The Queen's University of Belfast overseas collaborative audit
1 This report considers a collaborative arrangement between The Queen's University of Belfast (QUB) and Shenzhen University (SZU) for the joint delivery of a one-year foundation programme leading to the award of an International Certificate in Foundation Studies.
Introduction
2 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) is a United Kingdom (UK) organisation which 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 QUB was conducted by QAA in December 2004.
3 One of QAA's activities is to carry out quality audits of collaborative links between UK higher education institutions and their partner organisations in other countries. In the spring and early summer of 2006, QAA conducted audits of selected partnership links between UK higher education institutions (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 higher education provision in mainland China.
The audit process for overseas collaborative links
4 In July 2005, QAA invited all UK higher education institutions 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 10 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 Guangdong province comprised Professor J Bailey, Dr D Furneaux, Dr R Haggerty, Ms M Heycock and Professor G Roberts (auditors), and Ms C Smith (audit secretary). The audit was coordinated for QAA by Mrs S Patterson, 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 The collaborative arrangement between QUB and SZU provides for the joint delivery of a one-year foundation programme leading to the award of an International Certificate in Foundation Studies. The arrangement, which started in 1998, prepares students for entry to QUB degree pathways in social science or engineering. The programme, also referred to as the Joint Foundation Programme, is not credit bearing and does not form part of a QUB pathway. The programme consists of two streams, one for social science and one for engineering. Each stream comprises four academic modules, two of which are taught and assessed in Chinese by SZU staff and two are taught and assessed in English at SZU by QUB staff. Both streams follow an English language programme developed by QUB staff and taught at SZU by a QUB lecturer supported by SZU-appointed tutors. The assessment for the English language component is by the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) examination.
8 The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) provides for a maximum of 70 students per year on the programme with a minimum of 25 students per annum on the social science stream and 12 on the engineering stream. Over the period 1999 to 2004 a total of 411 students were enrolled, of whom 276 progressed to QUB degree programmes. The International Certificate in Foundation Studies is awarded to those students who successfully complete the four academic modules and a 12-week pre-sessional English course. Students must also attain minimum scores of 6.0 in the IELTS examination for the social science stream and 5.5 for the engineering stream. Admission to specific QUB degree programmes depends on performance in the academic modules and the IELTS score.
9 Numbers on the social science stream have increased steadily from 37 in 1999 to 59 in 2004, the average per annum for this stream being 53. In the 1999 cohort, 18 students progressed to QUB degree pathways in social science, rising to 50 students in 2004. Progression rates in social science have risen from 49 per cent in 1999 to 85 per cent in 2004. Numbers on the engineering stream have been smaller and intakes have fluctuated over the years. Over the period 1999 to 2004, the average annual enrolment on the engineering stream was 16 and the average progression rate to QUB degree pathways was 72 per cent.
10 SZU, founded in 1983, is situated in the Special Economic Zone of the Pearl Delta, at the Back Bay of Shenzhen, facing Hong Kong. It is the only university in the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone in China. SZU offers undergraduate and postgraduate programmes and adult education programmes. It is accredited by the State Council as a full-time comprehensive university and is authorised to run graduate programmes and award master's degrees. There are approximately 20,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) students supported by 800 faculty, including 545 teaching staff, over half of whom hold PhDs. There are 13 colleges offering a range of programmes in the liberal arts, science, engineering, business, law, art and teacher training. Cooperation and exchanges with other HEIs are actively encouraged and there are 45 such links with HEIs around the world. Many of the links are joint programmes in line with SZU's 'dual-campus, dual-language' policy.
11 The Joint Foundation Programme falls within the responsibility of the Normal College of SZU. Normal College delivers a range of educational programmes covering languages, science and the liberal arts. Support for collaborations lies with SZU's International Office which promotes international exchanges, recruits international students and staff and oversees international collaborations. In the course of the audit, the audit team learned that SZU planned to set up an International College and that continued partnership with QUB was in SZU's five-year plan.
12 In addition to the link with SZU, QUB has two further joint programmes in China, a franchise arrangement in Malaysia, and three collaborative arrangements for joint awards in Eire. The provision at SZU is not typical of QUB's collaborative arrangements in general as it is the only subdegree collaboration on its Register of Collaborative Provision. In the Commentary QUB stated that 'the quality assurance procedures applied to the partnership [were] consistent with University procedures for all collaborative provision'. QUB acknowledges that the Joint Foundation Programme does not meet all its current requirements, as described in the Validation Handbook for Collaborative Provision (December 2005) (the Handbook), and is planning to secure compliance through its planned programme for periodic review of the provision.
The UK institution's approach to overseas collaborative provision
13 The Handbook articulates a number of key principles underpinning QUB's approach, specifying that '[t]he University is responsible for the academic standards of all awards granted in its name, including those awarded under collaborative arrangements'. The Handbook also states that the academic standards of collaborative awards must be 'equivalent' to those of comparable awards delivered at QUB and must 'comply' with the The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ) and relevant subject benchmarks. The quality of learning opportunities is required to be 'comparable' with that at QUB.
14 QUB's Policy for Collaborative Provision, as stated in the Handbook, is that consideration will only be given to collaborative arrangements with organisations of good financial and legal standing which have the ability to deliver programmes to the appropriate standard and can offer the necessary learning opportunities. Arrangements are governed by a negotiated legal agreement and, subject to satisfactory monitoring of the link, partners remain on QUB's Register of Collaborative Provision for five years, at which time a full review of the partnership is conducted. QUB reserves the right to suspend or terminate collaborative arrangements, subject to safeguards for students, if at any stage it considers standards to be at risk.
15 The Handbook is a comprehensive document detailing the procedures for institutional and programme approval and for the subsequent monitoring and review of partnership links. There is reference to the section of the Code of practice on collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning. Validation and review panels are charged with ensuring that due attention has been paid to the relevant precepts of the Code of practice. The MoA for collaborative arrangements must specify the mechanisms for the management of the collaborative programmes involved and for the assessment and examination of students.
16 At the time of the audit, QUB was in the process of revising its academic and management structures as the first phase of the implementation of a new vision and strategic direction. In this context, the audit team learnt that, although QUB considered that the primary purpose of most overseas collaboration was research related, the institution was also keen to articulate more clearly the way in which international linkages could enrich the experience of students on taught programmes of study. Any future expansion of overseas collaborative provision would therefore be in line with QUB's internationalisation strategy, including internationalisation of curricula.
17 The Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC) plays a leading role in the management of the quality and standards of all of QUB's provision but has devolved authority to the Validation Sub-Committee (VSC) for the quality and standards of collaborative programmes. The LTC reports to the Academic Council (AC), the body ultimately responsible for ordering the academic affairs of the University. The VSC is chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education) who takes executive responsibility for collaborative provision and maintains an overview of its operation through committee reports and the work of the Quality Assurance and Partnerships Office. The latter has an advisory and developmental role in relation to academic policy, procedures and regulations for taught award-bearing provision, including collaborative provision.
18 Responsibility for operational management of the link with SZU lies with the Shenzhen Working Group (SWG). The SWG comprises representatives from the relevant schools, the English Language and Support Unit, and the International Office at QUB. Members of the SWG have frequent meetings with their counterparts at SZU with whom they are jointly responsible for selection of students, assessment arrangements, module and annual review and programme changes. The SWG, supplemented by relevant teachers and moderators, also acts as the Board of Examiners for the provision (see paragraphs 67 to 69).
19 The Handbook sets out the procedures for translation and interpretation where the language of instruction and assessment is not English. Generally, translations must be provided to facilitate assessment of the extent to which students have attained the academic standards of awards. Any such translations must be supplied by the collaborative organisation, using translators trained to agreed international standards. There is a requirement for mechanisms to assure the quality of translations, for example, verification of accuracy through sample checking by an independent translator approved by QUB.
20 Until early in 2006, the Head of QUB's China Unit, which is part of the International Office, provided a translation and interpreting service in support of the collaboration. This included assisting in the liaison between the SWG and colleagues at SZU as necessary and in checking the accuracy of publicity materials and information provided to students. No translations are required in respect of the two academic modules taught and assessed in Mandarin by SZU as part of the Joint Foundation Programme. Although these modules must be passed for the award of the International Certificate in Foundation Studies, progression to the University is based solely on students' IELTS scores and the grades received on the two QUB academic modules taught and assessed in English.
21 In the course of the audit visit, the audit team learnt that the Head of the China Unit had recently left QUB and that the International Office was to be relocated within a new Directorate of Marketing, Recruitment and Communications. The team was also informed that QUB intended to appoint a number of senior international officers, one of whom would bear primary responsibility for QUB's activity in PRC and would be required to be a bilingual English/Mandarin speaker.
22 The audit team considers that the University's policies and procedures, as articulated in the December 2005 edition of the Handbook, provide an effective framework for the management of collaborative arrangements. The Handbook lays down clear principles and policies underpinning its approach to collaborative provision and details sound procedures for institutional and programme approval and the subsequent monitoring and review of approved collaborative linkages. Operational requirements are clearly set down, as are defined roles and reporting lines for committees and programme management groups. The Handbook requires that the academic standards of collaborative awards be compatible with UK reference points, including the FHEQ and subject benchmark statements. The Handbook is cross-referenced to relevant precepts of the Code of practice published by QAA.
Public information, publicity and promotional activity
23 QUB maintains an official Register of Collaborative Provision. New partnerships are included once the written agreement has been signed. The register records: the name and address of the collaborative organisation; the dates of the formal agreement and of future reviews; the nature of the collaboration, the awards involved and the numbers of students; the names of the QUB Co-ordinator and the partner's Programme Director; and, the language of assessment.
24 QUB has established a range of procedures to maintain effective control of publicity and marketing materials, especially where these are published by a partner organisation. In the case of the arrangement with SZU, publicity material is produced in English by QUB staff and sent to SZU for translation. The Chinese version is returned to QUB to be checked for accuracy; in the past the Head of the China Unit was responsible for confirming the translation of the Chinese and English versions of publicity material but in future this will be undertaken by a Mandarin speaker from the International Office. The Head of the China Unit was also responsible for checking material relating to the programme placed on the SZU website. In meetings with the audit team QUB staff confirmed that the institution placed trust in partner organisations to use the approved versions of publicity and marketing material.
25 The audit team discussed arrangements for the production of publicity material with staff at both institutions and reviewed relevant documentation. The team confirmed that the procedures were operating effectively and as intended, with full discussion between staff of both institutions. Promotional activity in China included newspaper advertisements, web-based materials, meetings in local schools and open day events held at SZU. Agents are not used for recruitment as demand for the programme is high and its reputation has spread by word-of-mouth. The team concluded that QUB had established firm control over the provision of publicity and promotional material and that effective checking mechanisms were in place.
Formal arrangements for establishing the link
Selecting and approving the partner institution
26 The requirements for approval of potential collaborative partnerships are set out in the Handbook. Initial proposals for collaborations, which must be linked to the school's academic plan, are considered by the relevant school LTC. Proposals are then submitted to QUB's Operating Board (OB) for 'approval in principle'. The OB considers the strategic imperatives for the proposal in the context of QUB's mission and the rationale for and nature of the potential collaboration. There is a clear expectation that collaborative linkages be with other educational establishments and be supported by the senior management of both QUB and the proposed collaborative partner. At this stage QUB may seek initial documentary evidence of the legal status and capacity of the partner to enter into an agreement to provide programmes of study.
27 If approval in principle is given by the OB, responsibility for taking the proposal forward passes to the VSC which establishes the requirements for the approval process in terms of documentation and supporting evidence, including a business plan approved by the Director of Finance and programme regulations. The VSC appoints the panel charged with carrying out the processes of institutional and programme approval.
28 Due diligence enquiries are undertaken in the preparation of documentation for securing institutional approval. Such enquiries include confirmation of the good standing and financial soundness of the partner organisation and of its ability to manage the delivery of higher education programmes and to provide the necessary human and physical resources. The Handbook states that, '[in] cases of overseas proposed collaborations, additional evidence and advice on the legal, financial and cultural environment (particularly in relation to quality and standards and language issues) should be sought from relevant national government offices and agencies, and UK bodies with a presence in the country, such as the British Council'.
29 In the course of its visit to SZU, the audit team learnt that SZU had been subject to recently revised approval processes promulgated by the Chinese central government. As a consequence, Normal College had been approved by the provincial government as a 'training centre' so that any programmes delivered by the College, including joint programmes, were deemed to be approved programmes as a matter of course. It was the team's understanding that essentially Normal College was now an accredited deliverer of training programmes and that the link with QUB fell within this category.
30 As part of its procedures for institutional approval QUB requires that the partnership have 'the capacity to address differences in cultures and expectations between higher education systems in such a way as to ensure that the requirements of the arrangement can be met'. Two of the aims of the Joint Foundation Programme are related to cultural issues: first, 'to prepare students for British teaching methods by studying QUB modules'; and second, 'to prepare students for transfer to the UK by giving them an insight into life in the UK in general and Belfast in particular'. The audit team confirmed through discussion with staff and students that both parties to the agreement had a clear awareness of and respect for cultural differences and demonstrated thoughtful responses in resolution of any disparities.
Institutional approval and programme approval
31 QUB distinguishes between institutional approval and programme approval, but, for operational reasons, the two stages normally operate concurrently. Following approval in principle from the OB, the sponsoring school(s) prepare documentation, including a draft MoA, to secure institutional approval and also programme approval for any programmes to be offered collaboratively.
32 A validation panel is convened to consider both institutional documentation and the programme submission. Documentary requirements are set out in the Handbook and the written submission must include reference to the FHEQ and take due account of the relevant precepts of the Code of practice. Normal requirements include the production of a full programme specification comprising programme regulations and details of how learning outcomes of the programme are appropriate to the level of the award. There must be specific reference to the section of the Code of practice on assessment of students, including, as appropriate, arrangements for moderation, preparation of examination papers, second-marking and for boards of examiners. There are no specific additional requirements for approval of programmes to be delivered and/or assessed in languages other than English. The written submission for programme approval and an accompanying business plan, approved by the Director of Finance, form part of the documentation considered during validation.
33 The validation panel, chaired by the chair of the VSC (or nominee), undertakes a visit to the partner institution; panels include an additional member of the VSC with relevant experience, an internal subject specialist not connected with the programmes concerned and an external adviser. There is a standard agenda and guidelines for panels to assist their deliberations.
34 Following the validation visit, a draft report is circulated to panel members for approval and, as soon as is practicable, the final report is distributed to the collaborative partner, the relevant head of school and the QUB Co-ordinator (see paragraph 43). The programme team is required to submit any revised documentation within eight weeks with a summary of actions taken in response to the report's conditions and recommendations. The chair of the VSC is responsible for confirming that any conditions have been met and for signing off the final proposal. The report is considered at a meeting of the VSC which makes recommendations to LTC, the body responsible for granting final approval. The AC receives a report on the outcome of the validation and formally approves the MoA for the operation of the collaborative arrangement. The approval process concludes with the entry of details of the collaborative provision in the University's formal Register of Collaborative Provision. Re-approval of a partnership and the associated programmes normally takes place every five years.
35 QUB requires that all amendments to programmes be submitted to the relevant University committee. For the link with SZU, all amendments have been sanctioned by the SWG following discussion with colleagues at SZU. According to QUB's standard procedures, programme amendments recommended by the SWG should be reported to the LTC of the relevant school but the team found no evidence of this in committee minutes. QUB will wish to ensure that any future changes to the programme are subject to its declared processes and procedures.
36 The potential for the linkage with SZU was identified through contact between the Head of the China Unit and universities in China. Detailed proposals for the collaboration were developed in the academic year 1997-98 by the School of Management and Economics with the approval of the QUB International Working Group and were funded from Special Initiatives Funding set aside by QUB to develop overseas recruitment. The purpose of the link is defined in the MoA as 'to promote educational cooperation and academic interchange and to build on the respective strengths of both universities'.
37 When the collaboration with SZU was approved in 1998, QUB did not have the formal structures for approvals that currently obtain. The Commentary indicated that, when the proposal first came forward, QUB commissioned an external assessor to report specifically on the facilities, staffing and ethos of SZU to allow it to satisfy itself that students would receive appropriate learning opportunities and support. The audit team viewed the external assessor's report and confirmed that it provided sufficient information for QUB to be secure in pursuing the establishment of the linkage. The University's then extant Recognition Committee granted approved status to SZU and also approved the list of SZU staff qualified to teach on the Joint Foundation Programme.
38 From a review of documentation and discussions with staff at both QUB and SZU, the audit team concluded that QUB's procedures for selecting and approving a partner institution as set out in the Handbook were sound. The criteria for establishing a collaborative link are clearly described and additional requirements and checks are in place for potential overseas collaborations. It was clear to the team that the China Unit had been instrumental in the initiation, approval, and ongoing development of the partnership; QUB will wish to ensure that the advice and support for the linkage offered by the Unit continues to be available following its relocation to the new Directorate of Marketing, Recruitment and Communications. Although the partnership with SZU came about before the establishment of current procedures, it was evident to the team that care had been exercised in setting up the link and that there had been genuine commitment by, and contacts between, staff at the most senior levels in both Universities.
39 The audit team found that QUB's procedures for programme approval as set out in the Handbook were fit for purpose and met the expectations of the relevant precepts of the Code of practice. The original approval of the Joint Foundation Programme preceded the introduction of the current procedures but, from review of documentation and discussion with staff at both institutions, the team was satisfied that the process undertaken for the initial approval of the programme was secure and met QUB's requirements at the time of the event.
Written agreements with the partner institution
40 QUB requires that the operation of all collaborative arrangements be governed by a MoA approved by the AC on successful completion of the approval. The original MoA for the linkage with SZU was approved by the AC in April 1998 and remained in force until a revised MoA was signed in January 2006, following protracted negotiations between QUB and SZU on some of the detail. The MoA is available in both English and Chinese and defines the respective roles and responsibilities of QUB and SZU in relation to the Joint Foundation Programme.
41 The audit team reviewed the revised MoA and confirmed that, in general, it met the expectations of the relevant precepts of the Code of practice. There are no notable omissions although there is some lack of detail about the way in which some of the commitments would be enacted in practice. In particular, there is no information about how residual students would be supported in the event of termination. The team did not doubt that in such an event QUB would act to fulfil its obligations to students registered on the programme; nonetheless, QUB will wish to take steps to provide for greater specification of how the interests of students would be protected in the event of termination of the collaborative arrangement.
42 The audit team noted a discrepancy between the provisions of the Handbook and the MoA in terms of applicable law. The MoA states that in the event of a legal dispute the matter will be dealt with under the legal jurisdiction of the institution that has instigated the grievance. This is at some variance with QUB's position, as stated in the Handbook, that legal disputes would be resolved under the jurisdiction of the law of Northern Ireland. The team would encourage QUB to review the provisions of the MoA and the stipulation of legal jurisdiction to confirm that the current position provides it with sufficient protection in the event of a dispute.
Management and quality assurance of the link
Management of the link
43 Under QUB's standard procedures the management of a collaborative programme subsequent to validation is the responsibility of a Joint Programme Committee, the constitution of which is defined in the MoA. In all collaborative arrangements, QUB appoints a University Coordinator as the main point of contact for all matters relating to the programmes concerned. University coordinators are required to maintain an overview of the collaborative link and they provide a focal point for the development, monitoring and enhancement of the programmes concerned. QUB also requires that there be a Programme Director, nominated by the partner, who is responsible for the day-to-day management of the programmes within the collaborative organisation. The chair of the Programme Committee is appointed by QUB and membership includes the University Co-ordinator and the Programme Director. A joint Board of Examiners is also established with the chair again appointed by QUB.
44 The MoA for the Joint Foundation Programme places responsibility for the operational management of the provision with the SWG based at QUB, working in concert with a Programme Working Group based at SZU. There are no formal terms of reference or constitution for the SWG. The SWG is chaired by the University Co-ordinator and comprises representatives of the two academic areas concerned, being social sciences and engineering, a member of the International Office and a member of the QUB English Language Support Unit. The parallel group at SZU is chaired by the Vice-Dean of Normal College who acts as the Programme Director, and its membership includes the Head of English Language Programmes at Normal College, teaching staff representatives and a programme administrator.
45 The audit team established that the SWG was acting as the programme committee in respect of the provision at SZU. It has overall operational responsibility for selection, admissions, tracking of students, progression, and examinations and awards; further detail of the work of the SWG in these areas may be found at paragraphs 49, 50, 60 to 63 and 68 to 70. In documentation and in discussion with staff at all levels in QUB, the team found some lack of clarity about overall lines of authority and accountability and the relationship of the SWG to QUB's central committee structures in respect of the wide range of responsibilities. Through its reading of documentation and its meetings both at QUB and SZU, the team formed the view that the SWG was discharging its responsibilities diligently and rigorously. Nonetheless, in the absence of written terms of reference and formal reporting lines for the SWG, it was not evident to the team how QUB could be confident that its policies and procedures for collaborative provision were being applied consistently to the partnership with SZU. The team recommends therefore that QUB formalise the operation of the SWG and define its place within the institution's executive and deliberative structures.
46 QUB has not prescribed any formal representative arrangements for students to discuss their experiences of the programme with teaching staff. In meetings with students at SZU the audit team heard about a system of class monitors who canvass student opinion and feed back comments to the Programme Director. The team met a group of students who had progressed to QUB who reported that they were satisfied with these informal arrangements, which they considered to work well. All of the students who met the team were confident that they could raise matters of concern with staff of both institutions and reported that action was taken in response to matters that they raised. The University may wish to consider building on the good practice at Normal College of channelling general student feedback through the class monitor in order to elicit formal feedback on the programme as a whole.
Formal monitoring
47 Procedures for the annual monitoring of collaborative programmes are similar to those for QUB's internal provision; there are no special arrangements for annual monitoring of provision delivered and/or assessed in a language other than English. Following consultation with the collaborative organisation, the University Co-ordinator is required to submit an annual written report to the relevant school LTC which in turn reports to the VSC. Prior to 2004, the annual reports for collaborative provision were forwarded directly to the VSC with no consideration at school level.
48 The University's requirements are that the annual report be based on a joint annual review meeting involving staff from both institutions. Through its meetings with staff and review of documentation, the audit team was able to confirm that a joint annual review meeting was held each year at SZU; Minutes of the meeting are kept in both English and Chinese; scrutiny of the minutes confirmed that discussion had covered the areas required for the annual report.
49 The SWG coordinates the arrangements for annual monitoring and gives due consideration to: data on student recruitment, progression and achievement; module evaluations drawing on tutors' comments; informal and formal staff and student feedback; reports of visits to SZU and, for the QUB modules, internal moderators' reports. The minutes of the SWG made available to the team demonstrated careful attention to this wide range of matters. From its reading of documentation and discussions with staff, the audit team was able to verify that annual reports for the Joint Foundation Programme were duly completed but could find no evidence of their formal consideration by VSC. Minutes of the LTC of the School of Management and Economics did record consideration of the annual reports but there was no evidence of formal feedback to the programme team on the discussion.
50 The audit team concluded that the SWG was diligent in discharging its responsibilities for annual monitoring and that the joint annual review held with SZU colleagues was effective in identifying future actions and enhancements to the programme. The team also came to the view that annual reporting at school level in QUB was a one-way process with no evident feedback to the programme team. The team noted that consideration of annual reports on collaborative provision at the school level in QUB was introduced relatively recently and would encourage the institution to ensure that, in the future, formal feedback is provided to the joint programme team on the outcomes of discussion of the reports. QUB will also wish to take steps to ensure that annual reports for the collaborative provision are considered formally by the VSC in accordance with the stated procedures.
Formal review
51 Periodic review, or Review as it is termed in the Handbook, forms part of QUB's overall system for monitoring programmes. Such reviews take place shortly before the normal five-year validation period for a collaborative programme expires. The VSC oversees the review process which is modelled on that for validation. The procedures include: documentary requirements as stipulated in the Handbook; a visit by a panel convened on behalf of the VSC; a report; where necessary, identification and fulfilment of conditions; and, a new MoA approved by the AC. The mandatory and extensive documentation draws upon evidence from routine monitoring, annual reviews and external examiner reports. The panel may decide that validation continue for a specified period, or be limited to one further intake if there are substantial responses required from the collaborative partner, or that validation be withdrawn. The VSC considers the report and makes recommendations to the LTC which gives final approval and reports the outcome to the AC. The final report is provided to the Principal/Director of the collaborative organisation as well as to the Programme Director and the University Co-ordinator who is required to respond to any recommendations set by the review panel.
52 The Joint Foundation Programme underwent a periodic review in 2003. The validation panel met staff from SZU and QUB in Shenzhen and a group of students who had transferred to QUB. The panel discussed programme and quality assurance arrangements, student selection and support, staff development and exchanges and future academic plans. The report of the periodic review did not make specific reference to teaching or assessment in a language other than English. There was no external member on the panel carrying out the review: in meetings with senior staff at QUB, the audit team was assured that, as stated in the Handbook, external membership of review panels was now mandatory and that QUB would ensure such externality in review processes in the future. The report was considered at the VSC which agreed that the collaborative arrangement should continue, subject to a new agreement being negotiated and signed. The panel also made a number of recommendations for the attention of the SWG but it was unclear to the team as to how these had been followed up by QUB.
53 From review of documentation and discussion with staff, the audit team concluded that QUB's procedures for periodic review as set out in the Handbook were generally sound. In respect of the link with SZU, the team found that procedures had been implemented in line with QUB requirements pertaining at the time. The team noted that externality was now a requirement on all review panels; QUB will wish to ensure that its stated procedures in this respect are applied to future reviews of the provision at SZU. The team confirmed that QUB's processes for periodic review of collaborative provision were in alignment with the relevant precepts of the Code of practice.
Staffing and staff development
54 QUB operates a formal 'recognised teachers' scheme under which a collaborative partner is required to submit staff teaching on the programme for QUB recognition. Recognised status for staff is confirmed following consideration of the relevant staff curricula vitae at validation. In other cases formal application, supported by a QUB assessor's report and recommendation, must be made through the VSC to the LTC. The partner organisation must make a commitment to continuing professional development for its staff. Recognition is granted for a fixed period after which renewal must be sought. Successful applicants gain a Teacher's Card, rights of access to the library rights and to 'Queen's Online'. They can also participate in staff development and training at QUB, subject to availability.
55 All of the staff at SZU contributing to the programme are recognised teachers under the scheme. In meetings with the audit team SZU staff confirmed that they valued the rights, including access to the QUB intranet, conferred by their status as recognised teachers. Staff at SZU also stressed to the team that it was important to them that those staff from QUB who taught on the programme in Shenzhen were fully qualified academics.
56 The Commentary described a broad range of liaison arrangements, including frequent visits by QUB staff to SZU and staff exchanges. Members of the SWG visit SZU several times a year, for recruitment and selection, and teaching and examination. There are joint meetings of the SWG and the SZU Programme Working Group with minutes kept in both English and Chinese. The audit team viewed the minutes of these joint meetings and considered them to be evidence of genuine partnership in the operation of the programme. There is a dedicated 'Queens Office' at SZU which is used by staff delivering the QUB academic modules at SZU and by the QUB-appointed English language teacher. It was clear to the team from discussion with staff at both institutions that the China Unit had played an important role in liaison between SZU and QUB, with the Head of the Unit having been a frequent visitor to SZU. In the view of the team, liaison with SZU is an activity of the Unit that QUB should maintain when the work of the Unit is transferred to the Marketing, Recruitment and Communications Directorate.
57 It was clear to the audit team from discussion with staff at both institutions that there was extensive communication between the QUB and SZU staff teaching on the programme. The QUB-appointed English language teacher coordinates the work of SZU staff teaching on the English language element of the programme and there are interactions between visiting QUB staff and SZU staff teaching the academic modules. Members of the SWG and their counterparts at SZU hold joint admissions and annual review meetings in addition to numerous other formal and informal meetings. Communication is further facilitated through visits to QUB by Shenzhen academic and administrative staff. The team heard that there were frequent email exchanges between the programme administrator and the head of department at SZU and the University Co-ordinator at QUB. Formal reports back to QUB are effected through reports from the English language teacher, reports from QUB teachers and the joint annual review meeting.
58 The MoA makes provision for formal staff development opportunities for the English language teaching staff at SZU to visit QUB to participate in teaching and administrative processes and increase their awareness of procedures and practices. At the time of the audit, three SZU staff had taken up the opportunity to visit QUB. The audit found that the majority of staff development and staff support came about informally, but effectively, through the regular visits of QUB staff, particularly the University Co-ordinator to SZU. Since the inception of the programme, there have been staff exchanges and visits every year.
59 QUB's arrangements for affording 'recognised teacher' status to individual teachers in collaborative institutions are identified as a feature of good practice in the audit. The audit team noted the commitment of the University Co-ordinator, who chairs the SWG, to the programme and concluded that she played a pivotal coordinating role in the successful operation of the partnership. QUB will wish to keep the workload of the University Co-ordinator under review to ensure that the success of the programme is not overly reliant on individual commitment. The team found evidence of genuine partnership at the programme level; the SWG and the University Co-ordinator have been instrumental in establishing excellent working relationships with management, teaching and administrative staff at SZU. The team formed the view that members of SZU staff on the programme team were well supported by their colleagues at QUB and that there were ample opportunities for both formal and informal staff development.
Student admissions
60 The admissions criteria and procedures for the Joint Foundation Programme are clearly set out in an appendix to the formal MoA. Applicants are required to have a successful academic record in the senior high school graduation or national university entrance examinations. Candidates for admission also take an English language entrance examination set and administered by SZU. There are no accreditation of prior learning (APL) or AP(E)L (experiential) arrangements in operation.
61 The SWG oversees admissions and the recruitment of students, with members of the Group visiting SZU each year to undertake the selection process; all applicants are interviewed, part of the purpose of the interview being to assess their English language competence. Enrolment and registration lists are forwarded by the SWG at QUB to the Student Records Office. The SWG carries out the final selection at joint selection meetings held at SZU. The process is administered by SZU and candidates are interviewed by a joint panel of SZU and QUB staff. The SWG provides details on admissions decisions to QUB's Access and Admissions Office. The audit team reviewed documentation from the SWG and confirmed that comprehensive and careful records of student admissions, assessment outcomes, progression, and attainment of awards were kept.
62 The audit team found evidence that QUB was firm in maintaining the standards for entrance to the programme. In the course of the audit, the team learnt of 'auditing students' who did not meet the formal entrance requirements but who were permitted by SZU to attend classes and take assessments. There are up to 10 of these students additional to the qualified students in each cohort. They are not recognised by QUB as being enrolled on the Joint Foundation Programme but, if successful in meeting the relevant academic requirements, they are allowed to apply for admission to QUB pathways against the standard admissions criteria for progression from the programme.
63 The audit team concluded that the SWG maintained an operational involvement in the admissions process that gives confidence in the effectiveness of the procedures. The team found that the approach to applications and admissions was consonant with the relevant precepts of the Code of practice.
Assurance of academic standards
Assessment of students
64 Arrangements for setting and marking assessments are clearly laid out in the MoA. Assessment is by examination only, with SZU using its procedures for SZU modules and QUB using its own processes for the QUB modules. Formative assessment is largely through class tests but recent changes to the QUB modules have introduced elements of formative coursework assessment. Students whom the audit team met were satisfied with feedback on formative assessments for the QUB modules which consisted of written comments and one-to-one feedback in tutorials. The English language assessment is through IELTS examination.
65 QUB normally requires the production of a full programme specification for its programmes of study, comprising information about programme regulations, how learning outcomes of the programme are appropriate to the level of the award and consistency of the programme with the section of the Code of practice on assessment of students, including, as appropriate, arrangements for moderation, preparation of examination papers, second-marking and boards of examiners. At the time of the audit there was no programme specification for the Joint Foundation Programme although relevant programme details, module descriptions and learning outcomes and assessment arrangements were all clearly described in the Additional Guidance Notes for Students document (see paragraph 76). Senior staff whom the audit team met argued that the lack of a programme specification was because the Joint Foundation Programme was a subdegree programme and its assessment processes were consistent with requirements for pre-degree provision as outlined in its academic regulations. The team did note the commitment of QUB, expressed in its response to the QAA institutional audit in 2004, to develop and publish programme specifications for all its awards. QUB may find reference to the section of the Code of practice on collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning a useful point of reference when considering its approach to programme specifications for programmes offered through its collaborative arrangements.
66 Assessment of the QUB modules is administered at SZU by QUB staff or, on rare occasions when this is not practicable, by British Council staff. The Commentary emphasised the care that was exercised over the security of assessment and the invigilation arrangements. The Additional Guidance Notes for Students specifies the regulations for the Joint Foundation Programme, covers the conduct of students during examinations and includes a statement on procedures for dealing with suspected cheating or irregularities in an examination hall. The assessment of the QUB modules is moderated by members of QUB staff independent of the programme in line with QUB requirements. The audit team read reports from the independent moderators and found them to be robust and rigorous in identifying matters for attention by the programme team.
67 The Commentary made no reference to assessment arrangements for the SZU modules but the MoA states that examinations for these modules are set and marked by SZU in accordance with SZU's procedures. The Handbook requires that where the language of assessment is not English, translations should be supplied by the partner using translators trained to international standards with, for example, independent sample translation checking by independent translators approved by QUB. There is no such arrangement for the Joint Foundation Programme, it being argued by QUB that it is not necessary since the majority of assessment is in English and QUB is not directly involved in the delivery of the SZU modules other than to receive marks for determining the final award. The audit team found that the overall emphasis for QUB in the delivery of the programme was on the English language programme and the QUB modules although the SWG, in its capacity as an Award Board, did consider the results for all elements of the programme. Rights of progression to QUB are based only on the students' IELTS scores, the pre-sessional English course and performance on the QUB modules.
68 For its credit-bearing awards QUB operates formally constituted boards of examiners whose minutes go to the Quality Assurance and Partnerships Office and to the heads of the relevant schools. As a non-credit bearing award the collaboration with SZU falls outside these formal requirements. The SWG, supplemented by relevant teachers and moderators, acts as an award board by considering the marks of students on the SZU and QUB academic modules and their IELTS scores. Student results and progression articulation decisions are sent directly to QUB's Access and Admissions Office. It seemed to the audit team that this process was administrative rather than a prescribed reporting line from a formally constituted award board. The audit team noted that SWG discussions of awards were recorded in its annual reports.
69 The audit team confirmed that there were parallel assessment processes applied separately by SZU and QUB, each having responsibility for their own modules. There are differential Pass marks for the QUB modules and SZU modules of 40 and 60 per cent respectively. Assessment decisions are clearly communicated between the partners and there was ample evidence of input to, and consideration by, SZU staff of the final award recommendations made by the SWG. Students were well informed as regards assessment requirements and there appeared to be an appropriate level of consistency in arrangements for reaching final decisions for individual students.
70 It was evident to the audit team that the assessment and moderation of the QUB modules through QUB procedures was sound and that the reliance placed in the partner for assessment of the SZU modules appeared well-founded. For award-bearing collaborative provision, QUB requires that there be a joint board of examiners. In the case of the Joint Foundation Programme, the SWG acts as a board of examiners but is not formally constituted as such and its authority, responsibilities and reporting lines in this respect are not formally documented. Minutes of the SWG showed that careful consideration was given to all the elements of the award, being the QUB modules, the SZU modules and the language component, when deciding on student achievement of awards. The team concluded that confidence could be placed in the SWG as regards its effectiveness in ensuring a fair and equitable assessment process. Nonetheless, the team is of the view that there are risks inherent in placing reliance on operational groups and individuals and suggests that QUB may wish to consider formalising the terms of reference of the SWG to encompass its role as an award board and clarify its reporting lines as regards its recommendations for awards.
External examining
71 The Commentary stated that 'the programme [did]not have an external examiner as it [was] sub-degree' and that 'this [was] consistent with normal QUB policy'. For degree-level collaborations, QUB is responsible for selecting and appointing external examiners using criteria laid down in the Handbook for External Examiners. For collaborative programmes there are additional requirements, namely, no recent connections with QUB or the partner organisation, an understanding of UK higher education and relevant language skills if teaching and/or assessment is in a language other than English. The University provides the external examiner with the Handbook, the relevant programme specifications and information on the collaborative arrangement. Briefing of the external examiner is undertaken jointly with the partner and mechanisms are put in place to transmit any concerns raised by the external examiner to the partner and elicit a response.
72 The QAA institutional audit in December 2004 confirmed that 'the University makes strong and scrupulous use of its external examiners' (including collaborative provision) and that 'it appeared that the systems for maintaining standards on collaborative programmes [were] working effectively'. The present audit team found that the careful use of internal moderators (paragraph 66) provided useful independent confirmation of the security of assessment of the Joint Foundation Programme.
Certificates and transcripts
73 The audit team was supplied with a sample certificate bearing the QUB crest and accurately stating the name of the award. In the event that a student either chooses not to progress to QUB or does not achieve the required IELTS score, QUB issues a transcript only, confirming the modules taken and the marks achieved.
74 The Handbook states that certificates and transcripts 'should, as appropriate, record the name of the collaborative organisation and the language of instruction and/or assessment if this is not English'. The certificate provided to the audit team did not indicate that the programme was delivered and assessed partly in Chinese nor did it record the name and location of the partner organisation. The audit team recommends that QUB review its approach to certification of the award to ensure that it provides an accurate account of the nature of delivery of the programmes and that it conforms with its own stated requirements. QUB may find the section of the Code of practice on collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning a useful reference point in this respect.
Quality of information and support for students
Student information and support
75 Promotional materials available to students include a leaflet written in English and Chinese that describes the Joint Foundation Programme. There is a clear description of both institutions and their responsibilities in relation to the programme. Entrance requirements and costs are clearly stated and the provisions for students who successfully complete the programme to be admitted to QUB pathways are also included. Contact details at Normal College are provided for students to seek further information and application forms. The information provided bears the logos of both institutions.
76 Upon admission to the Joint Foundation Programme students attend an induction session where they receive a copy of the QUB Student Handbook, entitled Additional Guidance Notes for Students. The Guidance Notes cover: the timetable for the year; module outlines for the QUB modules; staffing arrangements; a short commentary on teaching and learning styles; course assessment and progression information in relation to required marks on modules for entry to pathways at QUB; an outline of the English Language teaching programme with assessment and staffing arrangements; programme regulations which include the conduct of students during examinations; regulations on plagiarism; English language requirements, and background information on QUB and its terminology. There are relevant QUB website references and contact details for SZU and QUB staff. The Guidance Notes are written in English and, hitherto, were explained in Mandarin at induction by the Head of the China Unit. The Guidance Notes encourage students to contact QUB staff during their visits to SZU and to contact the SZU programme administrator at Normal College for routine administrative matters. The University Co-ordinator and the Vice-Dean of Normal College, who chairs SZU's Programme Working Group, are named as the managers of the programme.
77 Course information is also provided by SZU in the form of detailed module descriptions for both SZU and QUB modules in English and Chinese. The programme structure and module descriptions are prominently displayed in both languages on notice-boards and in teaching rooms. Extensive materials are made available to students for the QUB taught elements of the programme, including notes, textbooks, and electronic materials on CDs.
78 The audit team viewed a range of publicity materials and student information and discussed the content with students. The students confirmed that the information that they received prior to joining the programme and throughout their studies was accurate and clear in setting out the requirement on them at each stage.
79 QUB maintains a dedicated Queen's Office at SZU, which is used by the English language teacher for 22 weeks of the academic year and by QUB staff during their period of teaching in Shenzhen. Students are encouraged to contact the Office if they have any queries about the programme of study. Students can raise administrative queries with the programme administrator at SZU who is in regular contact with the University Co-ordinator. General queries relating to such matters as admission to QUB and visa applications can also be directed to QUB staff visiting SZU. Email addresses of academic staff at QUB are provided in module outlines but in the Commentary it was reported that there was little use made of this facility by students. Students whom the team met in both Belfast and Shenzhen reported that academic staff from QUB in Shenzhen were readily accessible and responded well to their needs. Students also valued the input from the Mandarin speaking Head of the China Unit and expressed the hope that similar support would continue even though the Head had left QUB.
80 Students are registered students of SZU and, as stipulated in the MoA, enjoy the full rights of students of SZU who are studying joint programmes with foreign universities. They therefore have access to SZU's library and sporting facilities and academic and personal support from the staff of Normal College. As students registered for an award of QUB, students receive academic support from QUB module leaders and the QUB English language teacher when they are at SZU. Additional support is provided by SWG staff at induction and in subsequent preparatory meetings for transfer to the UK. The Joint Foundation Programme is specifically designed to support students in their studies, expose them to UK learning and teaching methods and assist them in their English language development so that student support and guidance forms an integral part of the curriculum.
81 The MoA states that complaints are subject to SZU procedures and that academic appeals for the SZU modules fall under SZU regulations. Consideration is given to student complaints and appeals arising from the QUB modules under the QUB regulations. There was little awareness among students whom the audit team met of appeals and complaints procedures but the students were confident that any problems and issues would be resolved by staff at SZU and through meetings with QUB staff when they visited SZU. QUB may wish to review its approach to formal provision of information about complaints and appeals to ensure that students are aware of their rights and responsibilities in these areas.
82 From review of documentation and discussion with students, the audit team confirmed that information provided to students pre-registration, at induction and in preparation for transfer to QUB was largely comprehensive, clear, accurate and reliable. Students value highly the frequent and sustained contact with QUB staff. Particular praise was given to the English language element of the programme within which students were supported in adapting to a different educational culture. The team judged that QUB and SZU were exercising effective control over publications and were providing students with comprehensive information in support of their studies.
Feedback from students
83 Written student feedback is elicited for each module and there was evidence in the minutes of the SWG of responsiveness to issues raised by students. QUB staff on the teaching team interact with students on a frequent basis and the Queen's Office at SZU provides a focal point of contact for students. As articulated in the Commentary, changes have been made to the programme as a result of concerns raised by students. For example, English language competence is now assessed through IELTS examination rather than through an in-house QUB assessment. In the course of its visit to SZU the audit team discussed with students opportunities for formal and informal feedback on their experience of the programme. The students were all satisfied that their views were sought and taken seriously, citing examples of actions taken as a result of their feedback. The team formed the view that there were sufficient opportunities for students to raise issues and that the informal mechanisms were adequate to meet their needs.
Student progression to the UK
84 A fundamental objective of the Joint Foundation Programme is to prepare students for entry to a range of undergraduate programmes at QUB by developing the requisite English language and study skills necessary for the UK higher education learning style. The programme of study has been carefully devised so that acquisition of pre-requisite subject specific knowledge is achieved in tandem with progressive development of English language competence and exposure to UK teaching styles.
85 The International Certificate in Foundation Studies is awarded to those students who Pass the four academic modules, obtain minimum IELTS scores of 6.0 for the social science stream and 5.5 for the engineering stream and successfully complete a 12 week pre-sessional English course. The award of the Certificate does not of itself guarantee admission to QUB. The general requirements for progression to QUB in terms of English language proficiency are set down in an appendix to the MoA. The criteria for admission to specific QUB degree pathways are more complex but are clearly set out in the Additional Guidance Notes for Students. Students who pass the academic modules but do not meet the English language requirements may take a one-year English language course at QUB prior to progression to the QUB pathways. In meetings with the audit team, students who had undertaken this additional year of study confirmed its value in preparing them for further academic study in the UK. Despite the apparent intricacy of the progression requirements, students whom the team met were clear about the requirements on them for transfer to QUB on their chosen pathways.
86 Throughout the programme, students are exposed to UK methods of learning and teaching and to general preparation for life in Belfast. QUB staff visiting SZU provide a great deal of informal advice and support and a range of leaflets describing the receiving schools and pathways. The students receive comprehensive briefing from staff prior to their departure for Belfast. On arrival at QUB they receive a tailored initial induction session before participation in QUB's general induction programme for international students, which was identified as a feature of good practice in the 2004 QAA institutional audit. They also take further pre-sessional English language classes. Additional ongoing support at QUB is provided by the China Unit, the International Student Counsellor, the Chinese Society and the Students' Union International Officer. The SWG monitors the progress of the SZU students on their degree programmes and provides further support as and when required. The SWG also provides SZU with information about the progress and performance of its students who have progressed to QUB.
87 In meetings with the audit team, students who had transferred to QUB confirmed that they were well prepared for QUB pathways, enjoyed the approach to teaching of QUB staff in SZU, and praised the induction programme, which they had received on arrival in Belfast. Students whom the team met in Shenzhen also expressed the view that cultural differences were taken into full account in delivery of the Joint Foundation Programme.
88 Data provided to the audit team for this audit showed good progression rates from the Joint Foundation Programme onto QUB degree pathways and further data indicated good levels of achievement on the related QUB degree programmes. The report of the QUB periodic review confirmed satisfaction with the overall curriculum content based on the quality of students entering QUB and their subsequent degree performance. Students whom the team met expressed universal appreciation for the way in which they had been prepared for study in Belfast. Based on review of documentation and the team's discussions with staff and students, the comprehensive support and preparation of students for transfer to the UK and continuing support after arrival are identified in the audit as features of good practice.
Conclusion
89 The audit found that academic standards in the collaborative arrangement were secure and that the quality of the learning opportunities was suitable to the nature of the provision. The audit team identified the following features of good practice:
- the strong and genuine partnership evident in the operation of the programme (paragraph 59)
- the approach to the development of students' English language competence (paragraph 82)
- the design of the programme which recognises the different pedagogic conventions of both institutions so that preparation of students for UK higher education teaching and learning are integral to the delivery and assessment of the course (paragraph 84)
- the comprehensive support and preparation of students for transfer to the UK and continuing support after arrival (paragraph 86, 87 and 88).
90 The audit team established that the SWG was acting as the Programme Committee in respect of overall operational responsibility for selection, admissions, tracking of students, progression, examination and awards. Given this wide range of responsibilities, there was a lack of clarity about reporting mechanisms and overall lines of authority and responsibility were not well-defined. It was clear to the team that the SWG had a secure overview of the operation of the Joint Foundation Programme and worked effectively at an operational level but, in the absence of written terms of reference and reporting lines for the SWG, it was not evident how the University could be confident that its policies and procedures for collaborative provision were being applied consistently to the partnership with SZU.
91 The audit team found that QUB recognised the particular challenges of maintaining quality and standards in overseas collaborative provision and has, over time, refined its procedures to tackle these challenges. In respect of the link with SZU, the team recommends that QUB strengthen the central oversight of and engagement with the management of the collaborative provision and regularise the operation of the programme within its normal requirements for validated provision.
92 QUB has broadly aligned its policies and procedures with the relevant precepts of the Code of practice which it has used systematically to strengthen the general effectiveness of its management of overseas collaborative arrangements. The Commentary provided an accurate description of the operation of the link but contained only limited evaluation of the collaborative arrangement; in particular it did not do justice to the strength of the partnership at the operational level. The findings of the audit suggest that sedulous institutional oversight and engagement with the management of the provision combined with application of the relevant policies and procedures, as set out in the University's Validation Handbook for Collaborative Provision, would support a judgment of confidence in the University's stewardship of academic standards and the quality of the student experience in its overseas collaborative provision.
Appendix A: Update on the partnership since the audit
The Queen's University of Belfast's response to the report
The University welcomes the report from the Quality Assurance Agency on the collaborative arrangement with Shenzhen University. The University is gratified that the audit team presented a judgement of confidence in the University's stewardship of academic standards and the quality of the student experience in its overseas collaborative provision. The University is particularly pleased that the audit team recognised the strong and genuine partnership evident in the operation of the programme.
The provision of a high-quality student experience and maintenance of high academic standards is intrinsic to the mission of Queen's. This is the case whether students reside in Belfast or elsewhere and the University values the relationship with Shenzhen University.
The audit team made a small number of recommendations which will be considered carefully and acted upon in a timely manner.
Developments since the audit visit
Since the audit visit there have been a number of developments. Firstly, a major restructuring is currently underway in Shenzhen University. However the location of the Joint Foundation Programme will remain in Normal College and many of the staff previously involved with the Programme will continue to oversee the Programme.
Secondly, a new Senior International Officer has been appointed to replace the previous Head of the China Unit at Queen's University, and she made her first visit to Shenzhen in August 2006.
Finally, a schedule of visits and designation of areas of responsibility has been compiled by the Shenzhen Working Group in July 2006, which spreads the work across relevant academic staff, the English Language Unit, and the Directorate of Marketing, Recruitment and Communications, in order to reduce reliance on any one individual.
Appendix B: Summary of current student numbers
Number of students entering the foundation programme in 2006-07:
Social sciences: 50
Engineering: 19
Number of students entering degree programmes in 2006-07:
Social sciences: 17
Engineering: 15
Please note that these are provisional figures as students have not confirmed subject streams or finalised degree pathways.
ISBN 1 84482 628 7
Top