation annually;
for example, within the M:MT there are two presentations annually, commencing
at the beginning of May and the beginning of November, with examinations at the
end of October and April respectively. The academic year within which the M:MT
operates has two 25 week semesters, with a one to two week break in mid-semester
before the next unit starts.
26 The arrangements to approve the delivery of the M:MT in Greece were those in operation before the OUWW arrangements described above were introduced (see above, paragraph 12). In Autumn 1993, the Board of the Faculty of Technology submitted a proposal to the Academic Board of the University that it should approve collaborative arrangements between the University and a limited number of named overseas institutions for the purpose of delivering the M:MT programme. The proposal referred to overseas centres including two in Greece, and centres in Finland and Sweden. At the time of the audit, only the partnerships with the Finnish institution and with TEI Piraeus had recruited students. The first presentation at the Institute was in 1993.
27 Students at TEI Piraeus study a limited subset of the units available within the M:MT programme. They study the University's M:MT materials in English, and sit examinations in the English language, but tutorials and lectures may take place in either Greek or English. On completion of the Diploma stage of the programme in M:MT, students are eligible to undertake the research project leading to the award of an MSc degree. When the collaborative arrangement with TEI Piraeus was originally proposed, the expected student numbers were in the region of 200, and in 1993 28 students registered for a pilot scheme authorised by the University to be run locally. At the time of the audit the number of registered M:MT students based at the Institute was approximately 20, and the trend in registrations from 1993 to 1996, though downward, had stabilised at an entry of about eight each semester. In January 1996 the first students completed their Diploma in M:MT.
28 Members of the teaching staff at TEI Piraeus considered that they were pioneering distance learning in Greek higher education and hoped to develop a similar scheme throughout Greece, to be offered through other TEIs. Although the number of students registering for the M:MT programme at the time of the audit was smaller than the 50 the Institute had originally specified in its business plan, it continued to support the programme with enthusiasm and was convinced that the reputation of the Open University as a partner, and the perceived qualities of the programme, were advantageous to it and its staff in the context of general developments in Greek higher education. The teaching staff of the Institute were confident that recruitment to the M:MT would be buoyant if Government agencies and the professional engineering bodies in Greece were to recognise the status of the course.
29 Students progressing from the Diploma to the MSc must complete a research project and a dissertation. This provision is not formally offered through TEI Piraeus, and students are included for statistical purposes in the main cohort of the M:MT which is managed entirely through the Programme Office, based at the University's UK headquarters at Walton Hall. Each student is allocated an examiner and a supervisor, both of whom provide guidance.
30 Only a small number of M:MT students outside the UK are registered for the MSc stage of the programme. Students who have taken this Diploma through TEI Piraeus are normally allocated to one of the three supervisors based at the Institute approved by the University for this purpose. At the time of the audit five TEI Piraeus students were registered for the MSc, but had yet to complete the programme of study which would lead to the award.
Monitoring and review arrangements
Periodic review of courses
31 As noted above, new programmes of study are subject to review during their
first year of operation and at the time of their initial approval the number
of presentations that can be offered, before a further formal review, is set.
Where a course or programme of study has a planned life of nine or ten years,
an internal review within the relevant faculty occurs in the sixth year. The
membership of a review body is appointed by the Pro Vice- Chancellor (Curriculum
Development) and includes representatives from other faculties and an external
assessor. The body reports its findings to the Academic Unit Board and the Curriculum
Development Committee. At the time of the audit the M:MT programme had yet to
undergo a periodic review.
32 Whilst it appears that the University has occasionally terminated overseas
collaborative partnerships as a result of adverse feedback from students
and their parents, as yet it has no formal mechanism for specifically reviewing
the operation of an overseas collaborative programme. The University might
wish to consider the advisability of establishing such a formal procedure
for periodic review of its overseas activities (see below, paragraph 48).
Student admissions
33 Open University undergraduate students do not need formal qualifications for
admission. In approving requirements for entry to taught postgraduate programmes,
the University considers each individual case on its merits. The M:MT is one
of a number of postgraduate courses offered by the Faculty of Technology which
has no specified entry requirements. In the eyes of the University, therefore,
students at TEI Piraeus do not need to be graduates, nor to satisfy the requirements
for university entrance which normally apply in Greece.
34 Staff at TEI Piraeus have not, however, followed the University's 'open
door' recruitment policy. Typically, they have tried to recruit students
with a first degree in engineering and practical experience of industry
for three or more years, and have discouraged applicants who, in their
view, are inadequately prepared for the rigour of the M:MT programme. However,
the University appeared to the audit team to be unaware of the entry restrictions
being imposed by its Greek partner, and the implications for recruitment
and academic standards. One of the benefits that might follow from the
introduction of a more formal process for monitoring the operation of the
University's overseas collaborations, as suggested in paragraph 32, might
be that it would be better placed to monitor adherence to its requirements
in such matters as admissions policies (see below, paragraph 50). At the
time of the audit the Director of the M:MT programme at the University
and his colleagues at TEI Piraeus were considering the introduction of
a formal test of competence in English for applicants, a development which
the team considers would now be advisable.
35 As already noted, there are two separate cohorts of M:MT students in
Greece, one of which, at TEI Piraeus, is required to fulfil stringent entry
requirements, while the other, registering through the University's Athens
Co-ordinator, benefits from more open entry. The former group is offered
a limited set of course units, the latter has a free choice of units. In
effect, the University is offering the same award to two different groups
of students within the same country, on different conditions. It appeared
possible to the audit team that a student refused entry on academic grounds
at TEI Piraeus, might then apply for registration through the University's
Athens office and that in such an eventuality, different academic standards
might apply to the same programme of study. In the interests of consistency
and comparability, the University may wish to consider the advisability
of applying a single set of entry requirements for students entering the
M:MT programme in Greece.
Student Charter
36 The University publishes a Student Charter which summarises the standards
and framework for student expectations and responsibilities. It sets out the
University's commitment to standards, including equality of opportunity and staff
response to student requests. It guarantees prompt and efficient handling of
all matters relating to students including the dispatch of course materials and
the return of marked work. It also describes the mechanisms whereby student opinion
and concern may be expressed. It is a clear, open and comprehensive statement
of quality. However, for overseas collaborative partnerships, the University
considers the local partner to have the primary responsibility for fulfilling
its Charter obligations to students, an obligation which, in this instance, it
did not appear to have brought to its partner's attention.
Learning resources
37 As noted earlier, library provision at TEI Piraeus was not considered during
the process of initiating the collaboration (see above, paragraph 19). This may
have been an unfortunate oversight, since M:MT students may proceed through the
programme to an MSc award, which involves a substantial dissertation (see above,
paragraph 27). Students who have access to Internet facilities through their
employers are able to gain access to the University's library catalogue in the
UK, and can order individual papers or books, but there are considerable delays
in delivery. The Institute, does not, however, offer postgraduate courses in
its own right, and its library is not intended for postgraduate use. Staff at
the Institute providing tuition for the M:MT lend students items from their own
collections, but as students have proceeded towards the MSc stage of the programme
a number appear to have encountered difficulties in gaining access to the sources
of information they require. In future, staff initiating collaborative arrangements
overseas might welcome guidance on how to establish the learning resources likely
to be needed by students (including postgraduate students undertaking research
towards an MSc dissertation) in particular contexts (see above, paragraph 22)
and the University may wish to consider the advisability of reviewing its arrangements
for electronic access to its library for students studying advanced courses through
collaborative partnerships.
The student experience and feedback from students
38 Tutors at TEI Piraeus meet students once each week for a three-hour session
which, in addition to University requirements for tutoring, includes provision
for supplementary lectures. At such sessions students are able to raise concerns
and they may also contact tutors by telephone for additional meetings or to resolve
particular issues. The Institute was only able to arrange for the audit team
to meet one student and the team therefore had little opportunity to discuss
the programme with students.
39 The student who met the audit team had recently registered on the programme and was satisfied with its aims, the learning support materials and his relationship with his tutors. However, from its briefing materials, the University appears to have no formal mechanism whereby students studying through overseas collaborative partnerships may express their opinion of the quality of course provision. The University may wish to consider the desirability of introducing such a mechanism.
Academic standards and the assessment of students
The assessment strategy
40 The assessment strategy for each of the individual courses that comprise the
M:MT programme must be approved by the University Examinations and Assessment
Committee, which is responsible for ensuring its compliance with the University's
regulations. The assessment procedures at TEI Piraeus are those which apply to
the M:MT as a whole. Students are advised of the assessment strategy for the
programme in the Study Calendar which is included in the 'welcome' letter they
receive from the University on registration. This identifies formative and summative
assignments and explains the overall balance of continuous assessment and examination
in the final result. The University has taken care to ensure that both students
and tutors at TEI Piraeus are fully informed of the assessment requirements of
the M:MT programme. The assessment procedures and the marking standards for the
work of M:MT students at TEI Piraeus are identical to those for all other students
following the programme.
Tutor Marked Assignments (TMAs)
41 There are set dates for handing in course-work assignments, known throughout
the University as Tutor Marked Assignments, or TMAs. Students following the M:MT
through TEI Piraeus complete a standard cover form in multiple copies for each
TMA and, after retaining one copy, the cover form and the TMA are sent directly
to the tutor at TEI Piraeus, who completes the marking. Packs of TMAs are then
sent to the University's Grade Handling Section, where the marking is monitored
by the Course Team Chair or another experienced tutor in the UK. This monitoring
process is designed to ensure comparability of grading standards between tutors,
and to allow the quality of feedback to students, provided by the tutor, to be
evaluated. A commentary on the tutor's feedback is subsequently sent to her or
him (see below, paragraph 56).
42 The University considers its monitoring of TMAs to be a well-established
and well-proved method for monitoring the performance of tutors and aligning
standards, a view with which the audit team would not disagree. Tutors
at Athens, while unused to the formality with which they are required to
provide feedback to their students on their TMAs, nonetheless valued the
process as an aid to their teaching. They were, however, concerned that
the delays in receiving this feedback from the University reduced its usefulness
to them (see also below, paragraph 52).
Examination procedures
43 There are two main examination periods, in October and in April. No allowance
is made for differences in language or the students' cultural background. For
the first two presentations, in 1993 and 1994, a member of the Faculty of Technology
staff administered the examinations and returned to Walton Hall with the scripts.
The invigilation arrangements for University examinations at TEI Piraeus are
now overseen by the former's Athens Co-ordinator, who is also responsible for
despatching completed scripts to the University for marking.
External examiners
44 External examiners are appointed for each course within the M:MT and attend
the meeting of the Course Examination and Assessment Board. The procedures for
appointment reflect the CVCP Code of Practice on External Examiners (1985 rev.
1989). The briefing materials provided for the audit included the report of the
external examiner for the course, set out on a University pro-forma. The 1996
HEQC Report on Collaborative Provision commended the University both for the
appointment procedures and for the mechanisms used to consider external examiners'
reports.
Examination board
45 In reaching its decisions, the Course Examination and Assessment Board uses
the Senate Guidelines for the Award of Results. The Examination Board for the
M:MT conflates the results from continuous assessment (TMAs) and the examinations
for each candidate in accordance with the particular assessment strategy agreed
for each particular course. The Course Examination and Assessment Board applies
the same academic criteria to all candidates. Any student may apply to the Board
for special circumstances to be taken into account.
46 When the Board meets, it has before it all the scripts, notes on any special circumstances, information about markers and other relevant information, together with statistics on the distribution of marks. The Results Ratification and the Awards Classification Panel have responsibilities on behalf of the Senate relating to the classification of degrees, for monitoring the maintenance of standards of approved awards and the ratification of all course results.
47 Reviewing the University's assessment arrangements for the M:MT programme as offered at TEI Piraeus, the audit team learnt that as an incidental consequence of the financial arrangements established for the M:MT at TEI Piraeus, the University was able to identify students studying through the Institute as a separate cohort within the M:MT, but that the Examination Board treated all students identically. The University has taken no formal steps to analyse the record of achievement of its students at TEI Piraeus, a matter which the team found surprising in view of the schedule of examination results for the M:MT Diploma for 1993-96, provided in the University's briefing materials.
48 In this schedule, which dealt with the results for the M:MT as a whole, four units were tabulated, two of which also appeared under a separate unit code for the students at TEI Piraeus. It was therefore possible for the audit team to compare the examination results of students following the M:MT programme at the Institute with those of M:MT students elsewhere. For one unit the failure rate for other students had declined from 32 per cent to 15 per cent over the years in question; in the case of the Greek students the failure rate ranged between 90 per cent in 1994 and 50 per cent in 1996, with all four candidates passing only in 1995. For another unit the average failure rate per examination session was seven per cent for other candidates, and 74 per cent for the TEI Piraeus candidates. These statistics suggested to the team that a number of students following the M:MT at TEI Piraeus had not come to terms with the level and difficulty of the programme as a whole and that the University's consideration of a language proficiency test for intending students was timely (see above, paragraph 34).
49 The University considers that the sample size for the TEI Piraeus cohort has been small, with an average entry of 13 candidates per session for the two units offered, whereas the entry cohort for other students has been on average 95 candidates, and that the pass rate for this small cohort should be seen in the context of the programme as a whole. The University is satisfied that the examination results demonstrated the consistency of its standards in examination marking. This is undoubtedly the case; however, the audit team was surprised that the University had not attempted to use these results to test for any deficiencies in either administration or teaching and learning that might be remedied.
50 Tutors at TEI Piraeus are careful to ensure that the teaching, learning
and assessment environment that students encounter when following the M:MT
matches the University's prescriptions. Students are consequently required
to follow the University's teaching, learning and assessment schedule in
precisely the same manner as all other M:MT students. Members of the University
and the Institute told the audit team that the students at TEI Piraeus
following the M:MT experienced difficulties in coping with unseen written
examinations and in meeting the University's requirements for sitting unseen
examinations, and that a number had sought to defer their examinations
to the following session, although their relative performance, judged by
their TMAs, was satisfactory. The University's discussions with its partner,
with a view to introducing an English language proficiency test for intending
students, are therefore welcome (see above, paragraph 34).
Student appeals
51 Avenues for appeal are publicised in the Student Handbook. Appeal is possible
against assignment scores, course results, cancellation of registration, and
decisions about progress. The appeal is initially referred back to the committee
which took the decision. If the student is not satisfied with the outcome they
may appeal formally to the Academic Registrar who refers the matter to the Pro
Vice-Chancellor (Student, Tutorial and Regional Services) or to an independent
Panel set up by the Senate.
The experience of the M:MT at TEI Piraeus
52 Tutors at TEI Piraeus expressed their disappointment with what they perceived
as the University's unwillingness to allow students to defer examinations, even
when tutors were satisfied that circumstances warranted such a deferral. It also
appeared unreasonable to them that exceptional delays in announcing results for
M:MT units could lead to students learning that they had failed a unit only a
few weeks before sitting the examination for the next unit. Tutors saw this as
de-motivating for M:MT students, all of whom were in full-time work and needed
to be particularly persistent to maintain their efforts. As the University continues
to develop its arrangements for 'supported open learning' (see above, paragraph
10), it will wish to consider the advisability of formulating policies to address
such matters, while maintaining the standards of its awards and the quality of
its academic provision.
Staffing and staff development
Staff appointment
53 The appointment, development, promotion and reward of
full-time staff employed by the University's partner
institutions is, in general, a matter for them to carry out
within local employment laws. In scrutinising the suitability
of a potential partner prior to any collaboration the
University seeks to ensure that they will be likely to
discharge their formal responsibilities honourably to staff
and students, amongst others. Early in 1993 the M:MT
Programme Director visited Athens, was provided with detailed
curricula vitae, interviewed potential tutors, and made
written recommendations to the Director of TEI Piraeus. At
the time of the audit TEI Piraeus had a pool of five
University-approved tutors, three of whom were supporting
tutorial work with students. The majority of the tutors and
supervisors who met the audit team had higher degrees and
professional qualifications in engineering.
Staff development
54 Following appointment, tutors for the M:MT based at TEI Piraeus attend staff
development activities offered in both Milton Keynes and Athens identical to
those offered to tutors in the UK. University staff visit Athens twice each year
and amongst their responsibilities is the conduct of staff development activities
for the local tutors. For example, a visit conducted in the autumn of 1996 included
both briefing for MSc supervisors and examination revision sessions for Diploma
students. Tutors at TEI Piraeus were grateful for the provision of these training
sessions and the University is to be commended for its commitment to the development
of staff in Greece associated with its M:MT programme.
55 The University seeks to ensure that its local tutors are fully briefed
on the University's expectations of them. Tutors are provided with Tutor
Notes for each course unit. These specify the objectives for the study
guide, provide suggestions for tutorial sessions and activities, and describe
in detail the elements of the unit. Tutors at Athens were also provided
with a suggested tutorial programme, giving specified activities for each
of nine sessions.
Feedback to tutors
56 Tutors at TEI Piraeus are subject to the TMA monitoring process, described
elsewhere in this report (see above, paragraph 41). The audit team noted that
analysis of tutors' comments on TMAs had identified some reluctance on their
part to provide the detailed feedback that the University expects. Tutors at
TEI Piraeus justified their position on the grounds that they were able to provide
oral feedback during tutorial meetings. They had, however, been required by the
Programme Director to be more forthcoming in their marking of TMA scripts, and
the University's follow-up monitoring had been able to confirm that the quantity
and quality of feedback on TMAs had improved considerably. The University is
to be commended for this prompt and effective intervention.
Newsletter on quality issues
57 The University provides a wide range of support materials for those delivering
its teaching and learning arrangements, much of which is directed at individual
tutors. The audit team was provided with some examples of these materials and
in the course of its visit to the University's UK headquarters further items
were provided including the University's quarterly newsletter Quality Matters,
providing summaries of developments within the University and wider afield. Neither
the University's Athens Co-ordinator, nor the staff of its partner institution,
appeared to be aware of the availability of this periodical. The University may
consider this particular journal unsuitable for wider distribution; nonetheless,
it may wish to keep under review the case for providing a wider range of information
on teaching and learning for its overseas partners and offices.
Publicity and promotional material
58 The University publishes a comprehensive and helpful brochure for
the M:MT programme, which describes its approach to distance learning,
the contents of course components, and includes a procedural booklet and
application form entitled Becoming a Student. Local promotional material
is published in Greek. Staff at the University receive a copy of this leaflet
which is translated so that its contents can be checked for accuracy. The
M:MT at TEI Piraeus is not advertised at the University's Athens information
office, which recruits students to the centrally provided M:MT, an arrangement
for which the audit team could find no ready explanation, other than, possibly,
the misunderstandings between the partners described in paragraph 20, above.
Conclusions and points for further consideration
59 The Open University's collaborative partnership with TEI Piraeus,
which provides the University's Master's programme in Manufacturing: Management
and Technology at TEI Piraeus, Greece, has been built largely on the foundations
of good personal contacts between the staff of the two institutions. These
have proved broadly adequate to the task of assuring the quality of the
University's academic provision. The student assessment processes have
safeguarded the academic standard of the award.
60 Under present arrangements, the University does not have an overall approach to the management of its overseas partnerships: each faculty has considerable freedom to develop its own overseas collaborative activities. Hence, the University may only become aware of the development of an overseas partnership when its approval is formally sought, at the end of a process of negotiation and development, undertaken without central guidance, and with another institution. So far, the University has been willing to accept some consequential variations in the approaches to overseas collaborations taken by its faculties. But the argument for diversity and delegated responsibility does not explain the operation of an overseas collaboration for nearly four years without the safeguard of a formal contract or memorandum of co-operation, as was the case in the partnership with TEI Piraeus.
61 The Open University has a well-established reputation for its course
development, its specially prepared course materials, the rigour of its
student assessment procedures and for its commitment to staff development.
These are important assets as the University extends its international
activities, and are well evidenced in the link with TEI Piraeus. Equally
important, but less obviously met at present, is the need to take full
account of the practical needs of its students working within overseas
educational environments. In particular, the University should ensure that
questions about students' access to learning resources are considered and
dealt with consistently across its full range of overseas provision.
62 The University's intention to continue to offer identical programmes of study
simultaneously through partnerships throughout the world raises a number of general
issues which need to be resolved. It will, for example, need to have ways of
ensuring that its academic standards are consistently understood and applied
where responsibility for student recruitment, tutoring and guidance has been
assigned to overseas partners. Likewise, the current policy of allowing its faculties
considerable discretion in imposing their own operational arrangements for overseas
partnerships needs to be examined to ensure that variations in practice do not
work against consistency of standards. The effectiveness of the University's
strategy of providing central support for local provision might also benefit
from review. The HEQC's Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision
in Higher Education should prove a useful touchstone. Further, the hard-won expertise
of many staff who have negotiated and developed overseas partnerships is not
at present shared formally across the University, and staff are to a large extent
dependent on whatever knowledge and guidance is available within their own faculties.
Arrangements to gather and disseminate this expertise would help to enhance the
quality the University's overseas collaborative activities.
Top