The University of Bolton overseas collaborative audit
1 This report considers the collaborative arrangement (the link) between The University of Bolton and the Shanghai University Institute of Higher Technology SongJiang Branch.
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 The University of Bolton was conducted by QAA in November 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 higher education provision in mainland China.
The process of audit for the overseas partnership 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, QAA selected for audit visits 10 UK institutions with links that were representative of UK provision 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 on 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 based in Shanghai were Dr P Garnsworthy, Professor D Meehan, and Professor D Punter as auditors and Mr G Clark as audit secretary. Dr A J Biscoe coordinated the audit on behalf of QAA. 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 HEIs 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 partnership between The University of Bolton (the University) and Shanghai University Institute of Higher Technology SongJiang Branch (SHUIHTSB) involves joint delivery of a three-year Diploma of Higher Education (DipHE) in Mechatronics (the programme); it was established in 2004. The background to the collaboration is based upon the University's experience in delivering similar programmes, including an HND in Mechatronics, approved in 1998, in relation to the requirements of the Malaysian Government, but which has not run since 1999, and a pre-existing course in Mechatronics at the SHUIHTSB, the Higher Professional Education Diploma (HPED). The programme is intended to meet the predicted needs of the Chinese economy for skilled technicians and in particular the growing expansion of higher and newer technology in the SongJiang District. The first cohort of 36 students commenced their studies in September 2005.
8 Normally, in total the programme amounts to 240 credits, 120 at each of levels HE4 and HE5. Up to 60 credits in each of levels HE4 and HE5 are taught by University staff in the first and second year. The remaining 120 credits are assessed by SHUIHTSB staff and these include a project undertaken during one year of work-based experience. Thus a total of 220 credits are taught during years 1 and 2 of the programme, with the remaining 20 credits, the project, undertaken during the placement year (see paragraphs 75 and 76). The Memorandum of Agreement (the Agreement) stated that, for some selected students, the work placement and project can be undertaken in the UK (see paragraphs 75 and 76). Successful completion of all aspects of the programme leads to a dual award, a DipHE from the University and a HPED from Shanghai University.
9 The structure of the programme is that University staff deliver their individual modules during an intensive 2-3 week visit to SHUIHTSB. These modules are taught and assessed entirely in English. SHUIHTSB staff, who are members of the Engineering faculty at Shanghai University, deliver their own modules and these may be taught and assessed in either English or Chinese.
10 The audit team heard that SHUIHTSB was established by Shanghai University and SongJiang District Government in February 1999, to meet the requirements of Chinese social and economical development and to cope with the expansion of new technology in the SongJiang district. Under the agreement for Higher Professional Technical Education between Shanghai University and SongJiang District Peoples' Government, SHUIHTSB is overseen by Shanghai University in respect of academic matters, with SongJiang Professional Education Group (SSPEG) taking responsibility for other supporting aspects. SSPEG is a higher and further professional and vocational education entity of which SHUIHTSB is a member. The Principal of SHUIHTSB is appointed by Shanghai University. SHUIHTSB offers Higher Professional Education Diploma Courses (college-level courses) under the regulations of Shanghai University. These courses, recognised by the Chinese government, are offered across several areas of technology/engineering including Mechatronics, industrial automation and control, electronics and electronic technology and computing technology. Currently SHUIHTSB has a total student population of around 1,300 and has established training centres within more than 20 companies in Shanghai. Its graduate employment rate is over 85 per cent. The audit team heard in discussion with senior staff at SHUIHTSB that the delivery of the dual award in English, thereby improving the students' English language, as well as their subject-specific skills, would further enhance their good employment prospects.
11 The University has a range of overseas collaborative arrangements in a number of countries including, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Zambia and China, amounting to some 85 postgraduate and 1,045 undergraduate students studying in overseas centres in 2004-05. Collaborative provision in which the University is engaged is governed by the 'Development, approval, operation and quality assurance of collaborative provision' document (the collaborative provision (CP) document). The Commentary stated that, 'the arrangements for this collaborative partnership are representative of procedures and practices in all overseas collaborative activity to the extent that they have been developed and approved and will operate within the University's extant polices, procedures and regulations'. It further stated, however, that each collaborative partnership is individual and the precise operational details for each may vary in practice and that the way in which some of the detailed arrangements will be operationalised for this partnership are still subject to negotiation and agreement.
The UK institution's approach to overseas collaborative provision
12 The University's authoritative record for collaborative provision is maintained by the Academic Quality and Standards Unit (AQSU). In the Commentary the University stated that it was responsible for the academic standards of the DipHE award, although there is no explicit statement regarding this responsibility in the Agreement. The Commentary also stated that the award is governed by the University's assessment regulations for undergraduate programmes. The programme is jointly administered and delivered by the University and SHUIHTSB, 'with the Department of Engineering and Design at the University having overall responsibility for the quality of provision'.
13 The University's approach to overseas collaborative provision is guided by two key documents: an International Strategy and the CP document. The International Strategy, which is currently under review, sets out the aims and strategy of its approach to overseas collaborative provision. It states that the underlying approach is that there will be planned, steady and manageable growth; there will be measured and timely capacity building to ensure that growth is sustained and grounded; and international activity and programmes will fit with and support the University's strategic development as a whole and its emergent positioning within the higher education system.
14 The CP document, first approved by Academic Board (AB) in June 2002, governs the University's arrangements for collaborative partnerships. It identifies the University's 'requirements and expectations in respect of the development, approval, operation and quality assurance of collaborative arrangements with partner organisations involving taught programmes'. The arrangements for ensuring the quality and standards of collaborative provision are broadly the same as for other programmes, with additional procedures in place regarding scrutiny of the partner organisation.
15 In respect of management of all its activity, including collaborative activity, AB is the supreme academic body in the University and is responsible for all major academic policies, procedures, codes of practice and regulations brought to it via its committees. It approves the outcomes of all validation and review exercises, advises the Vice-Chancellor prior to the signing of collaborative agreements and approves all new external examiner appointments. The Academic Quality and Development Committee (AQDC), a subcommittee of AB, undertakes the detailed consideration of the major academic quality and standards items on behalf of AB. AQDC's specific role in relation to collaborative partnerships is to 'monitor and assure the quality and standards of programmes of study offered in collaborative partnership with other providers'. It scrutinises the validation and review schedule and outcomes at each meeting and considers individual reports of all validation and review events. The AQDC also has three Standing Panels that deal with much of the minutiae of the quality assurance process. A more recent development in relation to collaborative partnerships is the establishment in 2004 of the AQDC Academic Collaboration Sub-Committee, which has a specific role in overseeing collaborative academic partnerships, focusing on the quality assurance arrangements and their outcome including oversight of the annual monitoring of collaborative programmes and identification of common issues arising. One of its first major tasks was to review the University's quality assurance procedures following publication of the revised section of the Code of practice, Section 2: Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning).
16 Departmental boards of study are also formally constituted as subcommittees of AB. Their primary responsibilities relate to the development of academic programmes, monitoring the effectiveness and quality of operation and outcome standards, learning, teaching and assessment, curriculum content and structure, the student experience, quality and standards, research and enterprise and staff. The Course Committee (see paragraph 81) for the DipHE reports to the Department of Engineering and Design Board of Study.
17 The programme is delivered in English and Chinese. The present external examiner is bilingual. In Annex C of the CP document the University states that while it may permit the use of one or more local languages in the delivery of a collaborative programme this would be under strictly controlled circumstances, which must be set out in the initial Academic Proposal Document (APD) and confirmed by the validation panel. The audit team noted that the required extent of English language delivery was clarified at validation as being 30 per cent of the programme rather than 50 per cent as originally specified in the APD, but it was clear in discussion with staff at the University that it could vary and is not specified in the Agreement.
18 The University stated in its Commentary that the CP document was written in 'such a way as to respond to the QAA Code of Practice on Collaborative provision'. The audit team found the University's procedures for collaborative provision to be broadly consistent with the relevant section of the Code, although in relation to this link it considered that there was scope for development in certain areas, as identified elsewhere in the report.
Public information, publicity and promotional activity
19 It is University policy that it controls all public information, publicity and promotional activity relating to a collaborative programme. The Commentary stated that the University had such responsibility for this programme, although this is not specified in the Agreement. The audit team heard from staff that there is a formal process involving the Director of International Relations and Pro Vice-Chancellor (PVC) Communications for approving collaborative provision publicity materials. The team learnt that for this link, in line with the University's written policy on approval of publicity materials, the Programme Coordinator has assumed this responsibility.
20 The audit team was provided with a sample publicity document for the programme which set out the key features of the Department of Engineering and Design and facilities at the University but did not identify the extent of delivery, or facilities provided by SHUIHTSB. The team was also shown the documentation produced by SHUIHTSB in Chinese, in which it was clear that the link was mentioned.
Formal arrangements for establishing the link
Selecting and approving the partner institution
21 The audit team learnt that the origins of the link arose from personal contacts between the Programme Coordinator and the Principal of SHUIHTSB. The CP document outlines one of the key principles of collaborative arrangements as 'Acceptability of the partner organisation in terms of its mission, purpose, status...'. and describes it as a University responsibility to ensure 'compatibility of missions'. The team heard from staff at both partners of the similar academic and subject focus, particularly the expertise in mechatronics and the development of vocational training.
22 The CP document sets out the stages by which an overseas collaboration should be established, and the audit team saw evidence that this process was followed for this link. The link was developed following a number of exploratory visits by various University staff to SHUIHTSB including the Programme Coordinator in 2002 and 2003. Following a visit by the Vice Chancellor in August 2003 an 'enabling' Memorandum of Cooperation was signed between the University and the SSPEG which was approved by AB in October 2003.
23 The University's policy for institutional appraisal outlined in the CP document is, 'that the scale and nature of the appraisal will be determined by the relevant Pro Vice-Chancellor in consultation with the Head of Academic Quality and Standards'. The CP document also states that such appraisals will be 'normally conducted by a panel comprising a member of the University's management team and up to two other members of staff, none of who shall be involved with the design or delivery of the programme(s) concerned. It is normal practice for panel membership to be drawn from Academic Quality and Development Committee's Academic Collaboration Sub-committee'. The appraisal report is signed off by the relevant PVC. The audit team learnt that for this link an institutional appraisal report on SHUIHTSB was completed in November 2003 by the Director of International Relations and contained a factual description regarding institutional compatibility in relation to a statement of the academic aims of SHUIHTSB and consideration of social conditions and resource availability as well as the status of the HPED. The team saw a copy of this report and noted that it contained only partial coverage of the issues specified in the CP document, particularly in terms of risk assessment for partner approval. The team was informed that due diligence inquiries would normally include correspondence with organisations such as the British Council but following discussions with senior University staff it remained unclear to the team what due diligence enquiries were undertaken prior to approval of SHUIHTSB. The institutional appraisal was signed off by the PVC prior to approval by AB. In January 2006, over two years after SHUIHTSB was approved, the Academic Collaboration Sub-Committee noted 'that clarity regarding the role of the Academic Collaboration Sub Committee with regard to appraisal reports would be sought at the next Academic Quality and Development Committee by the Chair'. In their deliberations regarding this matter the Sub-Committee noted that they had no powers to approve such reports, which are normally signed off by the PVC.
24 In Feb 2004, an Agreement for the Mechatronics Course Collaboration was signed by the VC and approved by AB. In March 2004 the Shanghai Educational Committee approved the Application of Course Collaboration with Overseas partners, providing official recognition of the award by the Chinese authorities.
25 While the University's stated procedures for institutional appraisal and approval are broadly aligned with the Code of practice, Section 2, the University may wish to ensure that, given the inherent risk within overseas collaborative partnerships, it ensures that full risk appraisal applies to all overseas partnerships.
Programme approval
26 The University's process for programme approval is outlined in its Academic Developments: Planning and Approvals Process and is broadly similar for collaborative programmes and internal programmes. Academic Development Approval (ADA) forms relating to international collaborative partnerships are passed to the Director of International Relations for comment in addition to other relevant members of the Executive team. Planning approval is required prior to the collaborative proposal proceeding to validation. The outcomes of validation events are, in turn, subject to scrutiny by AQDC and AB before full approval is given for the collaborative programme to commence. In the Commentary the University stated that approval of this programme followed the standard system and included an appropriate external representative.
27 The validation event took place at SHUIHTSB in June 2004. The APD and programme specifications refer to the Subject benchmark statement for engineering and other external reference points. The CP document requires that a new collaborative 'programme (which is the subject of joint or dual validation) must be validated as a coherent whole'. The APD for this programme specified the DipHE but not the HPED, which is the other element of this dual award and stated that the existing HPED would probably be phased out. The APD and subsequent validation documentation do not explicitly discuss the notion of a dual award as required by the University's approval procedures.
28 Discussions with staff at the University indicated that there are significant differences between the two awards that were not made explicit in the validation documentation or the Commentary. These include the fact that DipHE students are not required to undertake the work placement or to complete certain locally specified modules required within the HPED. Staff further indicated that students could, therefore, achieve the DipHE award without passing all the requirements of the HPED and that students could choose to follow the single DipHE route if they so wished. While this in itself is not contrary to the requirements of a dual award as set out by the University, the third year of study and placement are specified in the programme specification as well as the Programme Handbook given out to all students, and were stated as a requirement of the DipHE in the APD and Agreement. The Handbook also specifically stated that 'SHUIHTSB will recommend selected able students to go to the UK for this period. The University of Bolton will be responsible for organising the work experience of these students and for assessing their work experience. The purpose is to offer students an opportunity to learn overseas advanced technology within the host country for the Diploma award'. However, it was made clear to the audit team that staff considered that, due to visa and financial constraints, it was unlikely that any students from SHUIHTSB would study in the UK for the third year placement or at the University for the project and that because the programme was only in its first year of operation alternative arrangements would be put in place (see paragraph 75 and 76).
29 The Validation Report noted that English delivery would only represent 30 per cent of the programme. However, in discussions with University staff the audit team heard that delivery in English would in fact probably constitute between 33-50 per cent of the overall programme delivery, although they could not be certain as the language of instruction used by local faculty was not always known in advance. The team heard from students that to date 30-40 per cent of their modules were taught in English.
30 Conditions for final approval were set out in the Validation Report and included the need to draw up an action plan which detailed the incorporation of the enhanced English language tuition, specify the internal moderation and external examining processes which would assure quality of assessment, paying particular regard to the modules taught in Chinese and the different marking cultures in the two partners and specify the laboratory resources which would support the practical elements of each module. There was also an additional recommendation that, since only 220 credits were studied in the first two years of the programme, the Programme Team should consider further enhancing English language tuition. In its Commentary, the University noted that these conditions were responded to, although the Commentary does not indicate how or when these conditions were addressed and signed off. The audit team read in the minutes of the July 2004 AQDC that there were still outstanding issues regarding programme approval, although these were not identified. AB noted the approval of the programme at its meeting in January 2005. The team heard from senior staff at the University that the conditions were signed off by the Chair of the approval panel in line with University procedures.
31 In terms of re-approval the Commentary stated that 'minor changes proposed to programmes by programme committees are subject to the scrutiny of the department board of study and the Standing Panel of AQDC'. The CP document stated that 'Modifications to the structure, content or method of delivery of collaborative programmes should follow the normal procedures for approval contained in the University's Validation Handbook'. Major changes require a full validation event as ordained by AQDC. At the time of the visit, the audit team was informed that there had been no changes to the programme.
32 The evidence considered by the audit team suggests that the University's procedures for approval and validation of programmes, including collaborative programmes are generally comprehensive and make appropriate use of external reference points, and broadly reflect the relevant sections of the Code of practice. The team considered however that the validation process for this programme did not fully resolve a number of key elements including the validation of all elements of the dual award, the amount of English language delivery and the role of and requirement for the placement year within the DipHE. The University may wish to clarify its arrangements for signing off any conditions prior to commencement of a new collaborative provision programme.
Written agreements with the partner institution
33 The link between the University and SHUIHTSB is governed by the Memorandum of Cooperation which was approved by AB in October 2003 and the Agreement which was approved by AB in February 2004. The Agreement contains a number of relevant sub-headings including Aims and Objectives, Organisational Structure and Programme Implementation, Inputs to the Programme and Teaching Spaces, Student numbers and recruitment, Course Programme and Teaching Staff, Assessment, Graduate Certification and Student Support, Exchange of Staff, Finance, Terms and Termination and Violation. The audit team noted, however that there were various elements listed in the CP document regarding matters to be covered in formal agreements which were not explicitly covered in this Agreement including Equal Opportunities, arrangements relating to the monitoring of marketing and publicity materials (see paragraph 18 above) and arrangements for communication between the two organisations.
34 There are a number of other areas which the audit team noted were not clearly encapsulated in the Agreement including the future of the HPED and role of the placement year in the dual award (see paragraph 28 above), the extent of programme delivery in English (see paragraph 17, above) and the reporting mechanisms of the Joint Organisation Committee (JOC) (see paragraph 37).
35 With regard to the protection of students' interests if the collaboration is terminated, the Agreement stated that 'it shall remain in force until the completion of any academic year after either party shall have given written notice of termination to the other and both parties shall have negotiated and agreed. Any specific programme then in progress will not be affected'. The audit team heard conflicting accounts from University staff what this would mean in practice, or how ongoing support might be achieved.
36 The Agreement has an initial duration of five years, any amendments to the Agreement to be negotiated by both parties. In the Commentary the University stated that, 'because this programme is in its early stages of delivery, the precise way in which some of the detailed arrangements will be operationalised is still subject to negotiation and agreement'. The mechanism by which the University reviews such agreements on a more regular basis to ensure that they continue to provide clear and accurate statements regarding the operation of partnerships was not clear to the audit team, particularly as in the case of this programme no interim review is planned. The University may wish to ensure that the Agreement for this partnership is updated to provide a more complete statement of the arrangements governing the operation of this partnership.
Quality management of the link
37 The DipHE is delivered and administered jointly by the University and SHUIHTSB, with the University's Department of Engineering and Design having overall responsibility for the quality of the provision. A JOC consisting of five people, including the Head of the SSPEG, the Principal and Vice-Principal of SHUIHTSB and the Associate Dean and the University Programme Coordinator or their nominees, 'regulates' the DipHE. It is intended that JOC meets at least once per year. Its main responsibilities include electing committee members, approving changes to the administration of the programme, modifications to the curriculum, the rules and regulations of the programme and liaising with the external examiner, advising on and approving the strategic planning and annual operation plan for the programme, determining changes to or termination of aspects of the course collaboration and any other necessary matters related to the course collaboration. The JOC reports to both Shanghai University and the University. In the case of the University the audit team were told this would be through the Departmental Board of Study, although it was not made clear to the audit team what the reporting mechanisms were within Shanghai University.
38 Prior to the commencement of each academic year the Programme Team meets to determine the teaching plan for the coming year and organise and allocate teaching staff and administrators for each module. The Programme Team comprises the Principal and senior management members of SHUIHTSB, the Head of the Department of Engineering and Design, the Programme Coordinator, the Course Leader, year tutors and module tutors.
39 Overall responsibility for the management and academic delivery of the programme rests with the University Programme Coordinator, together with SHUIHTSB's Course Leader and year tutors (for each year of the programme). The Programme Coordinator's role covers a wide range of tasks including, advising on and monitoring the quality procedures, ensuring deadlines have been met, liaising with the external examiner and passing on internal and external moderators' comments to the individual module tutors. The audit team learnt that the Programme Coordinator regularly visits SHUIHTSB, contributes to the induction process, attends Course Committee meetings and Programme Team meetings and ensures the accuracy of marketing and publicity materials for the programme. The Course Leader and year tutors at SHUIHTSB take day-to-day responsibility for the programme.
40 The CP document emphasises the need for the APD, Programme Handbook and the Agreement to outline the communication arrangements for the ongoing quality assurance of a link. The audit team found evidence for this link of these roles being outlined in the APD and Programme Handbook, with the Agreement being less clear regarding specific roles. The Commentary stated that communication between SHUIHTSB and the University is mainly channelled through the Programme Co-ordinator and the Course Leader and year tutors. The staff at SHUIHTSB told the audit team that at operational level communication is channelled through the Programme Coordinator and has been effective. Lecturers from the University deliver modules at SHUIHTSB and a number of staff from the University and SHUIHTSB have participated in reciprocal visits, both prior to starting up the DipHE and subsequently.
41 Successful applicants are enrolled and registered as students of both the University and Shanghai University, with student information being stored on their respective systems. The audit team was informed by staff at SHUIHTSB that they keep student records covering information such as entry profile, assessment outcomes and attendance records. SHUIHTSB is solely responsible for student recruitment and the DipHE operates in accordance with the Shanghai Educational Committee's admissions policy, with applicants having to have satisfied local University entrance examinations organised by Shanghai Municipal Educational Examinations Authority. The audit team was informed that the University receives a listing of the academic record of the enrolled students.
42 Arrangements for student support are organised through a comprehensive system that includes module tutors, year tutors, the Course Leader, the Programme Coordinator, the Student Office within SHUIHTSB and the Student Centre at the University. This is intended to provide students with both pastoral and academic support. The Commentary stated that the first port of call for personal problems is the Year Tutor and the Student Office at SHUIHTSB. This was confirmed by both staff and students at SHUIHTSB, with the Student Office providing a range of support including pastoral and English language support.
43 A Course Committee, mirroring the composition of the Course Committee, at the University meets once per semester and includes student representatives. The commentary stated that student representatives are elected and receive the student representative training materials from the University's Students' Union.
44 Overall the audit team were satisfied that the arrangements for the management were appropriate. The team noted the commitment of the Programme Coordinator as a positive feature of the link.
Arrangements for monitoring and review
Annual monitoring
45 The University's detailed procedures for annual monitoring are set out in the Annual Monitoring Guidelines, which forms part of the Quality Assurance Manual (QAM). All programmes are subject to annual monitoring, including programmes delivered in collaboration with a partner institution although the CP document states that the 'exact way in which this is achieved may vary with the nature, scale and complexity of the collaboration'. The audit team learnt that the proposed arrangements for this programme reflect those of the University in that the Course Committee will produce a Programme Quality Enhancement Plan (PQEP). Scrutiny of the PQEP by the Engineering and Design Board of Study will include consideration of issues raised by students, through Course Committee minutes and those highlighted by the external examiner. In addition, the Programme Coordinator will produce a Data Analysis Report (DAR), which reviews the data on admission, progression and achievement. The DAR will be discussed at both the Course Committee and the Board of Study. PQEPs and DARs feed into the Subject Annual Self-Evaluation Report (SASER), produced at departmental level and submitted for consideration, action and response by the Board of Study and the relevant Standing Panel of AQDC. Due to the stage of delivery of this programme the audit team were unable to determine the effectiveness of monitoring procedures applied to this partnership. However, they noted that the recent institutional audit of the University had found these procedures to be effective.
46 SHUIHTSB staff described various SHUIHTSB specific procedures, which, in the view of the audit team, contribute to the overall monitoring of the programme including a monthly review of issues by staff teaching at SHUIHTSB. However, they were not familiar with the proposed University procedures for annual monitoring or their role in the process. As the collaboration develops, the University may wish to consider providing clarification to the programme team at SHUIHTSB regarding the University's annual monitoring process and their roles within that process.
Periodic review
47 The procedures for periodic review are set out in the CP document and specify that the 'periodic review of collaborative arrangements will be undertaken in accordance with the prevailing procedures'. The procedure establishes that the review will comprise production of a self-evaluation document, scrutiny of other documentation, meetings between staff and students and the review panel and a visit by the panel, which would normally include external representation, to the partner institution. AB considers the summary of the review report and a response from the programme team is required in the term following the review. The team was also informed that the process for periodic review of collaborative programmes was, necessarily, different in operation to the process for University programmes since it had to be more event-based rather than an extended process, although the principles and outcomes were the same.
48 The 2005 QAA audit report commented on the effectiveness of the University's procedures for periodic review. Given the date of commencement of this programme there has yet to be a periodic review and thus it is not possible for the audit team to comment on the effectiveness of the procedures as applied to this partnership. The team was informed that the time scale for periodic review was a five-year cycle and that there were no plans to run an interim review to check progress on the new programme as this had not been a condition of validation. The team considered that the University may wish to review the role of interim reviews in the ongoing monitoring of all new overseas collaborative arrangements in the light of the inherent risk associated with such arrangements and the need in the case of this partnership to further define the detailed arrangements governing its operation (see paragraph 36 above).
Staffing and staff development
49 Delivery of the programme is by staff from both the University and Shanghai University. The Agreement stated that each party is responsible for organising and allocating its own teaching staff for the modules for which they are responsible and that they 'should have the relevant levels of teaching experience'. The Commentary stated that all teaching staff so far appointed all have 'sound teaching experience', have graduate or postgraduate qualifications and are members of relevant professional bodies'. The Agreement also specifies the number of staff appointments to be made by both the University and SHUIHTSB, both academic and support, for this programme (see paragraph 50 below), but not, as suggested in the CP document, the procedure for informing the University of any changes in allocation of staff to programmes.
50 The CP document states that available staff expertise in the partner organisation should be matched to modules and staff curricula vitae (CVs) should be provided in the APD. The APD for this programme included a listing of all staff to be involved in delivering the programme and contained a full CV for University staff. For staff teaching at SHUIHTSB, however, there was only a statement of their highest qualification. While the audit team was assured that SHUIHTSB appointment procedures met the expectations of the University in this regard the audit team noted that this did not strictly reflect the expectations set out in the CP document.
51 The annual Programme Team meeting is intended to determine the teaching plan for each year and organise staff allocations. At the meeting in September 2005, staff allocations were considered, although a number of modules to be delivered by SHUIHTSB staff did not have identified staff allocations and it was unclear from the minutes how these would be taken forward prior to the start of the delivery of the programme. The audit team learnt from senior staff that SHUIHTSB has no permanent teaching staff delivering subject-specific modules, and that all local staff involved in delivering the programme are employees of Shanghai University. These staff are selected according to a number of criteria including their availability to teach on the programme, subject expertise and English language ability. The team was assured that SHUIHTSB is striving to ensure continuity of teaching staff input to the programme.
52 Department of Engineering and Design staff undergo 'on-going staff development' in relation to the delivery of Engineering programmes. The University's Programme Coordinator has attended seminars on the international student experience. Staff from the University are briefed by the Programme Coordinator prior to their initial teaching visit. The audit team also learnt that University staff had visited SHUIHTSB both prior to the start of the Programme and, in the case of the Programme Coordinator and module tutors on various occasions since the commencement of the programme.
53 The University has produced a staff development plan for staff at SHUIHTSB involved with the programme. An initial annual staff development workshop took place in March 2005 at SHUIHTSB which concentrated on familiarising SHUIHTSB tutors with the academic and administrative requirements of the programme covering a range of issues including learning outcomes, delivery, assessment, feedback, induction, committees, evaluation, staff development, peer review of teaching and roles of the programme team. The audit team heard from the staff at SHUIHTSB that several staff had visited the University in February 2006. The team was also informed that SHUIHTSB operates a scheme of career development for its staff and that a three-way system of peer observation of teaching was in operation. Although staff at SHUIHTSB could not confirm that these procedures were in place, they confirmed that they are subject to regular appraisal through the feedback provided by students.
54 The audit team heard that ongoing communication between the staff at SHUIHTSB and the University is generally channelled through the Programme Coordinator. Staff from SHUIHTSB and University who met the team stated that this was generally effective, with email and telephone being used on a regular basis to supplement visits.
55 The Validation Report included consideration of the arrangements for placements with companies local to SHUIHTSB, which include the provision of a supervisor. The report did not clarify how, in terms of staffing requirements and development, these supervisors will be selected, supported or monitored.
56 The audit team considered that the requirements for staffing and staff development of this programme are generally fit for purpose. Staff and students at SHUIHTSB were complimentary about the introduction of a more diverse range of teaching methods as a result of the partnership, and the team considered this a positive feature of the link. The team noted the highly qualified staff with appropriate subject expertise from Shanghai University. However, the team suggests that the University may wish to keep under review the staffing requirements for this programme and how it is informed in a timely manner of the staff contributing annually to the programme.
Student admissions
57 The University's admissions policy states that individual programmes of study are 'expected to define their admissions policy and criteria' during validation. The audit team noted that the admissions policy and criteria for the DipHE have been consistently set out in the APD, the Agreement, the University's Programme Handbook and the programme specification. Applicants have to satisfy local entrance examinations organised by the Shanghai Municipal Educational Examinations Authority.
58 The admissions process to the DipHE is managed by SHUIHTSB and there is no input by University staff. The University receives a list from SHUIHTSB of the academic record of the enrolled students and is satisfied with the operation of the procedures.
59 The Commentary stated that successful applicants must have passed the (Chinese) University entrance examination in English and 'should be confident in both written and spoken English'. There is no requirement for the University staff to interview applicants. Students who met the audit team reported that in order to progress to a degree programme at the University they would be required, additionally, to undertake an IELTs test.
60 Based upon the evidence available to it of the admission of the first cohort in 2005 the audit team considered that the admissions procedure was operating in accordance with the Agreement and is responsive to the local circumstances and the partnership. The admissions policy and entry requirements are set out consistently in the programme specification, Programme Handbook and other documentation.
Assurance of academic standards
Assessment of students
61 The audit team read in the Commentary that assessments for this programme are prepared and undertaken in accordance with University requirements set out in the Assessment Regulations. The Commentary also stated that a range of assessment methods are used to assess academic and vocational elements and transferable skills and that a variety of forms of assessment are employed including 100 per cent continuous assessment and an equal split of examination and continuous assessment. The team noted that while the DipHE programme specification lacks specific detail regarding the assessment framework assessment details are given in the programme handbook. Neither the staff at the University nor at SHUIHTSB was able to describe the arrangements for assessment of the project. The Validation Report indicated different formats of assessment of the placement depending on the employer.
62 The Commentary stated that assessed coursework assignments and examinations are sent to the University for internal moderation, and that samples of both are also subject to external moderation. With regard to the translation of assessed work for moderation, the policy set out in the CP document stated that 'translators approved by the Head of Department must carry out any translation of assessed work into English which might be approved through validation; translation should not change the character of the work submitted and further safeguards will normally need to be in place to ensure the integrity of judgements about student achievement where learning, teaching or assessment is not conducted in English'. Discussions with subject staff at the University indicated the view that there was sufficient knowledge of Chinese among the staff in the Department of Engineering and the current external examiner, and that the staff from SHUIHTSB had sufficient English language competence, not to necessitate the employment of translators for the moderation of examination papers or scripts. The view was also expressed that understanding of Chinese was not required for the moderation of mathematical or technical drawing papers. The audit team considered that this could suggest a lack of detailed consideration of the ongoing requirements for moderation in relation to the DipHE, particularly taking into account a condition of the validation process that the Programme Team 'should specify the internal moderation and external examining processes, which would assure quality of assessment, paying particular regard to the modules taught in Chinese and the different marking cultures in Bolton and Shanghai'.
63 Staff at SHUIHTSB confirmed to the audit team that they had received feedback on the assessments for which they have responsibility via the University's Programme Coordinator.
64 The audit team noted that a further condition of the Validation Report had sought clarification regarding internal moderation and external examining procedures with particular regard to the different marking cultures at SHUIHTSB and at the University. The team learnt that the resolution had been to equate, rather than align, the two systems, with 40 per cent being the Pass threshold at the University and 60 per cent at SHUIHTSB. While the conditions had been responded to and signed off, the response did not appear to the team to specifically address the issue of the different marking cultures.
65 The Validation Report stated that assessment boards for the programme will operate in accordance with the University's procedures set out in Assessment Boards and their Operation with respect to Modular Programmes. There have yet to be any examination boards dealing with this programme but the audit team learnt that the DipHE Module Assessment Board with the Programme Coordinator in attendance, and possibly the external examiner as well, will take place in Shanghai and that the Departmental Assessment Board will be held at the University. It is a requirement that the external examiner attend the latter.
66 Students receive an assessment timetable at the start of the academic year. The Commentary stated that students should receive feedback on their assessed work within three weeks. Students who met with the audit team confirmed that they received timely and adequate assessment feedback, including one-to-one feedback.
67 In the view of the audit team the arrangements for internal moderation and translation of assessment instruments places over-reliance on the bilingual ability and commitment of the Programme Coordinator and do not adequately satisfy a Validation Report condition. The University may wish to review the arrangements in place to ensure that there is more adequate and formal support in place for internal moderation which goes beyond the Programme Coordinator, whose range of duties in relation to this programme are already extensive, and which would more closely reflect the precepts of the Code of practice.
External examining
68 The Commentary stated that the programme is 'subject to the normal [University] requirements in relation to external examining which follow the QAA Code of Practice on external examining'. The first appointee to the position, in accordance with University regulations, is bilingual in English and Chinese. This appointment was an exception to the University's regulations in that he was also the external panel member for the validation event in June 2004. In accordance with University procedures the nomination was considered and approved by AB in October 2005, with the Board noting the special circumstances that he had already acted as an external panel member and that the approval was, 'an appropriate interpretation of its discretionary powers under the approval process'.
69 Departments are required to invite all new external examiners for an induction meeting. The current external examiner visited Shanghai to observe procedures during the student induction period in September 2005, meeting students and some staff. Despite this, in meetings with SHUIHTSB staff the audit team formed the impression that not all of the staff teaching on the programme were familiar with the concept of external examining and some seemed unaware that there was an external examiner for the programme.
70 External examiners' reports are received by the Head of AQSU who adds comments to the report, noting any issues that need to be addressed, prior to circulation to the Vice-Chancellor, heads of department, programme/course/pathway leaders, and other postholders considered appropriate. Responses to issues of serious concern are sent to the external examiner by the identified postholder and circulated to relevant senior staff within the University. An updated response to matters of serious concern and action to be taken concerning other, more routine, matters is provided as part of the annual monitoring process. The action plan is sent to the external examiner who is asked to note in their subsequent reports whether a response to their comments was received and appropriate action taken.
71 At the time of the audit visit this cycle had not been undertaken in relation to the DipHE. However, the audit team noted that the 2005 institutional audit report commented positively on these procedures. The team heard that given the difficulties of recruiting an external examiner who possessed the relevant specialist knowledge, standing and language skills, the University has begun to consider recruitment of the next external examiner.
Certificates and transcripts
72 The Commentary stated that the University is the sole authority for controlling the issue of award certificates and transcripts for the DipHE Mechatronics. A sample certificate and transcript was provided for the audit team. In accordance with the University's stated procedures the certificate does not make reference to the location of study or language of delivery but does refer to the availability of a transcript 'providing information about the programme of study and assessment outcomes leading to the award'. The sample transcript stated that the programme was offered in association with SHUIHTSB in a combination of English and Chinese. The audit team considered that the transcript could offer more clarity regarding the extent of delivery and assessment in each of the two languages of delivery, particularly in light of the fact that less than 50 per cent of this programme may be delivered and assessed in English.
Quality of information and support for students
Student information and support
73 The audit team learnt from students that the majority had heard about the programme through open days held at SHUIHTSB. Students enrol as students of both the University and Shanghai University. Formal induction occurs during the first week of the academic year at which students receive information about the University, Shanghai University and SHUIHTSB. For the first cohort both the Programme Coordinator and the external examiner were present for induction.
74 Details of University requirements for the provision of key information to students are set out in the CP document and include information regarding appeals and access to support. The University Student Handbook, which is distributed to all students at registration, briefly outlines student entitlement including the arrangements for complaints and appeals. A Programme Handbook is also made available to students. Students at SHUIHTSB confirmed that they receive handbooks both from the University and separately from Shanghai University and that the information they contain is clear and helpful. Students confirmed their understanding of the procedures for making a complaint but were unclear regarding the mechanisms for appeal, having not yet had a need to put the procedure into practice.
75 The audit team heard from both staff and students at SHUIHTSB that all students registered on the dual award would undertake a work placement in their third year, with this being possible in China, more unusually in the UK, or the first half of the placement being undertaken in China and the second half in the UK. The Programme Handbook reiterates what is specified in the Agreement that the third and final year of the programme is work experience and training and that SHUIHTSB will recommend 'selected able' students to go to the UK for this period. Furthermore students at SHUIHTSB told the team that they would undertake five weeks of field study at the end of each of their first and second years, although they did not clarify whether this was a requirement of the DipHE, HPED or both awards. In terms of requirements for completing the two programmes of study constituting the dual award, students were clear that there were different expectations; with in their view, only half of the taught modules they were studying being common across the two programmes. The team considered that there was a lack of clarity in the information provided to students regarding the precise requirements of the DipHE, particularly concerning the need for students to undertake the placement year to achieve the DipHE element of the dual award.
76 The APD and Programme Handbook give little or no information about supervision of the placement year and related project. The Validation Report stated that the placement guidelines would be those already in use by SHUIHTSB and written in Chinese. It also noted that, 'in addition to the [Shanghai] University supervisor visiting students on placement twice per month, the student would also have a supervisor from the organisation who would offer support' and recorded discussion with employers regarding their input into the supervision of projects. Staff at SHUIHTSB confirmed that guidelines regarding placement on the existing HPED were in existence. Staff from the University were unclear as to the status of guidance for the project and the team noted that no specific guidance was in place at the time of the audit visit to the University. In addition neither staff nor students at SHUIHTSB were aware of the availability of guidelines for the project. While acknowledging that the students are still relatively new to the programme and at an early stage in its delivery, given the general uncertainty regarding the placement year and the stated intention to deliver the project during the placement period the team consider that the University may wish to seek to ensure that definitive placement and project guidelines are made available in a timely manner to students on this programme.
77 Students have direct contact with the University's Programme Coordinator both at Induction and in the case of student representatives through the Course Committee as well as with the module tutors from the University who deliver modules at SHUIHTSB. The Commentary stated that there is a comprehensive system of support in place comprising the module tutors, year tutors, Course Leader, Programme Coordinator, the Student Office at SHUIHTSB and the Student Centre at the University. The audit team heard that because the local staff teaching on the programme are not permanently based at SHUIHTSB the Course Leader makes himself available for two additional sessions per week in order to provide supplementary student support, including academic support. Non-academic support is provided by SHUIHTSB and Shanghai University. Staff indicated that many issues would be resolved by local processes at SHUIHTSB and students who met with the team confirmed that their first port of call would be the Student Office and their Year Tutor.
78 In addition to direct access to a range of laboratory, information technology, library, as well as social and recreational facilities within SHUIHTSB and at Shanghai University, students have access at a distance to online resources, such as library resources at the University. University staff provide additional teaching support materials. Students confirmed that the facilities were appropriate and it was clear to the audit team that significant investment was being made in SHUIHTSB's campus and its facilities.
79 From the evidence considered the audit team agreed with the view expressed by the University that there is a comprehensive and effective system of support in place for students. However the audit team also formed the view that not all of the information, which students receive, is accurate and reliable, including the course leaflet, information outlining progression opportunities and information concerning the placement year.
Feedback from students
80 Course Ccommittees are established for every University programme or pathway, or group of programmes or pathways in cognate subject areas regardless of whether they are collaborative or internal programmes. They deal with the detailed design, structure and operation of programmes, including recruitment and admissions, the curriculum, learning and teaching, assessment, support and guidance, course calendar, student issues, external examiner reports and, responses, professional body issues, and annual monitoring. The relevant departmental board of study receives their minutes and a number of their reports including external examiner reports, responses, and annual monitoring reports.
81 For this programme the Course Committee includes the Programme Coordinator or her representative, the Course leader, teaching and support staff and elected student representatives. The audit team read that the December 2005 meeting included five student representatives and action points were noted with regard to their comments. The Commentary stated that students on the programme would receive training for the role of representative. The audit team learnt that the student representatives at SHUIHTSB had received the training materials produced by the University's Student Representation Coordinator (see paragraph 43). In addition the purposes of the role had been covered during the induction and followed up by a dedicated meeting with student representatives. The team heard from students that it met that they had found the Committee to be helpful. Students also told the team that they are asked to complete module questionnaires at the end of each module. They will also be requested to complete a programme questionnaire at the end of an academic year. The annual monitoring process will consider the outputs from student feedback and the minutes of the Course Committee.
82 Students who met with the audit team confirmed that their feedback was responded to in an effective and timely manner. They cited a number of actions that had resulted including a list of technical terms used in modules delivered in English translated into Chinese and the provision, by lecturers, of additional illustrative examples beyond those available within textbooks. From the evidence available to it the team formed the view that there was in a place effective means for gathering student feedback and that the responsiveness of the programme team and others to this feedback is a positive feature of the link.
Student progression to the UK
83 The possibility for further progression to the University was not included in the Commentary but is mentioned in the Memorandum of Co-operation which stated that there will be 'opportunities for students... to complete study at [the University] for degree courses which will be selected by both parties as appropriate'. The Programme Handbook is more specific on this point, stating that 'Upon completion of the Diploma of Higher Education you may progress to the final year of the BSc Honours Mechatronics degree at the University of Bolton'. The APD specifically mentioned progression opportunities to the BEng (Hons) Automobile or Mechanical Engineering, year two or BEng Technology, year three. The APD also stated that students who want to study BEng (Hons) or BEng may be required to undertake an English language course or an existing BEng Level 1 core module in Semester 1. The validation panel sought clarification during the validation process and it was confirmed by the Programme Coordinator that, 'students would be able to progress to the second year of the BEng programme at Bolton'. In discussion with the audit team, staff at the University stated that a top-up BSc in Mechatronics was being planned and that the DipHE students could progress onto this following some bridging elements. Students and staff at SHUIHTSB informed the audit team that they believed that there would be progression opportunities for students on completion of the DipHE but were not able to confirm a specific progression route.
84 Given the immaturity of this partnership the audit team is unable to comment fully on the effectiveness of the University's arrangements for progression. However, the team encourages the University to ensure that progression opportunities are more clearly defined for students on the programme, prior to the completion of the first cohort on the DipHE.
Conclusion
85 In considering the partnership the audit team identified the following positive features:
- the development of a diverse range of teaching methods and the introduction of a more practically based curriculum (paragraphs 7 and 56)
- enhancing the good employability prospects of the existing programme through the delivery of part of the dual award in English (paragraph 9)
- responsiveness to student feedback (paragraph 82)
- the commitment of the Programme Coordinator in overseeing the link, although the University may wish to review the possible over-reliance on the postholder and the support provided at institutional level for the role (paragraphs 21, 39, 40, 67 and 77).
86 The audit team also identified the following points for consideration by the University as it develops its partnership arrangements:
- the limited nature of the Agreement in setting out the detailed framework within which the partnership operates (paragraphs 33 to 36)
- the University's requirements for the approval of collaborative arrangements not being fully met by the validation process (paragraphs 30, 55, 60, 62 and 64)
- the lack of clarity and accuracy in some of the information provided to students (paragraphs 75 and 76).
87 The audit team considered that the University was managing the link in a manner that reflected much of 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 this regard, these are identified in the main report and among the points for further consideration.
88 In its Commentary the University noted that in relation to assuring the quality of learning opportunities, the Agreement, alongside the detailed description in the validation documents, provides the basis upon which the partners share responsibility for the quality of learning and teaching, student support and learning resources. Ongoing assurance and enhancement of the quality and standards of the link is guided by the University's overarching quality assurance procedures, particularly annual monitoring and periodic review. It also stated that the arrangements for this link are representative of procedures and practices in all overseas collaborative activity to the extent that they have been developed and approved and will operate within the University's' extant policies, procedures and regulations. However, it also noted that each collaborative partnership is an individual arrangement and therefore demands 'reflection, discussion, negotiation and agreement on the precise operational details required to reflect the particular character of the programme, the students, the partners, and their educational and cultural contexts'. The audit team formed the view that the approach taken in developing this partnership over a significant period of time supports the University's view that it takes a cautious approach when embarking on a new collaborative arrangement.
89 While acknowledging that the collaboration was at a very early stage at the time of the audit visit, it is notable that many of the points raised in the audit were associated with the University's lack of detailed development of some of the operational procedures relating to this link as well as the information given to students on key aspects of the programme, as outlined in various documents such as the Agreement, APD and Programme Handbook, some of which the University clearly views as being under development. It is the audit team's view that these should have been clarified from the outset of the programme. In this respect the team found parts of the Commentary to be unhelpful and unintentionally misleading, although the team acknowleded that it was written prior to the commencement of delivery of the programme.
Appendix A: Update on matters relating to the partnership between The University of Bolton and Shanghai University Institute of Higher Technology SongJiang Branch, August 2006.
This partnership began teaching in the 2005/06 academic year; it was therefore not operating at the time the University produced the self-evaluative commentary to inform the audit and the first year was only partly complete at the time of the audit visit itself. The partnership has just completed its first year of operation with excellent student results. The external examiner's interim report dated 1 April 2006 notes generally satisfactory student achievement and quality of learning opportunities.
The University therefore notes with pleasure the positive features of the partnership identified by the audit team. The following measures are being taken in respect of the points identified for further consideration as we develop our partnership arrangements.
1 The perceived limited nature of the written agreement in setting out the detailed framework within which the partnerships operates was already being addressed by developing for each partnership, as an appendix to the memorandum of cooperation, a detailed 'service-level agreement' specifying the responsibilities of each partner at an operational level for a comprehensive range of functions.
2 The University's requirements for the approval of collaborative arrangements, which were found to be fit for purpose, will be more rigorously applied during the academic development approvals process, as well as through the validation process itself.
3 The apparent lack of clarity and accuracy in some of the information provided to students has been addressed in revisions to the programme handbook and ancillary information.
Appendix B: Student statistics
Student numbers currently on the programme are 36.
ISBN 1 84482 634 1
Top