The University of Luton overseas collaborative audit
1 This report considers the collaborative arrangement between the University of Luton and China Agricultural University's International College at Beijing, in the People's Republic of China. Since the audit has been completed the University of Luton has changed its name by order of the Privy Council to the University of Bedfordshire. The name Luton, which pertained at the time of the audit, is used throughout the report.
Introduction
2 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) is a United Kingdom (UK) organisation that seeks to promote public confidence that the quality of provision and standards of awards in higher education are being safeguarded. It provides public information about quality and standards in higher education to meet the needs of students, employers and funders of higher education. It does this mainly through a peer review process of audits and reviews. These are conducted by teams of auditors and reviewers comprising academic staff from higher or further education institutions, but with some members drawn, where appropriate, from industry and the professions. The most recent institutional audit of the University of Luton was conducted by QAA in May 2005.
3 One of QAA's activities is to carry out quality audits of collaborative links between UK higher education institutions (HEIs) and their partner organisations in other countries. In the spring and early summer of 2006, QAA conducted audits of selected partnership links between UK HEIs and institutions in the People's Republic of China (PRC). The purpose of these audits was to provide information on the way in which the UK institutions were maintaining academic standards and the quality of education in their partnerships. The reports on the individual audits will be used in the preparation of an overview report on the collaborative arrangements for the management of standards and quality of UK HE provision in mainland China.
The audit process for overseas collaborative links
4 In July 2005, QAA invited all UK HEIs to provide information on their collaborative partnerships in PRC. On the basis of the information returned on the nature and scale of the links, QAA selected for audit visits ten UK institutions with links in mainland China. Each of the selected institutions produced a commentary describing the way in which the link operated, and commenting on the effectiveness of the means by which it assured quality and standards. In addition, each institution was asked, as part of its commentary, to make reference to the extent to which the link was representative of its procedures and practice in all its overseas collaborative activity. Institutions were also invited in their commentaries to make reference to the ways in which their arrangements met the expectations of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice), particularly the section on Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning), published by QAA in 2004.
5 In spring 2006, audit visits were made to each of the selected UK institutions to discuss its arrangements in the light of its commentary. In April-May 2006, one of three separate audit teams (based respectively in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong province) visited the partner institutions in PRC to gain further insight into the experience of students and staff, and to supplement the view formed by the team from the institutions' commentaries and from the UK visits. During the visits to institutions in PRC, discussions were conducted with key members of staff and with students. The full audit team conducting audits of institutions with collaborative links in the Beijing province comprised Professor D W Heeley, Mr P Griffiths, Professor S L Sayce and Dr M Wing (auditors) and Ms AJ Blackburn (audit secretary). The audit was coordinated for QAA by Ms J Holt, Assistant Director, Reviews Group. QAA is particularly grateful to the UK institutions and their partners in PRC for the willing cooperation they provided to the team.
The context of collaborative provision with partners in PRC
6 In PRC responsibility for higher education planning and policy resides with the Ministry of Education, which is the State Council's executive body for education. It also has direct responsibility for a number of universities and for the evaluation of bachelor and master's level programmes. However, responsibility for the majority of provision, including vocational education, is devolved to the relevant regional and municipal authorities. China has a comprehensive set of laws covering the provision of higher education, notably the current Higher Education law, 1998. Of specific relevance to collaborative arrangements, are the Regulations on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools, 2003, which apply to higher education institutions and cover matters relating to the management of overseas partnerships and the level of student fees. As part of the continuing process of modernisation of higher education, two state programmes have been introduced: Project 211, which aims to create 100 first-class Chinese universities and a number of key fields of study for the twenty-first century; and Project 985, which aims to develop world-famous research universities. Both these projects channel funding selectively to designated universities. China has been progressively developing its quality assurance system for higher education since 1985, when the evaluation of institutions was first implemented. Current arrangements entail the evaluation of tertiary colleges by provincial education authorities, according to a national plan introduced by the Ministry of Education in 2003; the evaluation of bachelor degree programmes by the Ministry's Higher Education Evaluation Centre, established in 2004; and the evaluation of graduate education (master's and doctoral programmes) by the Academic Degree Committee of the State Council. Further information on higher education in China is contained in the overview report.
The background to the collaborative link
General background to the link
7 In its current Development Strategy, the University of Luton (Luton) recognised that the growth in its international student numbers over the period 1996-2004 reflected the 'successful implementation of positive marketing strategies to build institutional collaboration', centred on developing articulation arrangements, within a target group of countries. These arrangements give students advanced entry to either the second or final year of a Luton undergraduate programme on the basis of successful completion of a programme delivered in an overseas institution, which attracts a specific credit rating against the relevant Luton programme. During the planning period 2004 to 2008, the strategy document gives emphasis to broadening the subject base of its partnerships, extending the focus to postgraduate recruitment and developing 'long-term strategic partnerships with major universities in the target countries'; it highlighted the partnership with China Agricultural University (CAU) as the prime example.
8 CAU, founded in 1905 as part of Peking University, is now a key national and international university in its own right. It has 1,400 academic staff and over 50,000 full and part-time students, spread across 14 colleges, including the International College at Beijing (ICB). CAU receives special funding through Project 211, a state initiative to promote and enhance higher education by targeting resources at designated 'key universities' on the basis of national ranking, and also offers a large number of international programmes in collaboration with institutions in various overseas countries, including several in the UK. ICB was established in 1995 to contribute to the international dimension of CAU's work and is located on the eastern (Haidian) campus of CAU. The partnership between ICB and Luton was subject to CAU's own quality assurance procedures, which have many similar features to systems operating in UK higher education.
9 The formal relationship with ICB began in 1999 when the initial contract was signed by Luton and CAU. This established an articulation arrangement following a 2+1 model (that is the articulation of a two-year ICB programme with the final year of an existing Luton programme) in the Business subject area leading to a Luton honours degree. The ICB programme is delivered and assessed in English. The first students arrived at Luton in September 2001 and were initially restricted to three pathways: Business Administration, Marketing, and Advertising and Marketing Communications. Subsequently, additional pathways were added in Internet and eBusiness, and Human Resource Management. In addition, there have been developments in other subject areas. A programme in Computer Science began in 2001, although it has since been discontinued due to lack of demand from ICB students, with the last cohort graduating from Luton in 2005. In 2005-06, a new programme in Media Production was introduced, but as a 1+2 articulation arrangement (that is the articulation of a one-year ICB programme with the final two years of an existing Luton programme), followed in 2005-06 by a programme in Accounting adopting the same 1+2 arrangement. The decision as to whether to implement a 1+2 or a 2+1 arrangement is dependent upon factors such as the availability of resources, including staffing at ICB, or the requirements for professional accreditation in the UK. Since inception, 701 students have progressed from ICB to Luton under these various articulation arrangements and, at the time of the audit, the first Accounting students were preparing to transfer to Luton.
10 The Commentary stated that articulation arrangements were the only form of institutional relationship between ICB and Luton, and senior staff clarified that these were considered by Luton to be typical of its approach to articulation with advanced entry and that such arrangements were exclusively with overseas institutions.
The UK institution's approach to overseas collaborative provision
11 A key principle of quality assurance at Luton is that academic decisions about standards and quality are made by committees which have lines of accountability to Academic Board. As part of a wider review of its quality assurance system, Luton introduced new committee arrangements for overseas collaborative provision in October 2005, when its senior quality assurance committee, the Teaching Quality and Standards Committee (TQSC) established an international subcommittee (TQSCi) and the Overseas Strategic Review Group (OSRG). TQSCi has an academic quality assurance remit focused on the monitoring of processes, while OSRG takes a strategic business view of collaborative initiatives in the context of Luton's development plans. The new committees replace the previous geographically-based regional groups and, as one of these, the China sub-committee has been disestablished. Both TQSC and TQSCi are chaired by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (DVC) Academic, whose role encompasses teaching and learning and quality management, while OSRG is chaired by the DVC (Resources), whose brief includes the development of overseas business.
12 The policies and procedures relating to collaborative provision are specified in Luton's general Quality Assurance Handbook (Handbook), which complements its Regulations, and is produced by the Centre for Quality Assurance and Enhancement. The Handbook gives guidance on the various categories of collaboration, including articulation arrangements with overseas institutions; it contains procedures for the credit-rating of courses and identifies additional considerations pertinent to overseas collaborative arrangements generally. Responsibility for credit-rating lies with TQSC, although the operation of the process is devolved to faculty teaching quality and standards committees (faculty TQSCs). It is intended that TQSCi will monitor the credit-rating process. According to the Handbook, Luton looks for 'a willingness by the overseas partner to adopt, at least in part, the University's own module syllabuses, thereby facilitating the matching of curricula and offering assurances about the attainment of academic standards'.
13 Faculty TQSCs also have responsibility for the management of annual monitoring. From 2005-06, reports relating to overseas collaborative provision will additionally be considered by TQSCi. Also involved in monitoring, but specifically in relation to the articulation arrangement with ICB, is the Joint Academic Committee (JAC), established under the contract between Luton and CAU. JAC has a remit to review the operation of the articulation on an annual basis and facilitate liaison between the partners. Within Luton's committee structure it reports directly to Academic Board, although in practice its minutes are also received by TQSC and will in future go to TQSCi as well.
14 In revising the committee structure for overseas collaborative provision, TQSC was concerned that the terms of reference of the new committees should 'adequately separate oversight of quality and standards from more executive functions'. To reinforce this separation, since implementation of the new arrangements, OSRG, given its predominantly business perspective, has been repositioned as an executive committee reporting to the Vice Chancellor's Management Group, rather than having a reporting line to TQSC as originally envisaged. Subsequent amendment of the terms of reference for OSRG has clarified that, with respect to advising on the adoption of overseas collaborative arrangements, it will also report to Academic Board, which thus brings together the procedures to establish strategic fit (through OSRG) and those to establish academic health (through TQSC). The opportunity was also taken to remove from OSRG the responsibility for 'reviewing the performance of...quality arrangements (annual course monitoring)' and the audit team considered that this would dispel any confusion about OSRG having a role in academic quality assurance. The team also understood that the terms of reference of TQSCi (which had its first meeting in February 2006) were now being considered for minor modification in the light of the amendments to OSRG's terms.
15 Given that the committees were so recently established and still bedding in, the audit team considered it premature to comment on the effectiveness of their operation. However, given the continuing changes to terms of reference and reporting lines, the implementation of the new structure had plainly not been straightforward; in the team's view there had been some early difficulties in translating the sound principle of separating business development from quality assurance into clear roles, responsibilities and lines of accountability. For instance, the team was uncertain as to how TQSCi would develop its role, whether as a monitor of process (as suggested by the minutes of its first meeting), or as a more active participant in the process (as suggested by its own terms of reference and the revised terms of OSRG). Once the documentation of roles and responsibilities has stabilised, Luton may wish to consider monitoring the operation of the revised committee structure to ensure that adequate separation of executive functions from oversight of quality and standards has been achieved in practice.
16 In respect of JAC, the audit team noted that attendees at the annual meeting and the business covered did not closely correspond with the membership and terms of reference for the annual review of the articulation set out in the contract. Although senior Luton staff clarified that the extra attendees at meetings did not constitute a change in the membership of JAC, the team was of the view that, if the membership was no longer fit for purpose, the imminent renewal of the contract provided an opportunity to review the requirements. The team also saw clear benefit in JAC adhering to a regular agenda for its annual review of the articulation, to bring greater consistency to the process from year to year. Therefore the team encourages Luton to review the operation of JAC to allow more effective monitoring of progress in the development of the partnership by Academic Board. This point notwithstanding, the team recognised the positive contribution JAC was making in advancing the partnership and programmes through providing an opportunity for strategic matters to be considered at senior level.
Public information, publicity and promotional activity
17 The University maintains a comprehensive register of its overseas collaborative arrangements. This lists partners and programmes by type of collaboration and notes the current status of the relevant contract and whether Academic Board approval has yet been received. The audit team considered that this approach to the provision of publicly available information was consistent with the relevant precept of the Code of practice dealing with collaborative provision.
18 The contract with CAU requires that 'all marketing and advertising campaigns must have the prior written approval of both parties', but does not specify the relevant procedures. On this point, the audit team found the Handbook to be confusing and apparently contradictory, in that publicity and promotional material features in a list of provisions to be 'implied into all contracts', but is also to be approved, 'according to procedures as specified in each contract'. Senior Luton staff clarified that the scrutiny of publicity materials was an executive responsibility, included in relevant role descriptions, but that it was also one of the areas that TQSCi would in future be monitoring through the introduction of formal reporting on the accuracy of such materials.
19 From the audit team's own survey of information on ICB's website, there were several points which had, in the team's view, the potential to confuse or mislead prospective students. Examples included the claim of 'accreditation' of Luton by QAA and an estimate of the percentage of students graduating from the programmes who went on to gain master's awards, which Luton was unable to verify. However, given that Luton was in the process of tightening up its procedures for the scrutiny of publicity and promotional materials, the team was assured that these matters would now be addressed.
Formal arrangements for establishing the link
Selecting and approving the partner institution
20 The link between Luton and ICB grew out of a personal contact between a member of Luton staff and the Dean of ICB. This led to discussions at a senior level which examined the compatibility of the educational objectives of the two institutions. In line with its mission 'to provide innovative opportunities to participate in higher education for all those able to benefit', Luton is committed to enabling international students to participate in two higher education systems, thereby broadening their educational experience. ICB was created to develop joint educational programmes and, as the audit team heard during its visit to CAU, UK higher education is highly regarded in PRC and has a longstanding reputation. The recognised status of CAU and the rigour of its established quality assurance system met Luton's stipulations for articulation and led to the signing of the first contract between Luton and CAU. This approved ICB as a suitable partner for developing articulation arrangements, initially with the Business School (which has the status of a faculty at Luton), and subsequently with the Faculty of Creative Arts, Technologies and Science. As each articulated programme was approved, a schedule was generated and appended to the contract.
21 Under the recently revised committee structure for overseas collaboration, the initial stage of the approval process, which focuses on the partner institution, falls within the remit of OSRG. Its advice on strategic fit is based on preliminary information gathered by the International Office, including that obtained through visits to the prospective partner, a faculty implementation plan for the proposed collaboration, and due diligence enquiries by the Legal Office, which specifically address compliance with local regulations in the institution's home country. Initiatives successful at this stage are assessed for financial viability at senior management level.
22 The academic criteria for approving collaborative arrangements are contained in the Handbook, together with guidance on specific factors that should be taken into account in considering a partner. These include the calibre of academic staff, the nature of learning resources, the teaching and learning methods employed, the administrative infrastructure, the opportunities afforded for Luton staff to facilitate staff development at the partner institution, and assurances on issues of continuity and succession management. The approval event for an articulation arrangement is a faculty-based exercise, with those considering the proposal having access to reports on previous visits to the partner (or prospective partner) by Luton staff (see paragraph 23 below). Essentially, Luton seeks to determine (as stated in the Handbook) 'whether the partner institution is able to sustain an ethos and learning environment appropriate to UK higher education' and for its part commits itself to an ongoing involvement in the process.
23 While procedures at Luton have evolved since the approval of the link with ICB, many of the underlying principles were evident to the audit team from the proposal document for the initial articulated programmes. This contained substantial information on staffing and resources, academic administration and quality management. The subsequent development of the link was charted through reports on staff visits to ICB and through the proposals for additional articulation arrangements. These attest to Luton's continued support for the partnership, for example in Media Production, a new discipline at ICB, Luton has assisted in staff recruitment, as well as in staff development (see paragraph 38 below). The Commentary emphasised the benefits that Luton derived from the articulation arrangements with ICB, in particular the opportunity for it to enrich the curriculum through international collaboration and for staff to re-evaluate their educational assumptions and teaching practices.
Programme approval
24 According to the Handbook, in approving an articulating programme at a partner institution, Luton guarantees 'that it will admit with advanced standing students who have successfully completed a certain volume, level and range of subject study at that institution'. In the original proposal document for the link with ICB, the approach was for the first two years of the programme at Luton to be replicated at ICB, thereby enabling the learning outcomes attainable at that stage to be exactly matched. Over time, this evolved into the credit-rating exercise now being used and falling within the devolved responsibility of faculty TQSCs reporting upwards through TQSCi to TQSC; the audit team was able to see the development of this process through its review of documentation. In the specific case of the arrangement with ICB, Luton provided module syllabuses and handbooks and ensured that the same or comparable core texts were used.
25 The Commentary indicated that 'discussions about individual programmes with ICB [had] been characterised by cooperation and flexibility'. In this context, the audit team learned from staff at ICB that they were encouraged to employ their own skills and experience to enable students to achieve the intended learning outcomes, but that the outcomes themselves were not changed. Another aspect of flexibility related to the structure of the programmes delivered at ICB, for example the first-year Media Production programme contains fewer option modules than the Luton-based programme which (as confirmed in a visit report) enabled 'ICB students to still demonstrate the core level one outcomes, but just restricts the range of possible ways that they might do this'. The continued match with the curricula at Luton is subject to annual monitoring (see paragraphs 32-33 below). Overall, the team considered the approach to alignment of the curricula and teaching methods at ICB with those at Luton to represent a significant advance on the straightforward acceptance of students holding credit. The effectiveness of curricular mapping within the credit-rating exercise, which also allows for an appropriate degree of academic freedom in programme delivery within agreed parameters, is identified in the audit as a positive feature of this partnership.
Written agreements with the partner institution
26 As explained in the Commentary, Luton's 'approval procedure involves the contract as a key element'. The contract for articulation arrangements sets out the quality assurance framework as well as the financial aspects of the collaboration; it is valid for a fixed period, this being four academic years in the case of the current contract pertaining to the articulation arrangements with ICB. According to the Handbook, contracts must be approved by the Vice Chancellor on behalf of Academic Board, but are only enacted once academic approval has been given through TQSC, reporting to Academic Board.
27 From its review of the contract, the audit team found the coverage to be broadly consistent with the corresponding precept of the Code of practice dealing with collaborative provision. However, on the specific matter of the certificates awarded to students who do not progress to Luton, but who continue their studies at CAU, the team noted there was a significant disparity between the provision made in the contract and the relevant precept of the Code. According to the contract, these students 'may be awarded a certificate bearing both parties' logos', whereas the Code is unequivocal about the responsibilities of an awarding institution to exercise proper control over 'all certificates and transcripts that are issued in its name'. The team was assured that, in practice, the certificates awarded to students completing their studies at CAU did not bear the Luton logo and staff at Luton and CAU were clear that the reason for this was that the awards had not been subjected to Luton's procedures for assessment and external examining. Nevertheless, Luton may wish to take steps to avoid any misunderstanding about the inclusion of its logo on certificates awarded by the partner institution by amending the contract at the earliest opportunity.
28 The above point notwithstanding, the audit team considered that the opportunity for ICB students unable (or unwilling) to transfer to Luton to continue on a CAU degree programme constituted a reasonable alternative progression route, which took full account of the best interests of students whose aspirations or circumstances changed during the first two years of their degree programme. It also provided a means for facilitating students to complete their programmes in the event of termination of the contract, although in this circumstance, the contract commits both parties to cooperate in devising a 'suitable plan'. Overall, the team concluded that the safeguards in place for students were sound.
Quality management of the link
Management of the link
29 At Luton, the respective programme coordinators have primary responsibility for relationship management. The role is normally adopted by the relevant field chair (a managerial position carrying responsibility for a subject-related group of modules within Luton's modular scheme), who reports to the head of department. Similarly, ICB has designated programme coordinators and administrative staff who act as the points of communication with their counterparts at Luton. As confirmed to the audit team by staff at both Luton and ICB, regular contact at the programme level is supplemented by email exchanges at the module level between members of the two teaching teams.
30 Under the contract, JAC has a responsibility for facilitating liaison between the partners (see paragraph 35 below) and the number of visits between them is agreed annually, in the context of the operational review of the articulation. Luton teaching staff typically visit ICB on two occasions per year to brief students on the experience they can expect at Luton and to deliver guest lectures, although, as the Commentary indicated, practices may vary according to specific programme needs (see paragraphs 39-40 below). There has also been a significant number of visits by ICB staff to Luton, including staff exchanges and joint research activity, as envisaged in the contract (see paragraph 39 below). In addition, Luton's Director for the Far East, a mandarin speaker, regularly visits ICB to ensure programme-level relationships are progressing effectively. This is part of a wider brief, which also encompasses maintaining close contact with the Director of ICB's UK office, which has a parallel liaison function.
31 Student admission to the articulating programmes is under the control of ICB, although the contract stipulates that CAU will provide Luton with a list of students enrolled on the first-year programme at ICB who have expressed the intention of transferring to Luton, along with student profiles and periodic reports on their progress. Luton is solely responsible for the registration of students onto its programmes and for the requirements for advanced entry, which, in addition to successful completion of the relevant programmes at ICB, include proven English language competency (see paragraph 42 below) and obtaining the requisite student visa for the UK.
32 Following transfer, students' records and academic progress are managed in the same way as for any other Luton student, although analysis of graduating cohorts dating back to 2002-03 allows comparison of the performance of students originating from ICB against that of the total student group (see paragraph 34 below). In acknowledgment of the numbers transferring to the articulated programmes, there is a special arrangement for student representation on the Marketing and Business field committees, whereby one place is reserved for students from ICB. In the case of student support, Luton's normal arrangements apply, including any aimed specifically at international students.
Arrangements for monitoring and review
33 Formal monitoring of articulation arrangements takes place through Luton's annual programme monitoring process, managed by faculty TQSCs. According to the Handbook, individual programmes must be clearly identified in field reports, on which faculty annual monitoring reports are based. The latter are produced using a standard template, which facilitates production of an overview report by the Centre for Quality Assurance and Enhancement for consideration by TQSC. The focus of this overview is on procedural or policy issues and matters relating to quality enhancement. For undergraduate programmes, the entire process is conducted in the autumn term, concluding with a report to the December meeting of Academic Board. It is intended that TQSCi will also receive any annual monitoring reports relevant to overseas collaborative provision to enable these to be given more detailed consideration than has hitherto been possible within TQSC's normal agenda.
34 From its review of field reports relating to the link with ICB, the audit team found that over the period of the partnership, programme teams had paid particular attention to the maintenance and currency of curriculum mapping, the academic progress of students following their transfer to Luton, and the lessons to be learned from visits and other liaison activities conducted by the two institutions. Field reports documented and explained curriculum changes to ICB programmes, while faculty annual monitoring reports confirmed that ICB programmes had not deviated from those at Luton and, conversely, that changes to Luton programmes had been effectively communicated to ICB. Flexibility in the partnership was demonstrated, for example, through the substitution by Luton of one Business module for another, to eliminate duplication in the ICB programme arising from changes to a module mandatory for all students in the Chinese higher education system.
35 The importance of monitoring the academic progress of student cohorts after transfer to Luton was recognised from the early stages of the partnership, with more recent emphasis being placed by TQSC on 'ensuring that this [analysis] fed back into developments in the curriculum.' It has been shown that the academic achievement of students from ICB is comparable to that of other student groups and that the proportion attaining the top degree classifications is progressively increasing.
36 Since 1998 (when the link was established), the relationship between the two institutions has been fostered through substantial formal and informal contact at both senior management and programme levels. Reports on visits to ICB indicate that they have provided opportunities to discuss specific changes to the curriculum or teaching and learning methods and, more generally, to prepare students for transfer to Luton (see paragraphs 39-40 and 46 below). The audit team learned that a new system for recording the objectives and outcomes of visits to partner institutions had recently been implemented. This requires staff to complete a standard report form on their return to the UK, which is submitted to the Centre for Quality Assurance and Enhancement for further analysis and dissemination to TSQC (in future through TQSCi). The increasingly coordinated approach to capitalising on liaison visits for monitoring purposes is identified in the audit as a positive feature of this partnership.
37 On a related point, the audit team noted that there seemed to be no obvious means for integrating the findings of JAC's annual review of the articulation with Luton's annual monitoring process. While the team recognised that JAC's minutes were routinely received by Academic Board, they were understandably an item more for report than for detailed discussion. The team viewed the future consideration of JAC minutes by TQSCi as a positive step, enabling Luton to take a more holistic view of the output from the various monitoring mechanisms employed for its overseas collaborative arrangements.
38 All Luton-based programmes fall within scope of its periodic subject review process. There are separate arrangements for the periodic review of collaborative programmes, which closely mirror the approval process, but also take account of the experience of both Luton and the partner institution in operating and developing the programme. The review is instigated by the expiry of the period of approval (normally five years). The audit team considered that the Handbook was unclear as to whether articulation arrangements fell within the scope of periodic review of collaborative programmes and it had not been adopted in the case of the ICB link. The team was also unable to establish how Luton's subject review process would dovetail with a periodic review of collaborative programmes where these needed to be brought together because of an articulation arrangement. The approval period for the articulation arrangements with ICB was due to expire at the end of 2005-06 and the team was informed that renewal of the contract was to be negotiated by senior management during a visit to CAU before the end of the academic year. The team concluded that this approach did not reflect the rigour and transparency of the approval process and that there would be benefit in consolidating the outcomes of annual monitoring at the contract renewal stage. Therefore Luton may wish to consider incorporating the process for re-approval of articulation arrangements into its standard review procedures.
Staffing and staff development
39 ICB is responsible for providing staff resources for the articulating programmes at ICB and for all related quality assurance procedures. However, Luton has access to relevant staff curricula vitae, initially as part of the approval process and subsequently through routine updating as different staff become involved in programme delivery. The Commentary pointed to Luton's willingness to lend support to the recruitment process, through for example, its facilitating ICB's appointment of three subject specialists to its Media Production programme from UK universities, including Luton itself. The Commentary also indicated that Luton's support for staff development at ICB was tailored to the needs of the respective subject areas.
40 From visit reports, the audit team noted that in Business, which had seen the throughput of several cohorts, experience of teaching students, both in Luton and during visits to ICB, was being fed back into ICB staff development. One such example was the encouragement of staff to develop students' oral communication skills through presentation work, as these skills are particularly relevant to Marketing and Advertising. Staff visits were also used extensively for both peer observation of teaching and team teaching, giving Luton staff the opportunity to observe and support sessions delivered by ICB staff and vice versa. Through staff exchanges ICB staff were also given the opportunity to teach on modules at Luton, with one such exchange having been successfully completed in 2004-05 and another underway in 2005-06.
41 In Media Production, a nascent subject area at ICB, there was evidence of more active monitoring of teaching by Luton staff, who attended classes and also talked with students to ensure that they were becoming familiar with assessed group work, seminar discussions and independent research-based projects; these being the norm on the Luton programme. In addition, while Luton provided advice on learning resources for all the articulating programmes at ICB, for Media Production this had extended to assistance with the technical specification of specialist equipment.
42 Overall, the audit team considered that the arrangements in place for Luton to make an input to staffing processes at ICB were helpful in that they recognised both the autonomy of ICB in operating its programmes and Luton's need for assurance that students were being equipped to make a successful transition to UK higher education. The responsiveness of staffing and staff development arrangements to the particular programme needs is identified in the audit as a positive feature of this partnership. The flexibility and cooperation shown by ICB in this respect is also acknowledged.
Student admissions
43 The requirements for advanced entry to the Luton programmes are set out in the contract. Students must successfully complete the relevant articulating programme at ICB and demonstrate English language competency. A score of 6.0 on the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) is necessary, or the equivalent on another recognised test, usually Luton's own Test for the English Language Assessment Service (TELAS), which is benchmarked against IELTS. Students taking TELAS are assessed twice during the year before transfer to Luton, with the initial test being diagnostic and the second test summative; TELAS is administered by specialist Luton staff who travel to ICB.
44 From documentation, the audit team learned that students on the articulating programmes at ICB had to reach a certain grade point average in order to transfer to Luton. ICB staff clarified that, while a high proportion succeeded, not all students achieved the requisite standard and there were arrangements for these to continue studies at ICB/CAU. With regard to English language, it was evident that both Luton and ICB placed considerable significance on ensuring that students were prepared effectively. Staff from the Division of Language and Communication at Luton had advised on English language teaching and learning methods and, in response to comments from Luton about the need for students' skills in communicative English to be improved, ICB had increased the amount of English language tuition that students receive as an integral part of the curricula. The team noted that there had been a scrutiny of TELAS by the British Council for the purposes of external benchmarking. Also, an external examiner for one of the Luton programmes had commented favourably on the overall standard of English language in the assessed work produced by students from ICB. The range of measures used to ensure the sufficient development students' English language skills are identified as a positive feature of this partnership.
Assurance of academic standards
Assessment and external examining (not applicable)
45 Given that the collaboration is an articulation arrangement, there is no participation by Luton staff in the assessment of students on the articulating programmes at ICB and no external examiner involvement.
Certificates and transcripts
46 Students who successfully complete their programmes at Luton are awarded an honours degree, although, as stated in the Commentary, there is 'the possibility of an ordinary degree award for students who gain 60 level 3 credits' out of the normal 120 available from the final year's study. No intermediate award is offered to students who transfer through a 2+1 articulation arrangement, although under the 1+2 model, students not wishing to continue into their final year would be eligible for a Diploma of Higher Education award on successful completion of one year at Luton. The degree certificate given to students is the standard Luton certificate and all students receive transcripts. The audit team was able to verify from a specimen copy that student transcripts stated clearly both the amount and the level of credit awarded on the basis of prior learning, although the partner institution offering the articulating programme was not named. Luton may wish to consider reviewing its practice of not recording the partner institution on transcripts relating to awards from articulated programmes in the context of the relevant precept of the Code of practice.
Quality of information and support for students
Student information and support arrangements
47 Students are informed about the range of available Luton programmes in a variety ways. Programme information is available either through handbooks, produced by Luton, which are distributed at the start of the students' programme at ICB, or through well-developed Luton websites for the specific subject area. During visits to ICB, Luton staff give guidance directly to students on both academic and practical matters, such as the assessment regime, styles of teaching and learning, features of UK higher education and culture, living costs and accommodation arrangements. Information on the articulating programmes at ICB is provided by ICB in student handbooks produced in English and Chinese.
48 Students meeting the audit team at Luton confirmed that they were well informed and prepared concerning what to expect, expressing the view that, based on their experience at ICB, notions of the didactic nature of Chinese higher education were becoming outdated. Students at ICB were knowledgeable about how they were being prepared for transition to Luton, for example through their exposure to a wide-range of assessment methods and through the expectations placed on them for independent study. They were enthusiastic about going to Luton, giving such reasons as their chosen discipline being more advanced in the UK, the good reputation of UK higher education, and the positive accounts from students who had returned from Luton.
Student progression to the UK
49 While at ICB, students are given timely guidance on visa applications: an aspect of the collaboration where considerable success has been achieved. The audit team saw an example of the written guidance provided, but during its visit to CAU, learned that this was supplemented by open-days for students and their parents. These reinforced the key factors in a successful visa application, including the need to demonstrate adequate financial backing for students going to the UK. According to the contract, students from ICB are offered places in university residence at Luton, although those meeting the team explained that students sometimes used informal networks in making their own accommodation arrangements. ICB's London office provides initial support for students arriving in the UK, and the Commentary drew attention to the importance of this resource in the early stages, as a mechanism for checking that students were settling in to their new environment and helping to resolve any problems.
50 The Commentary indicated that Luton's International Office provided pastoral support for students on practical matters, such as 'setting up bank accounts, the regulations about employment, visa extensions, and arrangements for their families to visit' and that, in conjunction with ICB, it also made arrangements for students' flights and airport pick-ups. There is a special induction programme for students from ICB, as they are joining existing programmes for which student induction would already have taken place. In discussion with Luton staff, the audit team was told about the various measures employed to help ICB students with cultural integration. For instance, Luton has several staff from PRC who act in a personal tutor capacity for students from ICB, so that issues can be addressed quickly from a position of personal experience. Also, students, although normally taught in mixed nationality groups, were taught in a separate group where it was thought this would lead to particular benefits. An example was in the development of the promotional skills required in Marketing or Advertising, where it was felt that Chinese students would gain initial confidence from working together as a group.
51 A survey of students from the Department of Business and Marketing showed that international students, who comprised half the survey population, gave an above-average satisfaction rating of their experience. Moreover, students meeting the audit team at Luton, who were predominantly from this department, were evidently satisfied that they were getting an authentic experience of UK higher education. The designation of a place on each of the Marketing and Business field committees to be filled by a student from ICB, while primarily intended to secure input to quality management from a sizeable student cohort, would, in the team's view, also encourage the integration of students from ICB joining existing programmes in the final year. Overall, the team concluded that the processes for preparing students for their experience at Luton and easing them into it were both well conceived and well executed. The effective support arrangements for student progression to the UK are identified as a positive feature of this partnership.
Conclusion
52 In considering the partnership, the audit team identified the following positive features:
- the effectiveness of curricular mapping within the credit-rating exercise, which also allows for an appropriate degree of academic freedom in programme delivery within agreed parameters (paragraph 25)
- the increasingly coordinated approach to capitalising on liaison visits for monitoring purposes (paragraph 36)
- the responsiveness of staffing and staff development arrangements to the particular programme needs (paragraph 42)
- the range of measures used to ensure the sufficient development of students' English language skills (paragraph 44)
- the effective support arrangements for student progression to the UK (paragraph 51).
53 The audit team also identified the following points for consideration by Luton as it develops its partnership arrangements:
- monitoring the operation of the revised committee structure to ensure that adequate separation of executive functions from oversight of quality and standards has been achieved in practice (paragraph 15)
- taking steps to avoid any misunderstanding about the inclusion of its logo on certificates awarded by the partner institution (paragraph 27)
- incorporating the process for re-approval of articulation arrangements into its standard review procedures (paragraph 38)
- reviewing its practice of not recording the partner institution on transcripts relating to awards from articulated programmes (paragraph 46).
54 The audit team considered that Luton was operating the partnership with an appropriate regard for the advice contained in the Code of practice, published by QAA. Where the team found aspects of the University's practice which could be improved in the context of the Code of practice, these have been identified in body of the report.
55 The Commentary was helpful in its coverage and provided a generally accurate representation of this partnership. It gave a convincing account of how Luton was working together with ICB to ensure that students were prepared effectively and thus likely to succeed following transfer from ICB to Luton. The conclusion to the Commentary stated, 'the articulation agreement has been positive and mutually beneficial, and has fulfilled the academic and professional development purposes for which it was established'. The findings of the audit would sustain this view: the continuing investment in the collaboration by both institutions appeared to the audit team to go beyond that normally expected of an articulation arrangement.
56 In addition, Luton indicated that the procedures in respect of this link were representative of its standard procedures for articulation with advanced entry to its programmes. This being the case, the findings of the audit would also support a conclusion of confidence in Luton's management of its articulation arrangements.
Appendix A: Update on the partnership since the audit
The University in particular welcomes the confidence that the QAA audit team expresses in the University's management of its articulation arrangements and in the overall quality of the learning opportunities being provided. The University's approach to collaborative arrangements places a clear emphasis on the student experience, and it is particularly rewarding to note the team's favourable comments on the effectiveness of the support arrangements for transferring students, on the development of students' English language skills, and on the strong support offered by and to staff associated with the collaboration. The University will strive to enhance the areas of good practice identified in the audit report.
The University has already begun to respond to the points for consideration raised by the audit team:
- detailed amendments have already been made to the committee structure governing collaborative relationships, and the University will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the structure to ensure that it remains fit purpose
- standard contractual arrangements for articulation arrangements are being reviewed against QAA's Code of practice for collaborative provision to ensure that all precepts continue to be met. Specific amendments will be made to the University's arrangements for recording the names of articulated institutions on students' transcripts and for securing the use of the University's logo
- the new University of Bedfordshire will be considering the optimal way of relating the academic review of articulation arrangements to contract renewal and subject review as an integral part of the discussions that are scheduled to take place during 2006-07 about a revised Quality Assurance Handbook for the merged institution.
Appendix B: Student statistics as at March 2006
Cohort 1 September 2002-03: 70 students started the programme and 65 graduated with honours degrees.
Cohort 2 September 2003-04: 166 students started the programme and 165 graduated with honours degrees.
Cohort 3 September 2004-05: 221 students started the programme and 216 graduated with honours degrees.
Cohort 4 September 2005-06: 200 students started the programme.
ISBN 1 84482 627 9
Top